Why are some people cruel? Why are some governments cruel? Do cruel governments require cruel citizens? I take cruelty to refer to Merriam-Webster’s definition of cruel as “disposed to inflict pain or suffering: devoid of humane feeling.”
An individual is cruel who has a taste for cruelty, i.e. cruelty is an argument of his utility function. He will satisfy this preference when he can do it at a price that he considers acceptable. This is the standard price theory model, which remains useful despite all its critiques: the individual maximizes his utility given his preferences and the constraints he faces.
Why are some governments cruel, whether we are speaking of the Russian government intentionally attacking Ukrainian civilians and torturing prisoners of war, or the American government inflicting pain or distress on immigrants? (Of course, there is a difference in degree between these two cases of cruelty.) It is a matter of incentives: if those who disobey government decrees risk not only punishments but cruel punishments, disobedience is reduced. In short, governments use cruelty when it contributes to the realization of their policies, and no constitutional or other binding constraints exist.
A government (or “the state”) is not a supernatural being or a biological organism, but an organization of individuals who determine policies or enforce them. Cruelty in public policy depends on the costs and benefits of the individual rulers, their agents, and their supporters (at least their important supporters). A cruel government is made of, or supported by, cruel individuals, but the process of public choice may increase the extent of cruelty.
For one thing, the cruelty of a government will increase through selection. Individuals with a taste for cruelty will self-select for government roles: politicians, prosecutors, security personnel, torturers, etc. A government known for its cruelty will attract more cruel rulers and servants—which is related to Friedrich Hayek fear of the rule of the worst (see his 1944 book The Road to Selfdom; see also my review of this book).
Cruelty will likely increase as political rulers discover that hatred can be used to further their ambitions. Scapegoats, preferably unarmed and defenseless, are useful for a politician to both explain away his failures and enflame his supporters. Propaganda can present hated or to-be-hated minorities as “the worst of the worst” or “animals.” The more the rule of law has been compromised (at the limit, up to the aphorism attributed to Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin’s secret police chief, “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime”), the more we would expect cruelty to follow hatred.
Economist Edward Glaezer modeled the supply of hatred by politicians and the demand for it by voters. In his model, the supply of hatred depends on the existence of minority groups or “out-groups” that can be turned into scapegoats (the Blacks not so long ago, the immigrants today) and thus help “entrepreneurs of hate” in political competition. Other things being equal (including the individuals’ taste for cruelty), the demand for hatred is favored by “citizens’ willingness to accept false hate-creating stories [as] determined by the costs and returns to acquiring information” (Edward L. Glaezer, “The Political Economy of Hatred,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 120, No. 1 [February 2005], pp. 45-86). Since the typical citizen’s probability of changing the result of an election is infinitesimally small and the cost of political information remains very high—despite or because of social media—the voter will remain rationally ignorant and tend to hate the people his political tribe hates.
Constitutions, norms (morals), religion (or at least certain forms of religion), trade, and other soft habits of civilization (les mœurs douces) can act as constraints to cruelty. They decrease the demand for it or limit its supply. In his book The Problem of Political Authority (see my review), philosopher Michael Huemer observes that, over a certain period of time, mores have become softer, more respectful of individual dignity, and less cruel. Political authorities may have helped but, past a certain point, the constraints on them can collapse, perhaps suddenly like an avalanche. Totalitarian regimes illustrate this. The North Korean or Russian states are not less cruel than political authorities in the High Middle Ages. Past a certain point, the state may contribute not to civilizing mores but, on the contrary, to fueling cruelty.
Cruel governments don’t require cruel people or at least not a majority of them, and perhaps only a small proportion. Many factors explain that. First, a government can contribute to making its subjects cruel through political hatred, propaganda, and selection (pulling the cruel to the top), as suggested above. Second, it appears easy to be cruel only toward foreigners or domestic minorities whose support the government doesn’t need. Professor Rudolph Rummel of the University of Hawaii estimated that, during the 20th century, states killed millions, if not hundreds of millions, of their own citizens, excluding interstate wars. Third, let’s not forget the Condorcet paradox: in a democratic society, an electoral majority can very well “prefer” the rule of law to despotism, despotism to poverty, poverty to cruel government, but then cruel government to the rule of law—as revealed if and when the latter alternative is the one put to the vote.
Finally, note that political cruelty is a boomerang. Nothing guarantees the demanders of cruelty that the cruel enforcers of their demand will always only target others. The brutes live among the people. The Roman legions are stationed in Rome.
******************************
The Roman legions in Rome, as viewed by ChatGPT (with some anachronisms)
READER COMMENTS
Atanu Dey
Sep 2 2025 at 11:28am
Because some people have been taught to be cruel by their creed. Evidence? Certain religions preach cruelty (no prizes for guessing which), and others like Jainism teach kindness to all sentient beings.
Pierre Lemieux
Sep 2 2025 at 12:12pm
Atanu: Interesting point. I model this a bit differently, though. I consider a “kind” religion as a constraint limiting one’s feasible set (including one’s indulgence in one’s taste for cruelty). When this constraint does not exist, individuals with a taste for cruelty are more likely to choose to do cruel acts. Even in “kind” religions within Christianity, the constraint is not always binding: consider the Crusades or St. Bartholomew’s Day.
