THE ENEMY AT THE DOOR

For reasons not worth explaining I am the proud owner of 3 step ladders. At least I was until a few hours ago when this was reduced to 2. I am in the process of selling a house which is unoccupied but still has various possessions in (2 ladders among other things) and which includes the tv aerial which was on the roof until the chimney stack was demolished as unsafe. Not wishing to waste a good aerial I brought it home and rigged it up to work with my computer system to provide me with digital tv. Like all aerials it worked better at a height and so I found myself contriving more and more Heath Robinson ways of taking it up ever higher. The latest of these was the step ladder. I returned triumphant to the house to find I had a perfect picture on all channels - even Five and the History Channel. Come bedtime I decided to leave my contraption out overnight arguing to myself that I am situated on a crossroad and surrounded by houses. Also the ladder was behind the car and right by the front door. Most importantly, the gambler's rule, I could afford to lose it (because I had 2 more). You will not be surprised to learn that overnight the ladder went and the aerial was unceremoniously sitting on the ground when I investigated this morning. Bah!

Of all the urban myths in existence this has to be the biggest. We all go through life believing that most people are honest. The truth is that most people are thieves. Even the 'decent' ones. Even the ones who would do you a favour or help you out and not expect anything back for it.

Part of this urban myth of honesty contains reference to the 'golden age' when no one had to lock their doors because nothing would be taken. I heard a very interesting lecture by a man who had just written a book on this subject some years ago. It turns out that the various 'golden ages' were always your own childhood and it was impossible to locate one of them in history. At the time this book was written there was a lot of concern about football hooligans (the eighties) and the perceived 'golden age' was the 1930s. In truth, the violence in football, and in society in general, during that period was far more severe than it was in the 1980s. It was quite normal to have pitched battles among opposing fans. Nevertheless, the theory of moral degeneration received much coverage. Again, untrue. The evidence for the open house 'golden age' was similarly startling. In the first place it simply did not occur where there was any kind of mobility of the population or any quantity. In small towns and neighbourhoods that did not generally see strangers it is true that people did not perceive the need to lock their doors. As it happens these same people had no possessions of any value so there really was nothing to steal.

What then is the main cause of theft in society. The answer is glaringly simple. It is opportunity. Most people who saw something unattended which they wanted would steal it if they thought they could get away with it. The myth is that we are honest. Yet almost any conversation with your fellow will reveal at least some element of dishonesty. How many people believe (yes believe) that it is OK to fiddle the tax man. Yet this is directly stealing money which belongs to all of us. If we had an actual pot into which we all threw money according to some agreed principles and someone came along and helped themselves to it we would not be very happy. Yet that is what the tax thief does. When it comes to communal honesty what could be more central than that.

My view is that one of the most important activities of our age is that of security. Sad though it is we have to treat our fellows as potential thieves and act and plan accordingly. I like to think that people are not that different from animals, which, after all, is what we are. If you left your dog in the kitchen where you had prepared a huge meal would you expect to find everything untouched when you returned? I think not. The dog would see the food, want it and have it. Leaving aside morality, and I really think we should leave aside morality, the only difference between the dog and the human is that the dog would not worry about getting caught. yet do we believe the dog is evil or a psychopath. Not at all we just accept that dogs are like that and have to be supervised. You cannot expect too much of them. Some humans, I believe, are exactly like dogs. Others, most, will only steal if they think they will get away with it.

My conclusion is that security is not an optional extra in life. Everything we do must be done on a worse case scenario. Assume someone is out to get you and mess up what you are doing. Or at best that they are just feckless and reckless with regard to your welfare. Assume also that they are quite willing to wag their tail at you and lick you. The world of Victorian decency and scoundrels does not fit the modern world. I hesitate to say that we live in a dog eat dog world because dogs don't eat other dogs but if you stretch the metaphors enough you can certainly see the point. Probably a fuller analysis would reveal that ownership is part of a capitalist belief system and theft has to be seen against this backcloth whereas human relationships is about attachment behaviour. I shall muse on this distinction a little more before writing about it. What intrigues me is that both come together in the concept of democracy, that sacred word that no one is allowed to attack, but I am wondering if democracy has to be a part of capitalism or, indeed, if it has any real meaning at all.

Pierre