...bounty and hospitality very seldom lead to extravagance; though vanity almost always does.

-Adam Smith

"When Vidius Pollio, in the presence of Augustus, ordered one of his slaves, who had committed a slight fault, to be cut into pieces and thrown into his fish pond, in order to feed his fishes, the emperor commanded him, with indignation, to emancipate immediately, not only that slave, but all the others that belonged to him.  Under the  republic no magistrate could have had authority enough to protect the slave, much less to punish the master."

-Adam Smith

Ever since I posted the above quote I've had some quiet misgivings.  On the face of it, it is a nice quote that points something out about the nature of power and politics and it's the sort of thing you might expect from an apologist for monarchy or imperialism.  It points out, quite rightly, that an unopposed power can accomplish things that cannot be accomplished when a power is not so absolute.  The thing is, this can work for good or ill.  Unchecked power can (and frequently does) do terrible things.  But what I find most disquieting about the example Smith gives is this:  you really don't know what it was that Augustine found so offensive.  Smith implies (and it might be true) that his indignation arose from witnessing the master's injustice; how could a slight fault warrant such a cruel and inhumane punishment of the slave?  But what if human sympathy was not the primary motivation for Augustine's reaction?  Augustine, the absolute ruler of the Roman empire, watches a Roman sentence a slave to death.  Doesn't that undercut Augustine's power a bit, having some Roman trying to wield the power of deciding that a slave should die under Augustine's nose?  Isn't the power of deciding life and death supposed to be Augustine's prerogative? What if Augustine demanded that man free all his slaves as a way of asserting power over the master...reminding him of where he stands in the power structure?  

"It is not the multitude of alehouses...that occasions a general disposition to drunkenness among the common people; but that disposition, arising from other causes, necessarily gives employment to a multitude of alehouses."
-Adam Smith

"...rational beings, on the contrary, are called persons, because their very nature points them out as ends in themselves, that is as something which much not be used merely as means, and so far therefore restricts freedom of action (and is an object of respect)."

-Kant

There's a deck of cards that comes packaged with a booklet that explains what the phrase on each of the cards is intended to convey.  It's called "The Observation Deck" and it's supposed to help writers get in touch with their own creativity.  One of the cards advises to 'follow the scent' and the booklet suggests for this card an exercise: list 25 scents (both pleasant and not so), and then think about what sort of scents a person would encounter in the particular situation you're trying to write about.  Most of the scents I listed are from my everday life though some of them are  recollected memories.  But one memory in particular stands out.  This concerns a fellow that at one time I worked with.  He was quite the formal gentleman, both in manners and in his choice of clothes, and from a distance looked quite polished and dignified.  Thing is, up close his breath smelled like he was in dire need of a professional teeth cleaning.  A wet dog wouldn't smell that bad.  It was all I could do to pretend I didn't notice it when he was around... and I made the effort because it was almost certain that he'd be offended if it was plain that I noticed such a lapse in basic hygiene.  It's not that I care much how people choose to dress, but the contrast between the fine suit with the square in his breast pocket and the scent that came out of his mouth made all his care in what sort of clothes he wore look a bit ridiculous.