Is our difference (if there is a difference) that you model religion as an argument in the utility function and assume a close complementarity between “unkind” religions and the taste for cruelty? I tend to find this model less useful, but I could be wrong. Or do you assume that religion, like Coca-Cola advertising, can change individual preferences (which Gary Becker might consider ad hoc)?
Mactoul
Sep 3 2025 at 1:07am
Yet Jains have a very lopsided infant sex ratio. They may be lenient to ants but cruel to their own daughters.
Jose Pablo
Sep 2 2025 at 12:05pm
religion (…) can act as constraints to cruelty.
That is a joke, right?
Pierre Lemieux
Sep 2 2025 at 12:23pm
Jose: Not an intentional joke. Should we not give some weight to Hayek’s claim that religion can incite individuals to follow useful (in a coordination sense) general rules of conduct whose function they don’t understand? Or consider the “Peace of God” in the 11th century and all the brutal little nobles or false knights who were persuaded that violence would send them to eternal damnation–and arguably other such incentives at since the birth of Christianity.
But my reply to Atanu (which I wrote before seeing your comment) leaves you with some room to maneuver.
Jose Pablo
Sep 2 2025 at 12:36pm
Pierre, I’ve always found a very strong correlation between “collective identities”, of which religion and nationalism are the main exponents, and cruelty.
And I’m inclined to believe that this correlation reflects causation. When certain groups or individuals threaten, whether as a real or imagined danger, our “collective identity” (which, for so many, is their very reason for being), cruelty is the first weapon pulled from the drawer.
And that’s not even counting individual cruelty: the petty, grinding brutality of religious norms and the pain they impose on flesh-and-blood people, homosexuals condemned for existing, women punished for showing their hair, or daring to wear a miniskirt.
The examples are endless, and the cruelty relentless. Religion doesn’t just sanctify cruelty; it industrializes it.
nobody.really
Sep 2 2025 at 5:19pm
I question this. True, today religion and nationalism seem like the main sources of identity, and of conflict. But perhaps a broader perspective is warranted.
Much political philosophy (especially libertarian philosophy) takes individuals as a starting point. But observations of human history, and of apes in the wild, reveal that individuals separated from their families and tribes led lives that were solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Thus, according to Yuval Noah Harari’s Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (2011), the original sources of identity were the family and the local tribe.
These institutions dominated the individual. And these institutions were ruthless. Before the rise of nationalism, the share of humans that died violent deaths were much larger than anything the 20th century could dish out. Viewed from this perspective, teaching people to find identity in religion and nationalism–to regard strangers as something other than prey, to assert independence from the dictates of family and tribe, and to seek redress from the state rather than from vigilanteism–were the forces that mitigated ruthless tribalism.
Religion and the state were the midwives of individualism, not the bane.
Pierre Lemieux
Sep 2 2025 at 5:29pm
Nobody: Your write:
Fair enough: that is why individuals lived, and still live, in society. But consider the converse. If individuals separated from their families and tribes had short lives, families and tribes separated from their individuals had no life at all.
Jose Pablo
Sep 2 2025 at 7:40pm
I find the distinction you draw between “tribalism” and “religion” or “nationalism” far too subtle, and far too convenient, to support any serious conclusions based on such a subjective difference.
Religion and nationalism are, at their core, forms of tribalism. What you call “primitive tribalism” has indeed evolved over time into more organized and efficient forms, but the underlying logic is the same: drawing an arbitrary boundary between “us” and “them,” sanctifying loyalty to the group, and legitimizing cruelty against outsiders. That is essentially what you claim humanity has witnessed.
So whether we label it tribe, nation, or church, the continuity is more striking than the distinction. And that continuity proves my point much more than it questions it.
nobody.really
Sep 3 2025 at 1:04am
Fair enough. But the original tribe is estimated to be about 150 people. Humans would regard anyone beyond that group as prey. A human would rise, travel, hunt, gather, and wed based on what the tribal leaders told them to do. And they would wage war almost constantly, both for aggression and for retribution, as the tribal leaders told them to. Larger governments and religions may be similar in kind, but not in degree—and the difference in degree has been huge.
The early individual regarded everyone she met (except for 150 individuals) as prey; the later individual regarded pretty much everyone she met as part of her nation. The early individual would be expected to join the clan in raiding the neighbor’s livestock, or taking revenge for the neighbor’s transgression; the later individual would yield these duties to state agents. And the early individual would follow the dictates of the clan, or risk expulsion or worse; the later individual could risk deviating from the clan and instead rely on the state to shield them from clan retribution.
2011 saw the publication of both Harari’s Sapiens and Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. According to these authors, since about 3000 BCE the rise of cities and governments, with the concomitant decline of tribal raiding and feuding, brought a five-fold decline in homicides; and between the late Middle Ages and the 20th century, European countries saw another tenfold-to-fiftyfold decline in their rates of homicide.
