Maggie's Farm

On the small scale, these seem to be close to universal in studied American populations. On the large scale, quite rare.

From the WSJ, Why We Lie - We like to believe that a few bad apples spoil the virtuous bunch. But research shows that everyone cheats a little—right up to the point where they lose their sense of integrity:

We want to install locks to stop the next Bernie Madoff, the next Enron, the next steroid-enhanced all-star, the next serial plagiarist, the next self-dealing political miscreant. But locking our doors against the dishonest monsters will not keep them out; they will always cheat their way in. It is the woman down the hallway—the sweet one who could not even carry away your flat-screen TV if she wanted to—who needs to be reminded constantly that, even if the door is open, she cannot just walk in and "borrow" a cup of sugar without asking.

Some of our readers were discussing trust and "trust cultures" the other day, in the comments. I suppose, when I consider the word "trust," I refer to the confidence that a person will not lie (except for white lies), cheat me, steal from me, be unreliable, or try to harm or take advantage of me.

In other words, trust is a gift given to someone that says "I have decided that you will behave reasonably benevolently towards me - or at least not malevolently - regardless of how you may feel about me."  That is a big gift, and not lightly given until earned.

As our commenters noted, cultures vary in degrees of trust (as we in the Western world define it), and, of course, different cultures have entirely different expectations of others which would not meet our definition of trust (eg you can "trust" an Istanbul rug dealer to never offer you his best price, even if you are his best friend).

Here's AN EXPOSITION OF FRANCIS FUKUYAMA'S "TRUST"

and Where Trust is High, Crime and Corruption are Low

Wki has a discussion of trust as viewed by the social sciences

Oxytocin, not Oxycontin which also, I hear, produces warm, fuzzy feelings: Kin and Kindness.

I aspire to fulfilling the Golden Rule in my life. Who would wish to grow old and to feel that they had not done so during their brief time here? I aspire to forgive those who sin or trespass against me too. It's all a struggle because I tend to react against fools, jerks, jackasses, the malevolent and the arrogant, but it's a worthwhile struggle anyway, with the Lord's help.

The Golden Rule comes easier with kith, kin and tribe, doesn't it? In a way, it's a definition of community. Ostracism is the community's curative; its purgative, but that is another topic.

End of sermon.

Insty noted that California is considering forbidding genetically-engineered foods.

Well, that is retarded. Very few of the things humans eat have not been genetically-engineered by humans. Bear meat, for one. Fish and shellfish. Mushrooms, I suppose, also preserved from the scourge of genetic engineering.

But why should we stop improving our foods now, after 5000 years of doing it with remarkable success? We're much better at it now because we figured out the mechanism.

Hunger was once the norm. Now obesity is the "problem." I think obesity is just fine, for those who want it. Cheap and plentiful high-carb and tasty food is thanks to human ingenuity, and we all now struggle not to be over-fed. What a terrible problem, a human tragedy. Too much food.

Even our dogs are genetically-engineered. Nobody wants to sleep with a wolf at the foot of the bed, and nobody wants teosinte-on-the cob.

Photo is the pre-genetically-engineered teosinte, from which ancient central Americans engineered maize (corn, to us). Who would eat that mangy weed at a Memorial Day cookout?

By the way, corn (maize) is a high-carb food and is not on your weight-loss diet. It's like bread, grain.

After I read this guest post at Zero Hedge, More Than 30 Blocks Of Grey & Decay (h/t American Digest), I thought a little more about my post yesterday, An interesting response to Charles Murray. Here's a quote from the Zero piece:

There is now a grey pallor that seems to engulf this once thriving corridor. The houses that were built in the 1950s and 1960s and kept up by middle class families that took pride in their neighborhoods have been deteriorating for years. The homes are in disrepair. The bricks have grown dingy from years of pollution buildup and lack of power washing. Porches and awnings are sagging. The woodwork hasn’t seen a paint brush since the 1970s. Trash is strewn in the streets. Gardens are no longer tended to. Lawns are overgrown with weeds. The inhabitants of these neighborhoods either don’t care or don’t have the financial wherewithal to maintain their homes. On the current trajectory, these once proud neighborhoods will eventually resemble the 30 Blocks of Squalor.

It's not lack of wherewithal. If you can afford a car, an iPhone, and a big flat screen TV, you can afford a few gallons of paint, a scraper, and a paintbrush from Home Depot. It's just about old-fashioned degeneracy, ignorance, or sloth, which will always be with us in some proportion of the population. We have to accept that reality. For heaven's sake, we have prostitutes in Hartford getting Disability checks for anxiety disorders. It's their loss more than it is mine. If you wish to live a life without dignity, have at it; I won't let you starve, but don't expect any respect from me. A young gal with Down Syndrome works every day at my market. She is not on Disability.

