Luxury beliefs

Our hidden aristocracy

When I was young, people used the term “limousine liberal” to describe a certain type of affluent person that favored trendy left-wing causes. Think of wealthy people living in NYC high rises with plenty of private security, who wish to “defund the police”. Rob Henderson coined the term “luxury beliefs” for roughly this sort of politics.

The phenomenon of luxury beliefs goes far beyond limousine liberalism. In this post, I’ll argue that America contains a sort of hidden aristocracy. I use the term ‘hidden’, because neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are fully aware of the extent to which our society favors the rich and beautiful, often without knowing it. Both parties are complicit.

1. Drugs

There are times when a single photograph leads to a long blog post. In this case, the photo appeared in an obscure travel magazine distributed for free to tourists visiting Palm Springs. The photo shows a restroom interior with a mirror that appears to lie flat on the counter top, containing a few lines of what look like cocaine. Anyone trying to steal the powder quickly finds out that the mirror is glued down and the cocaine is fake. This link has the photo. Here’s the title and subtitle of the article it appeared in:

A Look Inside Bar Cecil’s Cheeky Palm Springs Bathroom

Bar Cecil’s John Janulis confirms: That’s not someone’s leftover stash — it’s part of the charm.

Cocaine is so “glamorous” that fancy Palm Springs restaurants use it as a form of decor. “It’s part of the charm.”

A few days ago, I had lunch at a local restaurant that was hidden inside another restaurant. They referred to it as a “speakeasy”, and the decor made it look like the inside one of those basement bars from Chicago in the 1920s. Apparently there is also something glamorous about breaking laws regarding alcohol consumption.

From the scare quotes, you probably assume I was being sarcastic. Not at all. I’m no expert on glamour (check out Virginia Postrel’s book), but unless I’m mistaken the term glamorous does not mean “ethical”. So please don’t be a blue nose and tell me there’s nothing glamorous about sniffing cocaine through a rolled up Benjamin. Of course there is! Just as it’s glamorous when Hollywood stars have promiscuous lifestyles. Or just as its glamorous when attractive thieves in films like The Thomas Crown Affair steal some jewelry. Let’s not deny the obvious—people find lots of unethical things to be quite alluring.

[I recently saw someone refer to the 1999 remake of The Thomas Crown Affair as an “old movie”. Yikes, I’m really getting old.]

My claim here is that our drug laws are not based on utilitarian considerations of harm and benefit—rather they reflect the view that lowlifes need to be punished and glamorous people should get off scot-free. The fact that sellers of drugs are far more likely to receive prison sentences than buyers of drugs has nothing to do with the severity of the crime. Every transaction requires a buyer and seller. It’s all about the fact that poor Black and Hispanic men need to be put in prison while glamorous Hollywood actors and pop stars need to be protected from prison.

When I’ve pointed to this bias, people often claim a distinction between the two cases. The poor pitiful drug users are “addicted”. Nonsense—a perfect example of motivated reasoning. Those drug sellers are far more addicted to money than the cocaine users in fancy nightclubs are addicted to their drug. Cocaine users in their 20s often give up the drug as they older if it interferes with their career or relationships. I don’t see many people abandon their drive to be wealthy. If “addiction” is the criterion, then the drug pushers should get the lighter sentences.

Joe Biden was a drug warrior during his entire 50-year career. That’s a luxury belief, as he could assume that his son would not be sent to prison if he were to use cocaine. Here’s another example: “I don’t like the smell of pot when I visit the downtown of a big city, therefore pot sellers should be sent to prison.” Indeed, the entire war on drugs is a sort of luxury belief, as the rich rarely suffer from the consequences of this counterproductive crusade.

2. Prostitution

Most of the examples in this post are pretty obvious, so I’ll try to keep it short. Originally, the laws against prostitution targeted the prostitutes, not the people that purchased their services. Even today, law enforcement is biased in that direction, despite pressure from feminists. And even where “progressive” prosecutors try to level the playing field, the laws against prostitution will always favor the rich. Working class men are occasionally arrested for handing a few bills to a streetwalker, while wealthy older men buy the attention of beautiful young women with expensive gifts and fine dining. Trump’s $200,000 payoff to that porn star makes our society’s hypocrisy pretty obvious, but it’s not just his supporters that have the double standard. “Blue states” are just as bad.

3. Gambling

When I was young, gambling was only legal in Las Vegas. The idea was that the right to indulge in this vice was reserved for the wealthy, who could fly to a distant city. That’s still pretty much how things work in China, where Macao is the only city that allows gambling.

4. Private equity

Only accredited investors (aka “the rich”) are allowed to put their money in certain types of private equity, often the sorts of investments that later become highly successful.