If this be the industrialization of cruelty, I say bring it on. But to appreciate the wonder that we currently live in, we must compare it to the real world as it existed before—not compare it to some idyllic world of our imagination.
RCF
Sep 4 2025 at 9:16am
I’m reminded of Phil Anderson’s “More is Different”. He was working in physics, and won the Nobel prize in 1977 for his insights. But in the decades since we’ve come to appreciate that a collection of individuals, whether they are atoms or humans or bees, has behaviors that are not seen in any individual. Religion, nationalism, tribalism, political party affiliation, etc … all exhibit collective behaviors (such as willingness to inflict cruelty) that doesn’t show up in individuals acting independently of each other.
Jose Pablo
Sep 2 2025 at 12:24pm
Cruelty is the very foundation of religion. In fact, hell is the vivid representation of cruelty and a cornerstone religious concept.
Just a friendly (but by no means exhaustive) historical reminder:
Christianity
Crucifixion, The Inquisition, Witch trials and burnings, Burning of heretics (Jan Hus, Giordano Bruno), Forced conversions, The Crusades, Albigensian Crusade, Thirty Years’ War, French Wars of Religion (St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre), Persecution of Jews (pogroms, expulsions, ghettos), Book burnings, Suppression of pagan practices, Violent missionary activity, Galileo’s trial
Islam
Hudud punishments (stoning, amputations, flogging), Jihad wars, Persecution of apostates and blasphemers, Sunni–Shia massacres, Dhimmi system and jizya, Destruction of Bamiyan Buddhas, Destruction of Palmyra
Judaism
Stoning (Torah law), Herem (ban/excommunication), Conquest of Canaan (Book of Joshua)
Hinduism
Sati, Caste-based violence, Thuggee cult killings
Buddhism
Buddhist persecutions of rival sects, Zen Buddhism and samurai militarism, Buddhist nationalist violence (Sri Lanka, Myanmar)
Indigenous / Ancient Religions
Human sacrifice (Aztec, Maya, Inca, Carthaginian, Druids), Animal sacrifice, Trial by ordeal
Modern Religious Practices / Sects
Religious terrorism (9/11, ISIS), Honor killings, Blasphemy laws, Religious child abuse, Female genital mutilation (FGM), Cult suicides (Jonestown, Heaven’s Gate), Child abuse and forced marriages in sects
Pierre Lemieux
Sep 2 2025 at 12:33pm
Jose: For sure, this does not look nice. But we must try to compare religion with non-religion (or bans on religions) ceteris paribus. Think of China since Mao or the Soviet empire.
Jose Pablo
Sep 2 2025 at 12:39pm
That is certainly a fair point.
But isn’t there a distinctly “religious flavor” to the regimes of Mao and Stalin?
Jon Murphy
Sep 2 2025 at 12:46pm
Both were strictly atheist, I believe.
john hare
Sep 2 2025 at 3:29pm
@ Jon 12:46 PM
Atheism can be claimed while operating in a somewhat religious mode. As one may not question the omnipotent God, neither is one allowed to question the omnipotent state. It seems to me that religion is more an attitude and operating method than a belief in God. The core being that the reveled truth cannot be questioned.
David Seltzer
Sep 2 2025 at 3:58pm
Jose, Marx’s philosophy is grounded in an atheistic view of the world. For old Karl, religion is a human invention or construct. Atheism can be separated into “a” without, and “theism.” Without theism. Just sayin!
Pierre Lemieux
Sep 2 2025 at 3:59pm
John and Jose: I was taking “religion” not as an attitude, but as a belief that God will punish you if you don’t abide by certain moral principles. So it is indeed very different from atheism.
I would add another point. If a religion is based on the idea that “all human beings have an immortal soul created in the image of God,” that looks to me much more like individualism than collectivism.
I concede (which is not difficult!) that some religions, especially organized religions, are collectivist.
nobody.really
Sep 2 2025 at 6:17pm
I can’t think of any instance when Christianity promoted executing people by crucifixion. As far as I know, crucifixion was a form of execution inflicted on Christians (among others) by non-Christians.
steve
Sep 2 2025 at 7:20pm
That’s true. Crucifixion was seen as blasphemous. Instead they resorted to the much more gentle practice of burning at the stake. Incidentally the christians in the south of the US also burned people at the stake sometimes preceded by torturing with red hot pokers and accompanied by mutilation, pre and post mortem. Then they could sell off the body parts as souvenirs. AFAICT, according to the medievalist in the family medieval people did not engage in souvenir sales though if they later decided the person burned at the stake was really a saint they somehow managed to find their bones for relics.
Steve
Jose Pablo
Sep 2 2025 at 7:52pm
Fair enough, Nobody, my mistake.
Please move “crucifixion” to the “Indigenous / Ancient Religions” category, and fill the gap it leaves in the original list with “burning of Jewish neighborhoods in York, Basel, and Strasbourg,” which was unforgivably omitted in the original list.
I don’t think that significantly affects my point, though.