I don't know whether Mr. Welton is right or wrong about government benefits enabling parastic or feral subcultures, but I do think he is correct that the middle class feels that all they can do about it via government is to give them some money and hope they will live, and stay, drunk or stoned or just unmotivated, far away from them. "NIMBY, s'il vous plait. I want a pleasant, peaceful life, and work hard to have one."

Funny, the middle class feels the same way about feral government, most of the time. Except when they are getting freebies. Never dare take freebies from the middle class.

From a thoughtful reaction to - not against - Murray's Fishtown and Belmont analysis by Clark Whelton: SugarHouse Rules - On certain aspects of Charles Murray’s new book:

...if feckless men in Fishtown are not unmanly, what are they? Murray invites us to choose our own words; I suggest “remittance men.” In nineteenth-century Britain, sons, brothers, and uncles whose disreputable conduct made them an embarrassment to their families sometimes received an offer they couldn’t refuse: “Move to Capetown, Jamaica, or Tasmania, and—provided you never come back to England—we will send you a monthly remittance. It won’t be a lot, but you’ll be able to live without working.”

Do the residents of Belmont (median household income $95,000) and countless other communities like it have a similar understanding of Fishtown’s feckless men? The Belmonts of America help fund the various government payments that keep neighborhoods like Fishtown afloat. In return for remitting to the tax man, Belmont, Massachusetts (83.5 percent white, 11.1 percent Asian, 3 percent Hispanic, and 1.8 percent black) gets a measure of isolation from the troubles and failures of urban neighborhoods.

One of my kids attended a very demanding high school, a boarding school, actually. During senior or possibly junior year, this youth showed me his AP European History thesis. The master had written on top, in the usual red ink, "Best AP European History thesis I have read in ten years. Almost publishable. B+"

I believe he understood the compliment. The master believed that, however fine and well-researched the work was, he could have taken it even further.

From The Unteachables: A Generation that Cannot Learn - The greatest tragedy of progressive education is not the students' lack of skills, but of teachable character.

“An A,” she said jubilantly, but with a strong undertone of derision. “And I didn’t even read the book!” As the paper thudded into the trash basket, her friends joined in the disdainful laughter.

That quote is about college, not the local high school. Another quote from the essay:

The person who is never challenged is also never refined, never learns to cope with the setbacks that come on the way to high endeavor. And it is not only in the academic realm, of course, that they may be hampered: a full life outside of university also requires the ability to confront one’s weaknesses and recover from defeat. Despite the admittedly important emphasis on character formation in our schools — on tolerance, anti-racism, refusal of bullying, and so on — it seems that we have failed to show students what real achievement looks like and what it will require of them.

Colleges have become high schools. As far as I have heard, only the elite boarding schools still maintain the highest expectations and standards, far higher than even the most elite colleges.

The world is full of people who cannot or will not negotiate life very well, or with any pride or honor. Every sort of culture has them; the people who cost you money or detract from your life in some unpleasant way. Often, they have either had misguided or negligent upbringings, terrible karma, or have significant character flaws resulting in poor judgement, poor functioning, or antisocial or dependent traits. Often their families expect them to rely on government for survival or help, as so many do with the frail elderly these days. (That's the Julia story.)

Not everybody is born to be a real, self-sufficient, family-centered American-type. It's not easy. However, we are all fully aware of the grieveous moral and spiritual effects of moral hazard in government benefits, and of the temptation of freebies.

What's the answer? Or is it just the price of civilization that some people just don't or won't get it, and must be paid regardless of moral hazard? In other words, just write them off and absorb the losses. Let them rip you off or live off your labor, even though they are not your relatives.

That's my theory. Ignore moral hazard and people working the system, write them off as losses, give them some money and let them go away. Nothing anybody can do about it. With half of the country on the dole in one way or another, parasitism is becoming acceptable anyway.

When most people farmed, it was not thus. Even today, I think anybody can make themselves useful, and lead a positive existence, if they want to.

Mulville:

...if Socrates is right, and true wisdom is accepting one's own ignorance ... what does that say about "progress?" As individuals, of course, we recognize our personal idiocy. But the arrogance of progress is that no matter how stupid individuals are, progressives have confidence that society (as a whole) is on a one-way trajectory toward comprehensive wisdom. Progressives trust that society is growing collectively smarter and wiser.