By way of background, note how the sufficient reason of our constitution is to safeguard our pursuit of happiness. This pursuit is an individual matter (or at least not governmental), and for good reason(s) -- one reason being that the government could not possibly define the common good except vis-a-vis its enumerated powers, e.g., law enforcement, justice (the legal kind), and military defense.
But to otherwise pretend to know what's good for us -- well, that is quintessentially Fatal Conceit territory. Besides, if you ask the state to define the common good, it will always and everywhere do so in a way that is good for the state.
It's just like the market. All of its millions of transactions occur because a person on one end wants the item or service more than the money it costs, while the person on the other end wants the money more than the item or service. In short, they have to agree, and this agreement yields a subjective sense of satisfaction.
Imagine some governmental entity presuming to understand those millions upon millions of experiences of satisfaction. Madness! If anyone is "satisfied" with ObamaCare, it is pure coincidence, because it specifically abolishes the nexus of satisfaction. You can be resigned to it, but not satisfied in the true sense.
It is as impossible to define the common good "as it is to define the 'essence' of the human person." In short, no one can do it but the person in question. Unless he is a child -- which is precisely why the left necessarily treats us as schoolchildren who are never permitted to graduate.
Here "we are able to identify once again an essential element of totalitarian regimes." That is, "the political powers claim the right to define in complete detail the specifics of the [common good]."
Remember the good old days when a liberal was just someone who wanted to reach into your shower and adjust the temperature? Now he's someone who wants to reach into your pants and adjust your biology.
"What is so ruinous here is the fact that the 'plan' becomes the exclusive standard that dictates not only the production of material goods but equally the pursuits of universities, the creations of artists, even the leisure activities of the individual -- so that anything not totally conforming to the standard is suppressed as... 'undesirable.'"
Amazingly, these liberal drones submit "voluntarily," or at least with no resistance, via the instinct to conform backed by the soft tyranny of political correctness.
It requires courage to stand up to the tyranny; in fact, "Courage is a testimony to the existence and power of evil in the world."
In short, "because justice and goodness do not automatically prevail on their own," courage is required to bring them about. "It is a liberal illusion to assume that you can consistently act justly without ever incurring risks" -- which reminds us of the old gag about liberals always dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good -- which is to say, courageous.
"To be courageous means: to oppose injustice in the face of overwhelming external power and to accept willingly any resulting disadvantage, be it only public ridicule or social isolation."
What is a bad man but a good man's teacher? And what is political correctness but the coward's inadvertant lesson in courage?
If a pornographic novel is advertised as 'risqué,' then in truth nothing at all is being risked. It would be much more risqué to declare publicly that chastity is part of what makes a person whole; this would be much more dangerous. --Josef Pieper
42 comments:
Yes, just so. Those who claimed to be on the side of "speaking truth to power" have been the precise opposite; they are the power attempting to dictate the truth. They would "transform" stones into bread, and make us eat the mudpie that results.
Or as Ace says,
It's time to rattle ten million sabers and begin destroying rotten institutions one by one. Make them fear us.
Brave men and women do not continue along in their passive acceptance of a meritless enterprise. Brave men and women resign.
Speaking of sociopaths (since nobody else will):
http://www.sociopathworld.com/2009/01/are-libertarians-sociopaths-or-vice.html
The author (self-outed sociopath Jamie Lund) did ask questions along the lines of which political persuasion do sociopaths prefer. For me the answer to this seems obvious. They prefer the politics which gives them the most personal power for the least effort. Stalin (basically a bank robber by trade), scored big with his ‘politics’ and wound up owning (stealing) the entire USSR. In America it’s more prudent to fake up the resume and work on Wall Street. Even former most powerful American Clinton grayed up quickly and his speaking fee salary post-POTUS is a pittance by potential comparison.
All I know, based on personal experience, is that you don't want these people in power over you anytime, anywhere.
A free market is far from “best and brightest” efficient. But I’d (at least try to) include, on the list of government-defined common goods, some ways to limit the worst of the cheats and tricks which ruin things just enough, to send people running straight into the clutches of the likes of Barry, Hillary, and the Donald, since their education and our warning appears to have limited effect on most of the masses.
it will always and everywhere do so in a way that is good for the state
Funny how that works.