Craig
Sep 2 2025 at 2:46pm
“Why are some people cruel? Why are some governments cruel? Do cruel governments require cruel citizens?”
Reminded here of the Banality of Evil, but I will say that aside from a few outliers like some introspective serial killers who, even they can acknowledge their own cruelty, most people think of themselves as the ‘good guy’ I’d even suggest Hitler did as well?
Pierre Lemieux
Sep 2 2025 at 4:30pm
Craig: You are right in that they think they have good ends that justify activating their taste for cruelty. Note also that my definition tries to avoid the question of whether is cruel somebody who is but does not think he is. If somebody thinks he does not like beer but cannot resist drinking any bottle he sees at a price lower than $3, it’s enough for us to say that beer is an argument of his utility function. My question was, when will someone decide to commit a cruel act? Under which conditions will a government become cruel in pursuing “the public interest,” “the national interest,” the president’s vision, a green unicorn, or whatever?
David Seltzer
Sep 2 2025 at 3:47pm
Pierre: Excellent exposition. You wrote; “An individual is cruel who has a taste for cruelty, i.e. cruelty is an argument of his utility function. He will satisfy this preference when he can do it at a price that he considers acceptable. This is the standard price theory model, which remains useful despite all its critiques: the individual maximizes his utility given his preferences and the constraints he faces.” I suspect the cruel individual often underestimates their constraints. To wit. Hitler committed suicide. Saddam Hussein was hanged and, reportedly, decapitated. Il Duce was hanged by his heels. In the end justice comes too late for these mutants. As an aside. I make the distinction between knowing and understanding. I know cruel individuals exist. I just don’t understand cruelty, even with explanations that make sense.
Pierre Lemieux
Sep 2 2025 at 4:11pm
David: Of course, an individual can make errors, which often tragically limit his feasible set in the future (as you illustrate). Modeling individuals as always making errors, however, would not be very useful because of the reason I just mentioned and because it is tantamount to assuming that choices are made by flipping a coin.
On your last two sentences, note that I was trying to make an economic analysis of cruelty (with utility maximization and incentives), not a philosophical investigation of why cruelty and evil exist in the world.
nobody.really
Sep 2 2025 at 5:59pm
To start, I would distinquish between people/organizations that act without regard to other people’s pain, and those that seek to inflict pain. But I acknowledge that the line is not always clear. Pierre Lemieux identifies various circumstances under which a politician may find it instrumental to inflict pain on others, or to be seen inflicting pain. This suggests (to me) that causing pain is NOT part of the politician’s utility function; it is merely a means to pursue something that IS part of that utility function.
Many political commentators today engage in a purpetual game of “invent a rationale to justify Trump’s latest outrage.” For example, many of Trump’s immigration policies seem gratuitously cruel. But arguably they are merely functionally cruel.
As far as I can tell, any practical limitation on human migration requires torture–that is, requires making the life of undocumented aliens sufficiently and notoriously unpleasant as to discourage immitators. Thus, Trump has stripped children from their parents; has flown people to a notorious prison in El Salvador, or to Guantanemo; has build “Allegator Alcatraz” and had proposed re-opening the actual Alcatraz. None of these things are practical long-term solutions for managing immigration. But they are colorfully cruel, cruel in a way that lends itself to publicity. And for precisely this reason, the policies may succeed at discouraging immigration–and discouraging immigration via threats of torture MAY BE a long-term remedy.
Or, to cite a slightly different rationale, these outrageous policies may succeed at attracting the attention of low-information voters. The outrageousness lends publicity to Trump’s efforts. Also, to the extent that a constituent feels aggreived by immigrants (or just by life in general), the constituent may take pleasure in the suffering of others.
Either way, these flamboyantly cruel policies may succeed in deterring immigrants, and/or in pleasing low-information constituent, to a degree that Biden’s sane policies never could. Most politicians would be too genteel to engage in explicit acts of cruelty, and too proud to act like a professional wrestling villian. Trump is not so constrained. And because cruelty may be effectatious, I cannot say that Trump is motivated by a preference for cruelty; he may merely be motivated by a preference for effective policies.
Jose Pablo
Sep 2 2025 at 8:33pm
If the policy itself is gratuitous, then any cruelty used to increase the efficiency of its enforcement is gratuitous as well. Cruelty does not become “functional” (as opposed to gratuitous) simply because it makes a gratuitous policy better enforced.
So, you seem to assume that the policy is not gratuitous, but you have offered no justification for that key assumption in your argument. On the contrary, we have to agree that a policy should be regarded as gratuitous if:
it demonizes the very same phenomenon that for centuries was celebrated as one of the greatest American strengths and a pillar of national identity;
the main claims used to justify it have been repeatedly disproven by evidence;
some of its justifications are transparently manufactured — or grossly exaggerated — for political theater.
nobody.really
Sep 3 2025 at 5:17am
Fair point. I am merely arguing that flamboyant cruelty may be a functional part of discouraging immigration–and thus, I cannot know that the people implementing this policy actually like cruelty or merely seek to implement the policy effectively.
