SEBASTIAN C. writes:

My disagreement with you and Dalrymple is so extreme, I’m going to try to write a piece for Zero Hedge blasting him for making such a stupid, unfair, morally relativistic argument. The fact that the windbag was trying to criticize moral relativism makes it even worse. Comparing the London looters to the bankers who now hold the whole Western world hostage and threaten a war of holocaust proportions to match the ones they manufactured in the previous century, who refer to the cradles of our civilization as “Piigs,” who rape and enslave entire nations, defames the rioters’ good name. These people, some of whom I know personally, are responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands, of entire nations, yet that little bourgeois prig is bothered about some race riots. Talk about a diversion! He knows absolutely nothing (less than nothing) about what these people are about and how modern economies work. To claim that what they did (and are doing) was legal is like exculpating Nazi crimes because they, too, were legal under the laws of that regime. Besides, he’s wrong even about that, as Iceland clearly proved. It would be embarrassing to read such nonsense from a college student; from someone like Dalrymple, who occasionally writes an interesting piece, it’s frankly pathetic. Was he paid to write that? City Journal has ties to Wall Street money, so perhaps a quid pro quo was worked out. I really have a hard time believing an adult could be that unfair to the rioters, who are but a pale analog of what the ruling classes have become: a system of organized, systematic looting. 

Laura writes:

I never said the bankers in question were guiltless. I said it was a “warped comparison.” The Dail Mail piece Dalrymple cited essentially argued that bankers caused the unrest. The editorial stated:

The bankers’ refusal to rein in their greed is fuelling the politics of envy in Britain — and envy is a toxic and corrosive creator of social unrest and Left-wing demagoguery.

I don’t accept that. I don’t accept that envy is created by others.

Even if the bankers’ wrongdoings were far worse crimes, even if the bankers were inadequately punished, that doesn’t mean the world shouldn’t be engrossed in condemning the vandalism of the riots at this particular time, just when the events are fresh. The Daily Mail piece seems to be saying that is wrong.  

Any bankers who plotted and carried out plans that they knew would result in the “deaths of tens of thousands” obviously committed much worse acts than the looters but that is an entirely different issue. Isn’t it possible to confront each category of crimes? Does condemning one mean approving of the other?

Christopher Michael Collins writes:

Dalrymple erred on this one.

First of all (my first of all, not his), he fails to identify, let alone quote, any particular pundits, thereby libeling any who might not have disregarded the distinction between legal and illegal acts,
and possibly setting up a straw man. He immediately tries to give the appearance of softening the blow by stating that no doubt some bankers did break the law, but then doubles-down by stating they shouldn’t be lumped in with those who did not. So, ok, who’s doing the lumping? [Laura: He did mention the article in the Daily Mail.]

Second, one man’s disregarding that distinction is another, and in my opinion as applied here, better man’s minding of morality above legalism. It’s actually depressingly fascinating in a way to hear
Dalrymple of all people start off by implying everything that is legal is morally ok. I’ve read years worth of his columns. Two of his books. One of his great themes, hammered over and over again, is that society is unravelling precisely because we have made or permitted to be legal a range of immoral acts; that this immorality is tolerated and  somewhat tolerable –and stress this part, by the rich and famous; that the well-off, the elite, the intelligent, the otherwise well-endowed orders can handle a divorce here, or a few years of drug abuse there, but that the lower orders get wiped out by that; fall and can’t get up without extra-ordinary will and grace –which of course is ever in short supply in the human condition, rich or poor. He doesn’t see the parallel? Rampant sexual deviancy and drug abuse amongst the rich is bad in itself AND tends to destroy the overall morality of society as it’s acceptance slips down to the lower orders, but rampant financial fraud –and there was rampant financial fraud let’s not kid ourselves, is not malum in se? Doesn’t tend to destroy society? Doesn’t slip down to the lower orders? What, is there no unemployment as businesses and successful persons hold their money in prudent anticipation of further bailouts and unfair favors for the bigger firms –which will have to be paid for somehow? Are my eyes lying to me when I see milk prices go up and other clear signs of inflation?

His rawness of the injury line is pretty good. By the way, that Daily Mail link he offered clearly condemned the rioters and I’ve seen no comparison between the rioting looters and the banking looters that did actually condone the looters. Perhaps he can find one. But for now, sure, I’d rather suffer some inflation, than have my residence burnt down. Who wouldn’t? For now. But really. Has he not heard what happened with regard to inflation and savings and the value of the currency in Argentina in the last 20 years? In Southeast Asia in the 90’s? In Germany under the Weimar Republic? France during the Revolution?

And this leads to his ending. I’ll give it to him for his ability to structure and write an essay, as he closes with his strongest point, that “[t]he looters, already possessed of a deep if unjustified sense
of grievance, will find in it a post facto justification for what they did and also a moral and political justification for their future depredations.”

But so what? So two wrongs make a right? That the looters will engage in sloppy thinking and rationalizing means we shouldn’t see what is to be seen?

I’m in agreement with him that the rioting wasn’t some sort of misguided political act –not that that would excuse it but it would be a factor in mitigation; that the rioting and looting was probably
pure opportunistic depredation. This guess is based on the sense that the rioters probably haven’t been carefully following and researching the financial and political shenanigans of the last decade or so. And the rioters probably won’t be keenly following this debate either.

But, as Dalrymple’s ouevre argues, things sort of seep through.

“The combination of loose thinking and indifference to the likely effects of its expression may, indeed, have been a major cause of many of our current problems. Let us, as Pascal said, labor to think
clearly: for such is the beginning of morality. And, one might add, of sound policy.” –Dalrymple.

“When your most elite, most powerful members of society adopt plundering (i.e. looting), then they will develop a morality that doesn’t simply permit plundering, but valorizes it. And when that
happens, the moral structures of society will inevitably deteriorate. In the upper classes it leads to polite looting, in the lower classes it leads to street looting. –William K. Black, paraphrasing Frederic
Bastiat.

See here starting at 14:30 or so, and places like Peter Schiff’s site, Vox Day, Market Ticker, Zero Hedge, Calculated Risk, etc. etc. etc.

See also this.

Laura writes:

On one hand, you say the rioting was “opportunistic depredation” and on the other hand, you do seem to be saying it was caused by economic hardship and exploitation. (You wrote: “Are my eyes lying to me when I see milk prices go up and other clear signs of inflation?”) Whether immorality seeps from one segment of society to another or not doesn’t change the moral status of individual wrongdoing. 

Dalrymple was not saying that whatever the bankers did that was legal was therefore moral too. He was just making the point that there are clear standards of legality. Even if the bankers committed heinous immoral acts, that doesn’t change the understanding and punishment of crimes.

What greedy bankers have done to Britain may be much, much more immoral – whether it is legal or illegal – than what the looters did. I’m perfectly willing to accept that idea, though I am not qualified to say. Also, the immorality of the bankers and the vandalism of the looters may stem from the same climate of decadence. But, again, I don’t understand the Daily Mail’s point and I still find it a warped comparison. While the Daily Mail didn’t condone the looters, the editorial stated that the bankers indirectly caused the riots by fueling the politics of envy. That suugests the looters had no choice but to steal flat screen TVs.

Please follow and like us: