"wealthy people enjoy the benefits of high trust which they also seek to deny the rest of the population."
In most parts of the world safety and security and justice are private goods, accessible only to the wealthy via bribes or private security and lawyers. In the West, these are considered public goods to be provided by municipal authorities. However the wealthy have always resented paying for the safety, security, and justice of the riff-raff as well as their own.
Could that be why wealthy, uber-educated, whites have so rapidly embraced the "police are all racist" meme, while the black poor want more police not less.
Borders and migration are no different. The working class sees labor competition. The middle+ class cloaks their desire for cheap gardeners and nannies as "borders are racist".
Surely I'm just too cynical though. Surely the wealthy whites just have bigger hearts. Couldn't possibly be pure economic self-interest.
Great stuff Ed! I went to Glastonbury in 2000, the year of the fence jumpers, and the atmosphere was pretty heavy (as one might say in hippy speak). Lots of hard drugs and violence. Visited again in 2004 and it was glorious.
I couldn't do it at my age now. I've never liked camping or crowds, and so the only way I could cope was to make sure I was moderately off my head the whole time.
And a wonderful, almost imperialist quote from the original Eavis:
My mother thought going to sea would be good for me but I don't think she imagined what I would witness. We used to transport all sorts of stuff back from far-flung places – including bringing elephants back to London Zoo – and I'll never forget the time we docked in Mombasa. The chief officer came up to me and said, "Eavis, we haven't got any crew, go and find them." I said, "Where do I go?" and he said, "The brothels and jails." I was only 17. So he gave me all this money and I wandered through the streets of Mombasa with a nice, fairly smart uniform on. A little girl came up to me and flighted her dress up at me and asked, "Would I lie with her." I don't know how old she was, probably about 13, so I said, "Thanks very much for the offer, but no thank you. But can you tell me where you would lie?" which of course was the brothel. So she took me into the brothel. They were all in there and I hauled them out.
Well said, Ed. It would great if this article was read by the open-borders-is-nothing-really-to-worry-about brigade, a group which seems to run pretty much everything in this country.
The parallel with Glastonbury is very useful, although it flatters Glastonbury in that gating a 3 day festival is infinitely less important than gating a country and protecting it from undemocratic and irreversible social, cultural and economic change that will, in time, destroy the host. And it is the lack of realism that grates most. The failure to see that it is the gates that allow the music to play and the speeches to be made. And CND also mirrors that incoherent leftist mentality perfectly. An organisation set up with the insane and contemptable idea that we should lay down weapons in the vague hope that totalitarian regimes would be influenced thereby to do the same. Is it just mental or is it traitorous too?
Great essay, but you lost me on the last paragraph:
“Borders and national rights may be cruder and more exclusive barriers to entry than the ability to pay several hundred pounds for a weekend, but they also are more democratic — and, in that way, much fairer.”
I think there may be a leap of logic, a classic “correlation is not causation” error here about what’s creating a high trust society
The children of Eastern Asian immigrants in the US are so much more trustworthy and less prone to antisocial behavior than white natives (not simply black) that it’s a constant source of embarrassment to our left. Incoherent ranting about “model minority” (allegedly not being one, despite all evidence) seems to offer identity-oriented progressive the occasional moment of nonsensical catharsis but even they know it’s ridiculous.
Meanwhile their stellar behavior must be glossed over or ignored by the anti-immigration right. And, in the US, at least, South Asian immigrants aren’t far behind. Within a generation their kids are listening to the indie bands and have the passing familiarity with classic rock icons to be ideal affluent Glastonbury attendees.
Something analogous is happening at the less educated end of society too. The American right is having to process that socially conservative, genuinely believing Roman-Catholics with strong families from Mexico are on a trajectory to be much better behaved than our white working class mired in drugs, broken families and social dysfunction. In a bit of comic irony, the left is having to deal with the fact that these immigrants are natural conservatives and potential Republican voters. They also frequently hold political unacceptable views about black people.