In making that argument, I was not questioning the merits of adopting and enforcing restrictions on immigration. Bryan Caplan would argue that none of these restrictions make sense, and thus ALL of those efforts have no basis other than sadism. If you adopt Caplan’s view on immigration, then you may well be justified in adopting that conclusion.
Ironically, Mactoul raises the exact opposite objection: According to him, of course nations are justified in managing immigration, and of course nations will intentionally make life uncomfortable for those who sneak in. But Mactoul flinches at the idea of using the word “torture” to refer to this intentional infliction of discomfort.
Mactoul
Sep 4 2025 at 2:55am
Correct because torture is something weightier than discomfort. Exponentially weightier.
Mactoul
Sep 3 2025 at 2:23am
This is absurd to the highest degree. Perhaps you equate torture to something that might be disagreeable to somebody somewhere. And I speak from a country whose citizens are often desperate to leave and take desperate measures to enter any Western country that might be willing or not-so-willing to have them.
But I never either heard the term “torture” as applied to restrictions on our immigration, neither heard personally or read in newspaper etc. We realize that other countries are perfectly justified not to admit us in any number whatsoever.
Even the deportation flights earlier this year were received in a sporting manner and aroused no great outrage Yes, the desperate people were justified to enter America illegally but Americans were equally justified to expel them if caught.
nobody.really
Sep 3 2025 at 4:52am
Great. But we learn that merely adopting restrictions, and expelling the people we catch, is insufficient. To really get people to stop coming, we have to actively make the lives of those who DO come–the ones that haven’t been found yet–miserable. Only when the lives people experience in the industrialized nations become bad enough will people stop coming. The discomfort of undocumented aliens is not incidental; it’s part of the mechanism.
Of course, the challenge nations face is that many people are fleeing even more uncomfortable positions, and thus are willing to endure the discomfort of getting smuggled into a Western nation and living without documentation. Ergo Trump cranks up the discomfort by demonizing the immigrants. This helps make the lives of those who haven’t been caught even more fraught (and builds public acceptance for harsher treatment for those who do get caught).
Monte
Sep 3 2025 at 11:24am
Did you mean to broaden the target or create a stronger emotional reaction by intentionally leaving out the illegal or undocumented part? Donald Trump has consistently said he supports legal immigration and that his policies are aimed primarily at curbing illegal immigration.
Pierre Lemieux
Sep 3 2025 at 12:06pm
Monte: Er… your last sentence. Should we also believe the other things that Trump said? An example of one of the latest:
Should we believe that Haitians (who were legally in the US) were eating American pets, or that Kilmar Abrego Garcia had “MS13” tattooed on his knuckles as on the doctored photo that Trump showed during an interview? If I may quote him again:
nobody.really
Sep 3 2025 at 1:48pm
I struggle to imagine any accurate way to complete that sentence.
Jose Pablo
Sep 3 2025 at 4:34pm
The “illegal immigration” argument is a poor excuse that convinces only those already invested in the policy.
In reality, some of the highest-profile cases have targeted legal immigrants or else shifted previously legal or gray-area situations (asylum seekers, DACA recipients, TPS holders) into illegality. Anecdotal evidence also abounds of insults, dismissive comments, and threats directed at perfectly legal immigrants, coming from the very constituents for whom this policy is no doubt designed, pointing to the true “political instincts” behind the policy: hatred of the non-us.
No, the true objective of Trump’s anti-immigration policies is exactly what Nobody brilliantly described in one of his comments:
To the extent that a constituent feels aggrieved by immigrants (or simply by life itself), that constituent may take pleasure in the suffering of others.
Yes, human nature can be that grim. For many of those American voters whose greatest achievement in life is being American, any policy that adds value to that single “achievement” is a source of pleasure. They are feel-good policies
Monte
Sep 3 2025 at 11:01pm
Sorry for the delayed response, fellas (wanted to make sure no one else piled on before commenting).
Trump’s inanities and inconsistencies don’t negate the fact that illegal immigration (anathema to some, an unfortunate turn of phrase to others) remains a very real problem in this country. There’s a substantial body of factual and statistical evidence that supports this view and those opposed fail to take into account the practical challenges when arguing for full amnesty or open borders.
Further, a recent WSJ poll found that 62% of voters support Trump’s polices in dealing with illegal immigrants. To suggest that these voters “feel aggrieved by immigrants (or simply by life itself) and take pleasure in their suffering” (particularly when the same poll indicates these voters are opposed to Trump’s more aggressive policies of imprisonment or deporting them to countries of non-origin) is a bit too condescending for me to swallow.
nobody.really
Sep 4 2025 at 12:35am
To clarify, the quote is as follows:
Monte
Sep 4 2025 at 1:20am
So those who voted for Trump because of his immigration policies, or for whatever reason, were just too uninformed to know better? This seems to reveal more bias than insight.
nobody.really
Sep 4 2025 at 3:24am
Well … that’s not an entirely crazy hypothesis. As a first approximation, I’d guess that people who do ANYTHING are too uninformed to know better. For example, if you walked up all eleven flights to my office, I’d certainly entertain the hypothesis that you don’t know about the elevator. And if you took the elevator, I’d entertain the possiblity that you don’t know how to fly or teleport.
