4 Comments

Dr. Shermer, thank you for this article. I remember seeing this enjoying the moral play (and the play between Wayne, Stewart and scary Lee Marvin). 40+ years on, I'd say that the moral story is more subtle, both in the movie and in reality. The establishment and maintenance of law and order is dependent on lawful society having the ability and right to exercise force to that purpose.

There can be, and could not be in the movie, any hope of establishing and sticking to a "rule of law" morality without the ability to prevent Valance clones from exercising their penchant for getting their way, or just having fun, through use or threat of violence.

More broadly, and perhaps sadly, moral codes only have power over those who subscribe to them. They do not exist as a transcendental force for good; they need the actions of determined humans to make them a livable reality. Turning the other cheek is an excellent principle for spiritual growth. It is of only limited worth to those protecting their children.

Expand full comment
author

Indeed, there is no cosmic judge, no celestial courtroom for justice. Like fiat money it depends on the stability of the government and trust among citizens. Thus it is we need fair and just laws applied fairly and justly to all citizens. Law-and-order should not be a "conservative" principle for Republicans only; it is and must be embraced by everyone or else we'll see more looting and crime. It is why Eric Adams was elected the new Mayor of New York City. He's a Democrat and a former police captain who made it clear he would not tolerate such uncivilized behavior in the city. Law-and-order is a non-negotiable feature of civilization.

Expand full comment

Dr. Shermer,

Regarding the recent lawless group criminal activity, my gut tells me that many readers and the "man on the street" can appreciate an enlightened after-the-fact analysis such as your article. But we want more. I'm sure I'm not alone when I state that most law-abiding citizens would like to know what causes/allows this type of "smash & grab" behavior, as well as looting, destructive rioting, etc., and what can be done to prevent or mitigate this lawlessness. I have some ideas, but they don't mean much coming from me and without solid research behind them. Nevertheless, some thoughts I'd propose are: 1) Single-parent broken families with no strong authority figures around for many years. 2) Defund the police movements. 3) Normalization of this behavior from SJ groups & activists, glamorization of these memes in certain music & pop culture idioms; 4) A general tendency for criminal justice systems to be too lenient on these types of crimes & guilty perpetrators; and a general tendency in our society nationwide to be out-of-balance with regard to social pressures exerted on people to be law-abiding citizens. I'm specifically thinking of the tilt toward too much emphasis on what I'd term feminine forces versus a lack of a proper balance of masculine forces. This can be thought of as Yin/Yang, or simply nurture/compassion/empathy/freedom vs control/order/accountability/responsibility. Too much of the masculine leads to a police state and fascism. But too much femininity leads to what we're seeing too much of these days. The big question is: how do we go about steering the culture back to a balance of the two before things descend into a state of chaos, violence and anarchy that we may not be able to get out of without a civil war. Thanks for your time. Quest R.

Expand full comment
author

The ultimate (deeper) explanations for such lawless behavior as rioting and the smash-and-grab robberies of retail outlets that you outline here all likely carry some of the causal load but are difficult to prove using standard social science tools of correlational studies, regression equations, and the like, because there are likely many causal steps in between, for example, how exactly does single-parent broken families with no strong authority figure lead to criminal behavior years later? Most social scientists think that this is possible--in the aggregate anyway (most children from broken homes don't grow up to be criminals; many criminals came from in-tact two-parent families)--but it is difficult to test the hypothesis. Proximate (immediate) causes are more readily analyzed, such as the type of policing in a neighborhood, the number of police on the beat, the presence of armed security guards at retail stores, a criminal justice system that promptly prosecutes looters, which signals to other would-be looters that there will be consequences to pay for looting, and a general sense of law-and-order in a city in which graffiti is cleaned up, minor infractions are punished, and, in the type specimen of a popular theory, broken windows are fixed. (James Q. Wilson's "broken windows" theory of crime hypotheses that broken windows, graffiti, turn-style jumpers, and the like, signals to everyone that this is a neighborhood no one really cares about, including and especially law enforcement.) I see that many of the big-name retail stores in cities like San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle, are beefing up their security, and that arrests have been made of some of the smash-and-grab looters, which will signal to others that "free stuff at Nordstroms" may not be so free after all.

Expand full comment