Having a racially homogenous group doesn’t create contemporary Glastonbury. Having a closed, affluent, educated, vaguely left of center one does.
How would (pre-mass-immigration, all white) 1970s or 1980s Arsenal supporters behave if they could be time traveled into contemporary Glastonbury?
Was the 1970s and 1980s UK a high trust society characterized by good manners and the fulfillment of Northern European social ideals?
Would closing borders really lead to an affluent, educated society prosperous enough to create the delightful bourgeoisie of Glastonbury on a mass scale?
Great piece. They may be able to sort out a border but not a sewage system that works and the housing is mostly like a shanty town surrounded by compounds populated by the affluent. Theft is rife and the food over priced.
Unbelievable how weak the Tories are, yet the public mood is angry with them not for their weakness but for their supposed strength - and calling for an even more liberal and left wing party to replace them.
It's a high status (see ticket prices/difficulty of getting tickets) high trust society because it's largely homogeneous; middle class, south of England media and charity sector workers make up a large percentage of the attendees. How many of your friends that enjoy it every year pay for their tickets, Ed? Was Crouch End noticeably quieter this weekend?
I sometimes wonder if men are inclined more than women to see this issue more plainly, which may be related to men's traditional role of policing territory. On the whole, I can speak quite freely with most men I know on the topic , but it is a subject that tends to stress women out and so I'd be much less inclined to ever mention. Obviously no clear divide but it does seem to be a trend.
Women are generally more conflict averse than men, and let's face it, a big wall to keep people out protected by men with guns is a pretty major form of physical conflict.
"wealthy people enjoy the benefits of high trust which they also seek to deny the rest of the population."
In most parts of the world safety and security and justice are private goods, accessible only to the wealthy via bribes or private security and lawyers. In the West, these are considered public goods to be provided by municipal authorities. However the wealthy have always resented paying for the safety, security, and justice of the riff-raff as well as their own.
Could that be why wealthy, uber-educated, whites have so rapidly embraced the "police are all racist" meme, while the black poor want more police not less.
Borders and migration are no different. The working class sees labor competition. The middle+ class cloaks their desire for cheap gardeners and nannies as "borders are racist".
Surely I'm just too cynical though. Surely the wealthy whites just have bigger hearts. Couldn't possibly be pure economic self-interest.
Great stuff Ed! I went to Glastonbury in 2000, the year of the fence jumpers, and the atmosphere was pretty heavy (as one might say in hippy speak). Lots of hard drugs and violence. Visited again in 2004 and it was glorious.
Thanks!
Maybe I should try going next year. Would probably enjoy it.
I couldn't do it at my age now. I've never liked camping or crowds, and so the only way I could cope was to make sure I was moderately off my head the whole time.
Pretty sure we're both not that far off the median age.
I went that year also, and never bothered again. Unsettling atmosphere. Didn't feel safe at all. Wild west. Glad it's improved.
And a wonderful, almost imperialist quote from the original Eavis:
My mother thought going to sea would be good for me but I don't think she imagined what I would witness. We used to transport all sorts of stuff back from far-flung places – including bringing elephants back to London Zoo – and I'll never forget the time we docked in Mombasa. The chief officer came up to me and said, "Eavis, we haven't got any crew, go and find them." I said, "Where do I go?" and he said, "The brothels and jails." I was only 17. So he gave me all this money and I wandered through the streets of Mombasa with a nice, fairly smart uniform on. A little girl came up to me and flighted her dress up at me and asked, "Would I lie with her." I don't know how old she was, probably about 13, so I said, "Thanks very much for the offer, but no thank you. But can you tell me where you would lie?" which of course was the brothel. So she took me into the brothel. They were all in there and I hauled them out.
sounds like a very worthwhile education learning on the job
Well said, Ed. It would great if this article was read by the open-borders-is-nothing-really-to-worry-about brigade, a group which seems to run pretty much everything in this country.