But back to the topic at hand: We’re discussing why Trump engages in flamboyantly cruel policies. I argue that he may value acting cruelly, or he may regard cruelty merely as a means to an end, or both. One possible end is to attract the attention of people who don’t otherwise pay attention to politics (a/k/a low-information voters). Another possible end is to please people who take pleasure in other’s people’s suffering.
I regard these statements as pretty much self-evidently true. To reject these statements, I’d have to conclude that it would be impossible for Trump to enjoy acting cruelly, and that it would be impossible for Trump to believe that flamboyant policies could attract the attention of low-information voters, and that it would be impossible for Trump to believe that some voter might take pleasure in other people’s suffering. I know of no reason to preclude any of these possiblities.
Specifically regarding the last possiblity: There’s been a lot of discussion about how working-class people–especially white male working-class people–feel lost and abandoned by the modern economy, and direct their frustrations at the urban white-collar “elites” in a desire to “own the Libs.” There’s also a wealth of psycological literature about how people who feel angry, aggrieved, humiliated, and frustrated for a long time can adopt a strategy of displaced aggression/scapegoating. As therapists say, “Hurt people hurt people.”
I would love to be able to say that you are justified in doubting all of this stuff, ‘cuz I’m super-creative and just made it all up tonight. Alas, I cannot make that claim; these ideas long pre-date me.
Now, is it also true that other people may have other reasons for supporting Trump, or supporting greater immigration restrictions, that have nothing to do with cruelty? Sure–just like it’s true that Taylor Swift got engaged. But neither of those things fall within the topic of this thread, so we haven’t been discussing them here.
Monte
Sep 4 2025 at 10:26am
Nobody,
As a first-order approximation, you assume too much. You allege without evidence that Trump is either driven by a desire to be cruel or by an intention to appeal to voters who enjoy cruelty, which is purely speculative. If these were his true motivations, we’d have to reject the null that he sincerely believes his policies serve the “best interests” (yet another unfortunate turn of phrase again) of the country, or that he views them as effective tools for achieving specific national goals, however controversial. Unless you can disprove these more charitable possibilities, imputing malice or emotional gratification from cruelty is an overreach.
In all fairness, if we were to scale these possibilities, I’d argue that your hypothesis is low to moderately probable and that we cannot reject the null. But that’s just my low-information opinion.
nobody.really
Sep 4 2025 at 1:33pm
Would you be so kind as to quote where I have alleged this?
Again, here’s the context: I argue that Trump has engaged in flamboyantly cruel policies. I want to know what explains that. As part of that process, I SPECULATE about (hypothesize) possible answers. So yes, what I have written has been SPECULATIVE; that’s the entire point of the discussion. If I have asserted that I reject this speculative exercise and instead claim to speak with certainty about Trump’s motives, that would pretty much render the rest of my discussion moot.
I disagree. Precisely because I do NOT know Trump’s motivations, I do NOT have to reject any plausible hypothesis.
Moreover, the hypothesis that Trump may not be acting out of gratuitous malice, but may instead by acting instrumentally—by, say, trying to scare would-be immigrants to stay away—has not been rejected; I’VE DISCUSSED IT EXPLICITLY. (E.g., “[M]any of Trump’s immigration policies seem gratuitously cruel. But arguably they are merely functionally cruel…. [These policies] are colorfully cruel, cruel in a way that lends itself to publicity. And for precisely this reason, the policies may succeed at discouraging immigration–and discouraging immigration via threats of torture MAY BE a long-term remedy.”)
I concur that I should not ignore plausible charitable hypotheses. But I also think I should not ignore plausible uncharitable hypotheses—tender sensibilities notwithstanding.
I concur that I cannot reject the hypothesis that Trump is acting without malice. But I’d argue that if alternative hypotheses are moderately probable, mere tender sensibilities should not cause me to ignore them.
When I want to acquire better-informed opinions, I start by reading materials before forming opinions about them. (In candor, I have read only excerpts from Better Angels of Our Nature and Sapien. But I did actually read the excerpts, honest!)
Monte
Sep 4 2025 at 4:56pm
Apologies. I should have said implied.
As do I, at the limit. But to help me understand more clearly where you stand, perhaps you can tell me which hypothetical you’re more inclined to believe?
Jose Pablo
Sep 3 2025 at 3:32pm
We realize that other countries are perfectly justified not to admit us in any number whatsoever.
But I don’t see how “countries” can be justified or not. AFAIK, a country is nothing more than a patch of color on a map. It’s hard to see how a patch of paper, no matter how brightly colored, can do anything at all, let alone be “justified” in doing it.
Perhaps what you mean is that the individuals who make up a government are perfectly justified not to …
Now that opens a much more meaningful discussion: when are government officials justified in taking a specific course of action? The obvious answer would be: when their actions follow the legal procedures established by the laws governing that patch of colour in a paper.
