What you said about privileging normal people instead of criminals and sociopaths really resonated with me. It’s impossible to ignore how much “freedom” in the US means privileging criminals and antisocial behavior, whether at the street level or in the boardroom.
I visited Budapest last summer with my husband, and I was completely shocked by how orderly are normal it was. Completely different from Chicago, where I lives for several years - there, even in the “nice” neighborhoods one has to remain vigilant at all times.
During that summer trip to Europe, which spanned Greece and Serbia as well, I often contemplated the proposition that everything in the US is structured to mediate, mitigate, or avoid disorder and violence. Every social interaction can potentially lead to violence, and we address it by removing ourself from or protecting ourselves from outbursts instead of punishing those who act violently or antisocially.
The whole American continent has a problem with violent crime and it's not immediately obvious what's causing it. What is clear, is that this isn't new, before the arrival of Europeans, it was already an excessively violent place, from north to south. It sounds like BS, but I heard a Zulu shaman once claim, that corn consumption leads to violent tendencies in people and that this happened very obviously in Africa as well. Once corn was adopted as a staple crop in many areas, violence started skyrocketing, both in terms of crime, but also in terms of coups, uprisings and civil wars.
Sounds like an interesting theory, though obviously there's no evidence for it.
In the case of the US, I think the difference compared to many European and Asian countries is due to much more emphasis being put on individual liberty and freedom, to the detriment of the common good. You can see this in how few public places there are and how they are often neglected, whilst private and corporate spaces are often lavish, but you must be a paying customer to enjoy them.
What Singapore and a number of Asian countries, such as Japan or Taiwan do very well, is that they don't allow criminal gangs and people with sociopathic tendencies to bully the general population and use strict laws, that liberal westerners would probably see as unfair and draconian, even fascistic, to remove criminals from the streets.
In the 1960s, Singapore had a huge organised crime problem. Chinese triads ruled the streets (very similar to the mob, in the way they operate) and were running opium and gambling dens, as well as brothels. One day, Lee Kuan Yew had had enough and instructed the police to arrest every known criminal and anyone even suspected of being part of organised crime. In one fell swoop, they arrested and detained every single criminal in the country, without trial and indefinitely. You can criticize Singapore for what it did, but it worked, overnight, one of the most dangerous countries in the world became one of the safest. El Salvador pulled a similar stunt last year and was roundly criticised for it, but there is no denying, that ordinary citizens benefit from it as they can finally reclaim the streets and live stress-free lived, where they don't have to worry about crime.
Great column. You are convincing me that "draconian" policies are the kindest, in the end, because of the result for the vast majority of people. I'm interested in what Hungary can do to help Europe. How much power will they have with this presidency, for instance, if a majority of EU countries oppose them?
Looking back at my comment, the quotes around "draconian" were important. I don't support unnecessary unkindness. But I agree with what was said about Lee Kuan Yew, for instance, though some would have labeled that "draconian".
Well, draconian is a pretty vague term, it's what the Left uses to characterise any society or set of policies that actually enforce the law effectively. Immigration is the most obvious example, because it is where any policy change could be implemented immediately. If the authorities wanted no one to cross the border, pretty much nobody would, you can trust me on that. It's all a question of how far you're willing to go to protect it and how much you invest in terms of resources to guard it.
The reason the border in the Southern US is largely open (though not in California, of all places), is straightforward: it is in the interest of the ruling class, to see cheap labour and future voters and taxpayers stream into the country at a steady pace. The US as a country is still mostly empty land (though that's not where new immigrants are headed) and in theory, there would be plenty of empty or underutilised land for settlers. Of course the issue is, that all of these migrants are headed to a few major cities, completely overwhelming local infrastructure.
I'm not against immigration btw, I've been a legal immigrant myself on four separate occasions and I like to think I contributed positively to the societies I lived in. What I'm against, is bullshit arguments in favour of illegal immigration, dressed up as compassion for "refugees" when even the blind can see that's not what's going on here.
As for Hungary's EU presidency, we'll just have to see, but I think the impact will only be seen years down the line, in a similar manner to how Viktor Orbán's stance on "refugees" back in 2016 was seen as outrageous back then, but has since quietly become the preferred official policy of most EU governments. I think some of that pragmatism will slowly infect the EU's thinking, especially as newer, younger, more right-wing politicians take the place of the old commie cadres, particularly in Western Europe.
Hey Chris, I thought of a question: The EU will decide whether to impose austerity on France in September when they submit their budget. Does Hungary having the presidency mean they will have greater influence over this decision?
Nope. The EU president can only set the agenda, and steer the ship, so to speak, but it doesn't come with any real decision-making powers. In any case, the EU is withholding 20 bn eur from Hungary in funds it is due for "rule of law concerns", or in other words for having the gall to elect a right-wing government. With a left-wing government likely in France, I'm expecting all concerns about their budget deficit will magically evaporate.