The parallel with Glastonbury is very useful, although it flatters Glastonbury in that gating a 3 day festival is infinitely less important than gating a country and protecting it from undemocratic and irreversible social, cultural and economic change that will, in time, destroy the host. And it is the lack of realism that grates most. The failure to see that it is the gates that allow the music to play and the speeches to be made. And CND also mirrors that incoherent leftist mentality perfectly. An organisation set up with the insane and contemptable idea that we should lay down weapons in the vague hope that totalitarian regimes would be influenced thereby to do the same. Is it just mental or is it traitorous too?
Great article, very perceptive.
Nicely done, Ed. I have found your arguments regarding social trust to be some of your best material. It's definitely shaped my thinking.
thank you.
Ironically this post was paywalled, because 'I see no borders'
Great essay, but you lost me on the last paragraph:
“Borders and national rights may be cruder and more exclusive barriers to entry than the ability to pay several hundred pounds for a weekend, but they also are more democratic — and, in that way, much fairer.”
I think there may be a leap of logic, a classic “correlation is not causation” error here about what’s creating a high trust society
The children of Eastern Asian immigrants in the US are so much more trustworthy and less prone to antisocial behavior than white natives (not simply black) that it’s a constant source of embarrassment to our left. Incoherent ranting about “model minority” (allegedly not being one, despite all evidence) seems to offer identity-oriented progressive the occasional moment of nonsensical catharsis but even they know it’s ridiculous.
Meanwhile their stellar behavior must be glossed over or ignored by the anti-immigration right. And, in the US, at least, South Asian immigrants aren’t far behind. Within a generation their kids are listening to the indie bands and have the passing familiarity with classic rock icons to be ideal affluent Glastonbury attendees.
Something analogous is happening at the less educated end of society too. The American right is having to process that socially conservative, genuinely believing Roman-Catholics with strong families from Mexico are on a trajectory to be much better behaved than our white working class mired in drugs, broken families and social dysfunction. In a bit of comic irony, the left is having to deal with the fact that these immigrants are natural conservatives and potential Republican voters. They also frequently hold political unacceptable views about black people.
Having a racially homogenous group doesn’t create contemporary Glastonbury. Having a closed, affluent, educated, vaguely left of center one does.
How would (pre-mass-immigration, all white) 1970s or 1980s Arsenal supporters behave if they could be time traveled into contemporary Glastonbury?
Was the 1970s and 1980s UK a high trust society characterized by good manners and the fulfillment of Northern European social ideals?
Would closing borders really lead to an affluent, educated society prosperous enough to create the delightful bourgeoisie of Glastonbury on a mass scale?
Great piece. They may be able to sort out a border but not a sewage system that works and the housing is mostly like a shanty town surrounded by compounds populated by the affluent. Theft is rife and the food over priced.
and that's just Britain amirite
Unbelievable how weak the Tories are, yet the public mood is angry with them not for their weakness but for their supposed strength - and calling for an even more liberal and left wing party to replace them.
Very nice thought experiment. Comparing the two would never have occurred to me. Which is why I read you.
Apropos of nothing at all, what do you think of Alex Kaschuta? After her interview on Triggernometry I've become something of a fan.
She's great. I was on her podcast a while back
I don’t know whether I admire you so much because you’re such a good writer or because you almost exactly mirror my own weltanschauung.
obviously, ego-wise, I'd prefer the former :)
It's a high status (see ticket prices/difficulty of getting tickets) high trust society because it's largely homogeneous; middle class, south of England media and charity sector workers make up a large percentage of the attendees. How many of your friends that enjoy it every year pay for their tickets, Ed? Was Crouch End noticeably quieter this weekend?
I was away tbh but Waitrose is normally noticeably empty this time of year.
I sometimes wonder if men are inclined more than women to see this issue more plainly, which may be related to men's traditional role of policing territory. On the whole, I can speak quite freely with most men I know on the topic , but it is a subject that tends to stress women out and so I'd be much less inclined to ever mention. Obviously no clear divide but it does seem to be a trend.
Women are generally more conflict averse than men, and let's face it, a big wall to keep people out protected by men with guns is a pretty major form of physical conflict.
What was the other one?