RE rattling sabers -- every parent with a lick of sense needs to pull their kids out of public schools. Another cool protest would be if a planeload of passengers refused to bow the TSA.
We are going to be traveling west this summer. The long way. No TSA for us, and it may end up being cheaper than flying.
Perhaps road trips will be making a comeback.
It's the culture said "...A free market is far from “best and brightest” efficient. But I’d (at least try to) include, on the list of government-defined common goods, some ways to limit the worst of the cheats and tricks which ruin things just enough, to send people running straight into ..."
There's an excellent way to 'limit the worst cheats', it's called The Rule of Law. You know, that system whereby Govt's that derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, enforce laws whose purpose is limited to upholding and defending the individual rights and property of its people.
Unfortunately, 'the people' tend to run into the arms of people promising to 'fix' their Free Markets, by making them 'more fair' by infringing upon the individual rights and property of 'the wealthy'... and thereby violate and discard the Principle of Individual Rights and Property of all of the people... leaving them with a culture that sends people running straight into the clutches of the likes of Barry, Hillary, and the Donald.
Funny how that works.
Sayyy... maybe there's something more involved than just 'the culture'?
Nyahhh!
"
It requires courage to stand up to the tyranny; in fact, "Courage is a testimony to the existence and power of evil in the world."
In short, "because justice and goodness do not automatically prevail on their own," courage is required to bring them about. "It is a liberal illusion to assume that you can consistently act justly without ever incurring risks" -- which reminds us of the old gag about liberals always dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good -- which is to say, courageous.
"To be courageous means: to oppose injustice in the face of overwhelming external power and to accept willingly any resulting disadvantage, be it only public ridicule or social isolation."
Amen!
"Besides, if you ask the state to define the common good, it will always and everywhere do so in a way that is good for the State."
And what is "good" for the State is bad for everyone except for the tyrannical doogooders.
Van, I disagree that today, the people are running into the arms of political hucksters out of envy. That was yesterday. They’re doing so today because Rule of Law itself is broken. When the political hucksters fail to deliver on anything they’d promised, cynicism then so infects the culture that the people then see Rule of Law as at best, a guideline.
In such an self-perpetuating environment, sociopathy thrives.
Am I "really a good person" if I lack courage?
I'm afraid to say.
Courage requires wisdom. A cunning sociopath will squash you like a bug, if there’s nobody else in that environment to back your integrity. You'll come away feeling righteous, but if the sociopath is skilled enough (and they often are) your courageousness will have been displayed as folly for everybody else to see.
It's the culture said "Van, I disagree that today..."
I disagree that our problems today, began today. They began many yesterdays ago, starting with errors of philosophers like Descartes & Hume, deepened by misosophers such Rousseau and Bentham, which were then picked up in the culture with eager stupidities about making things 'more fair' than can be had from a proper Rule of Law.
The Culture, popular culture anyway, is an effect, not a cause.
You’re saying sociopathy is an effect? You’re saying that the disconnect between Goldstein’s April rant (http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=58377) and the current Trump cheerleading at places like GatewayPundit, can be explained by liberal influences? You're saying that voters cannot be educated until the current Rule of Law changes?
It's the culture said "You’re saying sociopathy is an ef..."
I've no idea where you're getting what you're saying that I'm saying; could you maybe stick to what I'm actually saying?
I'm certainly not saying what pathologies are, and I'm not saying whatever it is that you're saying is the contrast between what two other people have been saying about Trump (if for some reason you'd like more detail in what I actually have said on the issues around Trump, you can find that here).
As for explaining "..the current Trump cheerleading at places like GatewayPundit, can be explained by liberal influences?..." I know Jim Hoft (Gateway Pundit), and although I completely disagree with him on Trump, and wish he'd turn down the volume in how he's characterized other mutual friends who disagree with him on Trump, I can say that he's neither a sociopath, nor has he suddenly taken on 'liberal influences' (THAT is hilarious), he simply has an entirely different take on the matter. That happens. And huge dissagreements are not better explained away by diagnosis or insults (again, see my post).