What you said about privileging normal people instead of criminals and sociopaths really resonated with me. It’s impossible to ignore how much “freedom” in the US means privileging criminals and antisocial behavior, whether at the street level or in the boardroom.
I visited Budapest last summer with my husband, and I was completely shocked by how orderly are normal it was. Completely different from Chicago, where I lives for several years - there, even in the “nice” neighborhoods one has to remain vigilant at all times.
During that summer trip to Europe, which spanned Greece and Serbia as well, I often contemplated the proposition that everything in the US is structured to mediate, mitigate, or avoid disorder and violence. Every social interaction can potentially lead to violence, and we address it by removing ourself from or protecting ourselves from outbursts instead of punishing those who act violently or antisocially.
The whole American continent has a problem with violent crime and it's not immediately obvious what's causing it. What is clear, is that this isn't new, before the arrival of Europeans, it was already an excessively violent place, from north to south. It sounds like BS, but I heard a Zulu shaman once claim, that corn consumption leads to violent tendencies in people and that this happened very obviously in Africa as well. Once corn was adopted as a staple crop in many areas, violence started skyrocketing, both in terms of crime, but also in terms of coups, uprisings and civil wars.
Sounds like an interesting theory, though obviously there's no evidence for it.
In the case of the US, I think the difference compared to many European and Asian countries is due to much more emphasis being put on individual liberty and freedom, to the detriment of the common good. You can see this in how few public places there are and how they are often neglected, whilst private and corporate spaces are often lavish, but you must be a paying customer to enjoy them.
What Singapore and a number of Asian countries, such as Japan or Taiwan do very well, is that they don't allow criminal gangs and people with sociopathic tendencies to bully the general population and use strict laws, that liberal westerners would probably see as unfair and draconian, even fascistic, to remove criminals from the streets.
In the 1960s, Singapore had a huge organised crime problem. Chinese triads ruled the streets (very similar to the mob, in the way they operate) and were running opium and gambling dens, as well as brothels. One day, Lee Kuan Yew had had enough and instructed the police to arrest every known criminal and anyone even suspected of being part of organised crime. In one fell swoop, they arrested and detained every single criminal in the country, without trial and indefinitely. You can criticize Singapore for what it did, but it worked, overnight, one of the most dangerous countries in the world became one of the safest. El Salvador pulled a similar stunt last year and was roundly criticised for it, but there is no denying, that ordinary citizens benefit from it as they can finally reclaim the streets and live stress-free lived, where they don't have to worry about crime.
Great column. You are convincing me that "draconian" policies are the kindest, in the end, because of the result for the vast majority of people. I'm interested in what Hungary can do to help Europe. How much power will they have with this presidency, for instance, if a majority of EU countries oppose them?
Looking back at my comment, the quotes around "draconian" were important. I don't support unnecessary unkindness. But I agree with what was said about Lee Kuan Yew, for instance, though some would have labeled that "draconian".
Well, draconian is a pretty vague term, it's what the Left uses to characterise any society or set of policies that actually enforce the law effectively. Immigration is the most obvious example, because it is where any policy change could be implemented immediately. If the authorities wanted no one to cross the border, pretty much nobody would, you can trust me on that. It's all a question of how far you're willing to go to protect it and how much you invest in terms of resources to guard it.
The reason the border in the Southern US is largely open (though not in California, of all places), is straightforward: it is in the interest of the ruling class, to see cheap labour and future voters and taxpayers stream into the country at a steady pace. The US as a country is still mostly empty land (though that's not where new immigrants are headed) and in theory, there would be plenty of empty or underutilised land for settlers. Of course the issue is, that all of these migrants are headed to a few major cities, completely overwhelming local infrastructure.
I'm not against immigration btw, I've been a legal immigrant myself on four separate occasions and I like to think I contributed positively to the societies I lived in. What I'm against, is bullshit arguments in favour of illegal immigration, dressed up as compassion for "refugees" when even the blind can see that's not what's going on here.
As for Hungary's EU presidency, we'll just have to see, but I think the impact will only be seen years down the line, in a similar manner to how Viktor Orbán's stance on "refugees" back in 2016 was seen as outrageous back then, but has since quietly become the preferred official policy of most EU governments. I think some of that pragmatism will slowly infect the EU's thinking, especially as newer, younger, more right-wing politicians take the place of the old commie cadres, particularly in Western Europe.
Hey Chris, I thought of a question: The EU will decide whether to impose austerity on France in September when they submit their budget. Does Hungary having the presidency mean they will have greater influence over this decision?
Nope. The EU president can only set the agenda, and steer the ship, so to speak, but it doesn't come with any real decision-making powers. In any case, the EU is withholding 20 bn eur from Hungary in funds it is due for "rule of law concerns", or in other words for having the gall to elect a right-wing government. With a left-wing government likely in France, I'm expecting all concerns about their budget deficit will magically evaporate.