But that answer immediately opens a much deeper debate: is anything “legal” necessarily justified? If slavery is legal (and it was), does that make it justified? If the forced sterilization of the “feebleminded” or of poor Black citizens is legal (as it was under U.S. eugenics laws), does that make it justified? Was Justice Holmes justified in declaring, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough”, simply because he was an individual with the privilege of establishing what was “legal”? If discriminating against people because of their skin color (Black) or their religion (Judaism) is legal (and it was), does that make it justified?
Some people (like you) seem to believe that individuals in power have the right to do whatever they please, provided only that they follow something slightly resembling legality. That belief has given us some of the greatest atrocities in human history.
And yet, some people never seem to learn that the only real safeguard against cruelty and injustice lies not in the letter of the law, but in the moral conscience of individuals guided by universal principles of human dignity.
Mactoul
Sep 4 2025 at 12:05am
You have missed where I wrote desperate people are justified in immigrating however they can. Let them do their best and let the govts do what they can.
A country is not a patch in a map. The patch is the map of a country . A significant difference I hope. Similar to how marriage is not just a paper.
A country is a people and their land. Terminological quibbles prevent one from reading any politics or history book .They being very free with this kind of language,
Jose Pablo
Sep 4 2025 at 12:49pm
“a people and their land”
They don’t have an opinion. A people, whatever that means, has millions of opinions, often contradictory. And their land has no opinion at all.
They don’t take action. A people takes millions of actions every day, and their land takes none whatsoever.
They don’t expel immigrants. The land may swallow them in an earthquake, but apart from that… nothing.
And a marriage does nothing that the two (or more) individuals in it don’t do.
Organic conceptions like these prevent us from understanding history. Worse, they compel those who adopt them to support the most abject regimes, so long as those regimes claim to defend “the fatherland” and “the will of the people”, two non-existent fictions that every self-respecting tyrant professes to serve.
steve
Sep 3 2025 at 10:44am
The evidence that cruelty is effective is not that strong. At best it is a short term effect. Note that the most successful countries in the world do not routinely engage in cruelty. Countries without a history of excessive cruelty that have turned in that direction are generally going through a down period in their development. In particular, we know that torture is not very effective as a tool for gathering information but has some success in producing terror, but governments that rely upon terrorizing their citizens perform poorly economically to say nothing of being a crappy place to live.
Steve
nobody.really
Sep 3 2025 at 1:40pm
Fair point about efficacy. But my argument does not hang on the idea that cruel policies DO produce outcomes that a politician desires; it hangs on the idea that a politician might believe that they do.
Like you, I oppose cruelty in general and share the view that governments operating under optimal circumstances should eschew cruel policies. But is that a statement about optimal public policy, or just a statement about preferences? I might prefer driving on the right side of the road rather than the left, and even argue that the wealthiest nations have laws promoting driving on the right side of the road. But without a pretty strict study, that would still look a lot like a statement about my preferences rather than a statement about optimal public policy.
Moreover, recall that Trump (and his followers?) argues that the US is not operating under optimal circumstances, but rather is beseiged by countless “emergencies.” Thus Trump might share my views about the benefits of eschewing cruelty under optimal circumstances, but argue that the current state of emergency requires cruel policies.
steve
Sep 3 2025 at 2:17pm
I would say looking broadly at history governments that have not engaged in cruelty as policy have fared better than those that have. I think the perception that being cruel produces good results largely from fiction, usually from movies and TV, where torture always works and the boss that treats people poorly is the one that gets ahead. In reality, only occasionally do those strategies work and what research we have on the topic (Grant et al) shows that treating people well much more often leads to better results.
I agree that Trump and many others may believe being cruel will work, but then that is also mixed in with, I think, catering to their voters who seem to think that posturing is important. So it’s a good vote garnering tactic that’s near universal and eternal. Identify an out group, vilify them, then treat them badly. It wins you some elections but in those countries where that is used it doesnt usually bode well for that country.
Steve
Pierre Lemieux
Sep 3 2025 at 11:36am
Nobody: You write:
There seems to be a confusion there between utility function and production function, a distinction which is at the basis of standard price theory (and also Austrian theory) and thus the simple model of cruelty I proposed. The utility function of the consumer contains no means, it’s only about ends, that is, utility. Means are part of the production function of producers. Politicians, for example, may use cruelty as an input to produce political support. Of course, somebody can be both a producer and a consumer–when one builds a backyard shed (production) to increase the available space (a good that gives him utility) in his garage. A politician may produce political support to increase whatever gives him utility: wealth, recognition, his own taste for cruelty as a “consumer,” “the public interest,” or whatever. Yet, not distinguishing consumption (ends and utility) and production (means and cost) is a recipe for confusion.
nobody.really
Sep 3 2025 at 1:16pm
I’m trying to express an idea that I think arose from Gary Becker’s The Economics of Discrimination (1957): Some employers engage in undue discrimination because they have a taste for discrimination. Others discriminate because customers/stakeholders/legal authorities have a taste for discrimination, and the employer seeks to accomodate them. We may not be able to distinguish between the prejudiced discriminators (for whom the discrimination is an act of consumption) and the unprejudiced discriminators (for whom the discrimination is an act of investment/production) simply by observing their behavior. In short, discrimination does not imply prejudice.