During the aristocratic age, only upper class people were viewed as “fully human”. The rest of society was viewed as being little better than livestock. In our more democratic age, the status of average people has improved somewhat. Nonetheless, the rich and glamorous remain the only group treated as fully human, fully able to make decisions for themselves. I suppose it’s an improvement that the rest of us are treated as children, not farm animals, but we’re still a long way from the sort of society that we pretend to be.

5. Illegal immigration

It has been reported that both Elon Musk and Melania Trump abused their visas after they travelled to the US. If true, what are the chances that they get deported in the current round-up? And even if they were deported, what does deportation mean for a rich person who can jet between mansions on 5 different continents? Can I interest you in a “Gold Card”?

6. Property taxes

There’s a perception that governments in places like New York City are biased against the rich. But is that actually true? Are rich people in NYC excluded from benefiting from rent control laws? No. Do billionaires in NYC pay higher property tax rates? No. In fact they often face far lower property tax rates than working class New Yorkers.

7. The arts

What type of arts are subsidized by federal state and local governments? Primarily art that appeals to wealthier people.

8. Education

In more democratic societies such as Sweden, everyone has an education voucher and can choose which school best fits the needs of their children. In America, only wealthier parents can afford to opt out of the public school system.

To be clear, none of the points I’ve raised here have anything to do with the fact that wealth naturally gives the rich more options in life. I understand that. Rather all 8 of the preceding examples involve explicit government policies that favor the rich over the poor. Not one of these inequities would require “redistribution” in order to level the playing field.

9. Divorce and scandal

We all know cases of billionaires, politicians and movie stars that remain extremely popular, despite very sketchy private lives. And the same fans that gush over these celebrities, might label their next door neighbor a “sleazeball” for cheating on his or her spouse. So why isn’t that a double standard? Let me play the devil’s advocate and see if we can discover a perspective where it all makes sense.

Consider the following as a “single standard”: The degree of public shaming should be inversely proportional to the difficulty of resisting temptation. The neighbor should be able to refrain from dating that average looking divorcee at work, but you can hardly expect a movie star to turn down a dozen beautiful starlets. The temptation is too great. (Here I’m describing society’s views, not my own.)

Not long ago, I recall a news story of one of the world’s richest men getting a divorce, partly due to infidelity. I recall being surprised, as he didn’t seem like the sort of guy that would have an affair. He seemed to have the personality and looks of a boring office drone. And then I thought to myself, “What do I know about what life is like when you have $100 billion?”

There was some public condemnation of his behavior, but mostly because he was not a handsome man. You might think that $100 billion puts you at the top of the mating pyramid, but that’s not how things work. Charismatic Hollywood actors worth a mere $100 million probably experience far more frequent temptations that the head of a big corporation. For that reason, famous actors and pop stars are the people most likely to be given a pass by their fans.

To be clear, I find this “single standard” to be highly distasteful, even if I understand the logic. French novelist Michael Houellebecq has shown that from an egalitarian perspective, mating is a deeply unfair game. Like Houellebecq, I’m the product of a century of egalitarian brainwashing, and I have become a utilitarian, which means I’ve accepted the logic of egalitarianism. I’m not against the elite, I just don’t believe they should be favored. But I cannot think of a better system than our deeply unfair mating game.

Here’s an analogy. Suppose someone said that the income tax should only apply to the first $100 million of income. After that, all income is tax-free. Most of us (including me) would find that proposal to be deeply unappealing, as it goes against our egalitarian instincts. But then suppose someone argued, “The income of the super rich (at the margin) mostly goes to either charity, or to new investments that help the economy grow. Let the middle class pay a bit more in taxes, to make up for the shortfall.”

Can I honestly say that this argument is wrong? No, I cannot. That’s one reason why I favor a steeply progressive consumption tax; it allows me to avoid having to refute the distasteful but plausible argument that the rich should face the lowest marginal income tax rates.

Similarly, I find our system of shaming people for sexual misdeeds to be deeply offensive. You won’t see me on twitter passing along salacious gossip. But if someone argues that public shaming encourages better behavior, even when the shaming is done by hypocrites, it’s hard for me to refute the claim.

With enough effort, you can force me to understand our society. Just don’t ask me to like it.

Here’s a woodblock “pillow” print from the great Edo artist Utamaro:

PS. It seems to me that the highly non-egalitarian nature of our mating game makes the system look sort of “right wing.” It’s interesting that Houellebecq is also right wing, and yet he writes novels that seem to bemoan how the system is unfair to people without sex appeal. Even right-wingers have egalitarian instincts, at least in some areas.