What I am saying here, is that ideas, when poorly understood, or corrupted, or both, cause deep problems in the individuals who make up society, which are then more and more reflected in the culture and the laws of it. I've also said, extensively, that the validity of the Rule of Law is dependent upon whether those laws are lawful (in a manner that reflects basics of logic and Natural Law), and simply hashing together a slew of rules and calling them 'Law', neither makes them Law, nor does it do anything more than ape the Rule of Law.
"You're saying that voters cannot be educated until the current Rule of Law changes?" Wow. Lol, I wonder how many of the regulars here saw that and cringed over the book length rant to follow? :-) Luckily this teensie phone makes even what's here so far, exceedingly difficult to do. But to cut it short, the Rule of Law will Not return to what it should be, until After We The People are once again Educated to understand what it Should be, and all that it relies upon. NO politician is going to bring true change about, until we've changed ourselves first. And when That happens, politicians as they are, will be a thing of the past. Hopefully before we are.
Van, we are not on the same page. I blame these dangblasted tiny phones. Let me try again with responses to each of your paragraphs, now that I'm at a real keyboard.
Van: “I've no idea where you're getting what you're saying that I'm saying; could you maybe stick to what I'm actually saying?”
I’ll now address your responses paragraph by paragraph.
Van: “There's an excellent way to 'limit the worst cheats', it's called The Rule of Law...”
Agree completely.
Van: “Unfortunately, 'the people' tend to run into the arms of people promising to 'fix' their Free Markets...”
Agree, with one reservation. I am not jealous of sociopaths. This is the one type of human being, of any kind, who I wish different rights for.
Van: “I disagree that our problems today, began today....”
Agreed. But could we let go of the fairness thing already. I’m fully aware that humans are each gifted differently, and that society functions best when individuals are given the freedom to try and be their best. And of course, property rights. With one reservation - sociopaths.
Van: “The Culture, popular culture anyway, is an effect, not a cause.”
Agreed. With the one exception of fallout from unrestricted sociopathic behaviors.
Van: “I'm certainly not saying what pathologies are...”
I shall check out your Trump post.
Van: “As for explaining "..the current Trump cheerleading at places like GatewayPundit...”
I highly doubt that Hoft is sociopathic. Trump? - a possibility but I don’t know him well enough.
Van: “What I am saying here, is that ideas, when poorly understood, or corrupted, or both, cause deep problems in the individuals who make up society...”
Agreed, and well said.
Van: “Wow. Lol, I wonder how many of the regulars here saw that and cringed over the book length rant to follow? :-)”
My sarcasm was poorly presented. My bad. Please don't waste your time on a book I'm already well familiar with. Otherwise agreed, with one reservation regarding sociopaths.
Van: “NO politician is going to bring true change about, until we've changed ourselves first. And when That happens, politicians as they are, will be a thing of the past. Hopefully before we are.”
Outstanding comment. And now we’re on the same page. With the exception of... I think you’ve got my point by now.
It's the culture said "... sociopaths... sociopaths... sociopaths... sociopaths..."
Ok, I'll bite, what's with the fixation on sociopaths? And why do you think they, or libertarians(one of the last people I'd ever entrust our Liberty to), have any tie in to this post, or here?
This is the one topic I'm compelled to try and tie into any post.
It’s a dilemma I have. The one missing piece in the liberty puzzle.
I get out a lot. I’ve had to meet, greet, do business with... many people. Everybody’s different. Everybody’s got something different. But most people are reasonably cool - in an agreeable all for a civil society sense. The tiny minority of really foul creatures, I’d thought had bad parenting, background, were anti-Christian... something in their history which could be remedied. But after having my life ruined by one, then seeing them do it to others, then doing a fair amount of study, I learned they’re born this way, and that this thing cannot be fixed. Whether they ruin ones life or kill millions... is irrelevant to them as long as they get to enjoy the ruining, and get away with it. And they do love it, which is why the socialized ones are so good at it. I believe the tiny percentage of 1-2% high functioning causes at least half of all the grief in modern society. And with population and technology exploding, this number will increase correspondingly.