(Likewise, some employers may refrain from undue discrimination because it’s costly and they don’t have a taste for it; others may indeed have a taste for undue discrimination, but refrain because their customers/stakeholders/legal authorities would object. Again, lack of undue discrimination does not imply lack of prejudice.)
By analogy, we may observe politicians behaving cruelly, but that doesn’t tell us about whether the politician actually favors cruelty or is merely engaging in cruelty as a means to an end. If we knew that the politician knew that cruelty would have NO consequence, or even a consequence adverse to the politician’s interest (hat tip to steve above), then we might conclude that the politician’s cruelty is an act of consumption rather than investment/production. But without knowing that, I don’t see how I could draw any further conclusions.
Pierre Lemieux
Sep 3 2025 at 10:31pm
Nobody: I understand better what you meant and you made some good points. My post simply provided some elements of a theory of cruelty by modeling some factors of its demand and its supply. My broad (and tentative) conclusion was that a cruel government does not necessarily need a large proportion or cruel people.
This comment of yours gave me an idea. If we know that supply and demand have the usual slopes (which is implicit in my model) and can define a price of cruelty, then we can say something about whether a change in the price of cruelty is due to an increase or decrease in supply or demand. For example, if we have observed in the United States an increase of cruelty and a decrease of its price, it follows that it comes from an increase in supply.
Mactoul
Sep 3 2025 at 2:39am
Enlightenment began with the promise to strangle the last king in the entrails of the last bishop. And none can say that the enlightened ones have been remiss in their work even if there are a few kings and bishops still standing shakily.
Stalin and Mao, worthy heirs of 1789, dispatched far more than the religious wars had ever done. Solzhenitsyn gives the number of capital punishments in the whole of Russia during the most extreme period of Stolypin repression and finds it deficient in comparison with a single day’s work during Stalinist repression. And with great deal of ingenuity too, in torture, real physical torture, not torture in denying somebody a visa.
Pierre Lemieux
Sep 3 2025 at 11:41am
Mactoul: It is useful to distinguish the Continental Enlightenment and the Scottish Enlightenment. But more important than this, one must distinguish two goals of the Enlightenment: popular sovereignty and individual rights–which, as Émile Faguet noted, are like fire and water.
Mactoul
Sep 4 2025 at 2:48am
Mises, I believe, called himself a man of 1789. Who is to say how much fraction of good Scottish Enlightenment in a person and how much bad Continental Enlightenment?
One leads to adoration of the State while the other leads to dissolution of the State itself, with takeover by others, not so committed to Enlightenment, as a possible, even probable, consequence.
Jose Pablo
Sep 4 2025 at 12:38pm
There’s a substantial body of factual and statistical evidence that supports this view
No, there isn’t. Could you please provide the references?
Immigration, whether legal or illegal, has been, and continues to be, a blessing to this country. The only “evidence” you can point to is the comfort it gives resentful voters who want someone to blame for they miseries.
Or do you mean the factual evidence that immigrants eat cats and dogs?
It’s not about evidence; it’s about giving certain voters a way to feel better about themselves, and restrictive immigration policies help them do so.
Jose Pablo
Sep 4 2025 at 12:57pm
A solid rebuttal to the so-called “arguments” against immigration (false ones, not factual):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5OSWEF29VY
And for the real issue — the ethical side of the debate. The whole legal/illegal framing is just a distraction, because when “legal” is unethical, it’s irrelevant:
https://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/papers/immigration.htm
Monte
Sep 4 2025 at 5:18pm
Public institutions, academic studies, and government data clearly document the scale and impact of illegal immigration:
In FY 2023, U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported 2.4 million encounters at the southern border — an all-time record.
Over 6 million total border encounters have occurred since 2021.
(Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP))
A 2023 study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers $150 billion per year after accounting for taxes paid.
While some economists dispute the exact number, there’s broad acknowledgment of significant costs at the state and local level, particularly in education, healthcare, and law enforcement.
(Source: FAIR Report (2023))
Cities like New York, Chicago, and Denver have declared states of emergency or sought federal aid due to the pressure placed on housing, shelter, healthcare, and schools by recent migrant arrivals.
(Source: Multiple news outlets, e.g., New York Times)
CBP reports that hundreds of individuals on the terrorist watchlist have been apprehended at the southern border in recent years.
Fentanyl and other drugs continue to be smuggled across, with record overdose deaths in the U.S.
(Source: CBP Drug Seizure Statistics)
Illegal immigration impacts low-skilled U.S. workers the most, increasing competition and potentially lowering wages.
Harvard economist George Borjas, a leading immigration scholar, has published extensively on the downward wage pressure for native-born workers without college degrees.
(Source: Borjas, We Wanted Workers (2016))
We all know how outrageous the claim about eating cats and dogs is, but using it in what is otherwise a reasonably intelligent discussion certainly adds color and dimension to your point. I really do appreciate your hyperbole, Jose! It can be quite entertaining.