Inherent Vice: Adherent Meaning

[John Bailey]

Big question, I know, but: what does inherent vice mean? I know the
textbook and Pynchon book definition, but in these list discussions
I'm coming across a bunch of different interpretations.

Does the concept refer to:

An element of the object (which is a problem)
A property of the object (which is a problem)
A condition of the object (usw)

(I'm no philosopher so I might be using these terms wrongly)

In the first instance, for instance, you can see Manson as the
inherent vice of the hippie movement. But if that's the case, remove
the Manson element and the hippie movement's pretty sweet.

In the second instance, the breakiness of egg's is an essential
property of their egginess. If they weren't breakable, they sorta
wouldn't be eggs.

In the third instance, it's the situation in which the object finds
itself that gives rise to the internal flaw. An egg just sitting there
in isolation wouldn't be at risk, but the simple fact that the world
is full of egg-breaking things means that lawyers or insurers, at
least, know of the egg's peril.

Why I ask is, is that Thomas Pynchon named his latest book Inherent
Vice. But how you take that term would seem to alter your
interpretation of the novel. If we say Bigfoot is the LAPD's inherent
vice, or Manson is the hippie movement's, or pot is Doc's, or
whatever... well, I'm still just trying to get a hold of the
'inherent' part. Would Doc be a better or worse detective if he wasn't
high? A better or worse person? Etc etc etc please discuss.