The dilemma is that since this is the one type of personality which I believe cannot fit into a free civil society, how should they be a part of it? Can Rule of Law help us here?
As a result of your comments I had a sorta-epiphany that if (theoretically) they could be dealt with somehow, eliminated (theoretically, I’m not actually espousing such a thing), while it wouldn’t be heaven on earth, what you said about politicians being a thing of the past before we are, could actually happen.
It's the culture said "This is the one topic I'm compelled to try and tie into any post."
Feeling compelled to tie in a topic that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, does sound like a compulsion, which is generally not a good thing, and probably makes up a good chunk of the folks that get to see Gagdad professionally. Might want to think on that.
" I learned they’re born this way, and that this thing cannot be fixed" People are not predestined or 'born that way', but that's not what bothers me most about that. What bothers me most, is the notion that people are something to be 'fixed' or discarded on being determined that they can't be fixed. Such lazy thinking and easy answers is the common path of pro-regressive notions such as socialism, eugenics, etc., and what you in particular should find most disturbing, is that it's built to order for sociopaths. Might want to think on that one too.
"... what you said about politicians being a thing of the past..." That sounds like an example of a dangerous simplification of what I said, and I can just imagine the easy answers it's leading to. A vital part of what I was saying, was that when We The People understand the requirements of a true Rule of Law - a people who educate themselves to become a moral, virtuous, self governing people, ready, willing and able to live in society with others, understanding the meaning of individual rights and the purpose of governing by compatible laws - when that happens, then the sort of shallow political manipulators that are elected to office today, will be a thing of the past. Not by being eliminated, but by the disappearance of those conditions that presently give rise to them.
There are no easy answers. There are simple ones though, and a people who understand what is right and wrong, who understand that the individual rights which apply to themselves, apply to everyone else to, who respect justice, those people can enjoy a Rule of Law in civil society, and a people who govern themselves by such laws, are poor prospects for 'sociopaths' to flourish among.
Is that you, Dexter?
Van: “Feeling compelled to tie in a topic that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, does sound like a compulsion, which is generally not a good thing, and probably makes up a good chunk of the folks that get to see Gagdad professionally. Might want to think on that.”
Especially since I’d never been that way before. Problem is, I already did (a different “Bob”). No disrespect to Bob, but IMO he’s working a primitive science with too much subjectivity in the knowledge base. And... before my experience I would have commented exactly as you just did. It changes one that much.
Van: “People are not predestined or 'born that way', but that's not what bothers me most about that.”
Completely disagree, based on personal experience and research. And I know many people who thought exactly that way, before their own experiencem myself included.
Van: “What bothers me most, is the notion that people are something to be 'fixed' or discarded on being determined that they can't be fixed. Such lazy thinking and easy answers is the common path of pro-regressive notions such as socialism, eugenics, etc., and what you in particular should find most disturbing, is that it's built to order for sociopaths. Might want to think on that one too.”
Already have. Sociopaths will use every possible power structure that suits them, extreme statism being the most dangerous. Something for you to think about:
A friend of mine is a retired financial planner. In his youth he was bullied out of his job as economist, but turned that lemon into lemonade with his own successful business. He caught the early software booms at the right time and did quite well for himself. But this isn’t my story.
He told me of a ruined high ranking technical expert who came to him, who had been ruined after being targeted as a scapegoat by a certain well-known national politican who was close to Reagan (Ronald definitely not a sociopath, just an unwitting friend, was probably used in other ways by that politician). That experts entire sin had been that he had been selected to be The Target. Once ruined, he found employment cross country, but the politician found him (with his Big Government power) and had him fired from that one as well. That politician was trying to cover up (deflect, mitigate...) his prime involvement in one of the largest governmental boondoggles in my state’s history, which cost much for many. My take, is that he died with only his silenced victims knowing what he really was. My opinion, is that he also played a role in neocon conservatism moving towards dangerous statism. The Echelon Project (and/or what it’s becoming, according to an NSA source I have in confidence) is a classic example. On the surface it’s viewed as being required for national defense, but in the wrong hands, quite dangerous.
I don’t advocate any eugenics solution, yet. What I need is to be persuaded by actual victims of sociopathy, of other solutions.
Van: “That sounds like an example of a dangerous simplification of what I said...”
The simplification is that there could be a time when elected officials aren’t much more than managers of enforcement and compliance to Rule of Law, and that voting them in or out be primarily dependent on the metrics regarding such.
Sociopaths despise (actual, honest, real) metrics.
It's the cultcure said "Completely disagree...."
Seeing as people are just born that way, you obviously can't actually be convinced of anything either, or actually argue or think, nor can you expect the same from anyone else... so... this is all kinda pointless, right? Ascribing to any of the variations on determinism, disqualifies you from being able to claim to think as well, so I'm seeing no reason to continue this. Must not have been meant to be.
So I disagree with you, then you cut off communication and blame me?
That is called projection.
BTW, the overwhelming percentage of the population is not sociopathic. They can usually be educated and reasoned with, give or take. It is only at that very genetic extreme where this is, so far, very difficult or not possible.
M. Scott Peck was a respected Christian psychologist who expressed his thoughts about sociopaths in his "Children of the Lie". He's more hopeful about curing them than I am. A good place for the non-determinist to start.
*corrections:
psychiatrist, "People of the Lie"
Read it, figure out how to fit these people into civil society, be a hero to many.
“Is that you, Dexter?”
Don’t I wish. Would’ve come in handy. Sadly, I have a conscience. Successful sociopaths rarely ever reveal weakness or uncertainty, since many normals believe perfect appearances = trustworthy uberman. M. Scott Peck learned that one the hard way. Late in life he admitted to not being perfect (as are all normals), and got hammered for it. For many normals casting stones is a mental defense. Sociopaths don’t have mental defenses. They know full well what they’re doing and are good at getting normals to do the stone casting for them.
it's the cultcure said "So I disagree with you, then you cut off communication and blame me? That is called projection."
No, it's called experience. Long experience has taught me that one or more of the following points will very likely apply in further discussions of this topic with you,
1) Those who affirm one form or another of predestination, or that people are 'born that way', tend to show themselves as being advocates of determinism and (implicitly or explicitly) deny Free Will altogether, which in itself makes further discussion pointless (a realization I've had after numerous extended debates on this site alone), but on top of that, as you likely do so not as a primary, but as a side issue to your central compulsion, makes further discussion of it highly uninteresting to me.
or,
2) Your comment that "It is only at that very genetic extreme where this is, so far, very difficult or not possible" gives the impression that a person's personality and moral judgment can be determined genetically, like color-blindness, which is not only something that I deeply disagree with, but it too tends towards determinism by another name. See previous point.
or,
3) You've been trying to legitimize your points by argument from the authority of "M. Scott Peck was a respected Christian psychologist". Unfortunately, as he's a fellow who's mostly unknown to me, he has little currency with me - the offer of paper money with no known gold reserves behind it. On top of that, he suffers from repeated association with the likes of Deepak Chopra and the esteem of Opra Winfrey, which leads me to suspect that he has more to offer along the lines of depacking the chopra, than with imparting truth and wisdom. I could be wrong, but I've little interest in finding out, as there are not only many more fish in the sea, but with fish the likes of Josef Pieper, Aquinas, Aristotle, etc., my plate is already plenty full and tasty.
or,
4) Your compulsive interest in Sociopaths, is of little or no interest to me. I'm interested in Philosophy not pathologies.
Any one or combination of these points makes the discussion itself of little interest for me in continuing. Maybe another topic might be worth pursuing, but not this one.
That's not projection, that's simply an experienced judgment call.
It’s not all about you. All most average, typical people really care about, is the hope for a better future for themselves and their families. Any philosophy without regard for what is by far, the most culturally influential pathology, is blind. Any philosophy which cannot indelibly influence the masses might as well be dead. I didn’t write the rules.
Case in point:
“...a people who understand what is right and wrong, who understand that the individual rights which apply to themselves, apply to everyone else to, who respect justice, those people can enjoy a Rule of Law in civil society, and a people who govern themselves by such laws, are poor prospects for 'sociopaths' to flourish among.”
Sounds fantastic. In theory, highly tenable. But it is far from current reality. I have witnessed single sociopaths taking over entire office cultures, which were populated by mostly fellow Christian conservatives, who were far too unwittingly and easily influenced by lies geared towards eliminating best and brightest competition to the sociopath. In those environments culture easily trumped Rule of Law.
But since you’re not experienced, have never been experienced, in this way, what do you care? Fine. Then explain the mess that is the Middle East without discussing any sociopathic influences.
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
There are no Communists anymore. At least I have never met one. There is Davila-nism.
#2,987 Concerning himself intensely with his neighbor’s condition allows the Christian to dissimulate to himself his doubts about the divinity of Christ and the existence of God. Charity can be the most subtle form of apostasy.
Ignore the word of God:
https://www.openbible.info/topics/charity
Sarcasm aside, some of Davila does makes sense to me. But some does not. Such is human nature. the word of God always makes sense to me.
it's the cultcure said "It’s not all about you"
Words you'd do well to take to heart.
The alternative to a proper Rule of Law, is the rule of some men whose Will are given power over all men. If you don't think that's tailor made for your sociopaths, you're an even bigger kook than you sound.
Begone.
I said "Begone"
Actually I swyped(motion typed) "Enough", and somehow it got 'corrected' to begone... how, I'm puzzled over, but hey, when the eCoonosphere intervenes, sometimes you just go with it.
"The alternative to a proper Rule of Law, is the rule of some men whose Will are given power over all men."
You think? Maybe you should tell your buddy Hoft that. BTW, I read your blog post. Have any luck persuading these “kooks”?
Trump is a pathological narcissistic psychopath:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/30/2903448/
“Unequivocally, I am not supporting Donald Trump. I think he’s a sociopath.”
-Gordon Humphrey
“No, I think I know exactly who I’m getting. I think I’m getting a sociopathic maniac. And not only do I feel like that’s who I’m getting, I think that if Donald Trump was president we have four years of him defining conservatism.”
-Ben Stowe
“a political sociopath.”
-George Will
Oh no wait. No comments. Again.
Someone's compulsion is sounding just a wee bit sociopathic.
Just sayin'
You don't even know what the word means. Maybe Aristotle will tell you. Written just for just sayin' all-talkers like you:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435195/donald-trump-won-because-many-republicans-arent-conservative
A few more for the list. I'll be sure to email them your eleventy billion page nonsensical scotch-addled post.
"The sociopathic part of him, I think, believes himself. he says these lies and he also believes them"
“a sociopathic madman”
-Ben Howe
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/04/03/donald-trump-isnt-just-pro-choice-hes-also-sociopath/
http://reason.com/archives/2016/02/25/donald-trumps-orgy-of-irresponsibility
Whoops, Libertarians. Incapable of reason. My bad.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433296/donald-trump-stupid-psychopath-ignorance-policy-complex-problems
Everybody else saw this one coming at my first comment. And who got fished in?
it's the cultcure said "Everybody else saw this one coming at my first comment. And who got fished in?"
HA!!! You definitely got that one right. Ta.
ITC, just because we aren't arguing with you, that doesn't mean we agree with you.
Nope, this isn't a debating kind of place. Not like it used to be anyways. More a church with some variation of "Amen." being the expected comment. Somebody shouting out "the pope is a psychopath!" during the service, whether true or not, means the designated elder will try and escort you out the door.
I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument or did you pay for the full half hour?
I'm on Van's tab. Err... donation basket?
Today, yesterday... Quite a contrast.
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2006/04/noble-raccoons-trousered-baboons-and.html
Does everything everywhere, despite best vertical intentions, have to eventually degrade (and diminish) into trivial battles for control of the horizontal?
Post a Comment