By John Hunt, MD
All who read Lovefraud.com know that sociopaths lie, cheat and steal, manipulate, control, defraud. Sociopaths seek out positions of power over others. The low functioning sociopath does this on a small scale—just ruining the life of an unsuspecting spouse, perhaps. The high functioning sociopath does this on a much grander scale, perhaps through the political system—ruining a country.
Sociopaths seek power. What better way to accomplish this than through politics? Think how much politicians have to lie to get elected. It is hard for a good person to get elected, in part because they don’t lie well. Sociopaths lie with practiced ease and no guilt. They concentrate themselves in government, quite naturally.
Ever wonder why government messes up so much? Why Congress is despised? Why presidents so often lie and mislead, strive for control over others, and somehow get away with it? Ever wonder why the government is so internally contradictory, so confusing, so incomprehensible, and yet somehow retains its total power over the people? Ever wonder why the largest debtor in the history of the world—the US government—which is an utterly bankrupt entity, somehow convinces people to loan it large sums of money, and the people accept loan repayment in the form of counterfeit currency printed out of thin air by the Federal Reserve? Do you see how sociopathic the government has become? A walking lie, a talking contradiction?
It is because the government is filled to the brims with sociopaths.
Force against fellow man
Politicians and bureaucrats have reserved for themselves the legal right to initiate force against their fellow man. Think about that for a moment. Anyone else who initiates force commits a crime, but not government! They are special! Moral law doesn’t apply to them! Sound familiar?
It doesn’t matter which party is in charge. Most recently they have compelled us to purchase really crappy and expensive financial products from their large corporate buddies (e.g., health insurance). But consider also the bipartisan support for forcible military conscription in the past, unconstitutional/illegal taxation and fees, the protection racket of the IRS, the spying and monitoring by the NSA, mandates for prescriptions for medications sold over-the-counter everywhere else in the world (the effect of which is to keep prices high for the profit of big pharma).
And fraud too. Consider the largest fraud in human history—the Federal Reserve—which creates money without work and doles it out to its morally bankrupt friends. Consider the ponzi schemes of Social Security and Medicare; and the totally illegal accounting methods of the federal government which artificially lower the government’s debt from $90 trillion to “only” $18 trillion, the justifications for which are so willingly accepted by a population in denial of obvious truths. The government is a giant con artist. A giant sociopathic monster. It’s all about control and manipulation. And they systematically gaslight us like crazy starting from kindergarten, to try to make us accept all this blatant criminality as appropriate!
No one knows what percentage of politicians and bureaucrats are sociopaths, but there is assuredly a high concentration of them in that realm. There are two reasons for this: 1) the sociopath’s skill set is perfect for politics and bureaucracy; 2) a position of legal unrestrained power over other humans is simply too intriguing for a high-functioning sociopath to let pass by.
The opposite: Libertarian
The political opposite, and social opposite, of the sociopath is the libertarian. A libertarian ascribes avidly, completely and thoroughly to the Nonaggression Principle. The Nonaggression Principle states that never, NEVER is it acceptable to initiate force or fraud against another human being. Wow. To a libertarian, no end ever justifies the use of an immoral means.
Now, this doesn’t make a libertarian a wimp. If someone attacks a libertarian without provocation, the libertarian wouldn’t hesitate to pop the dude in the face. But the libertarian wouldn’t attack, unless attacked first. The libertarian won’t lie, cheat, steal or defraud, excepting to take back something stolen. The libertarian will not initiate. But the libertarian will defend.
In a world in which cronyism is so dominant, it is easier to be successful by lying, cheating and stealing, or by rent seeking (convincing a politician to give you someone else’s money or property). Libertarians cannot do these things. They are incapable of doing them. How refreshing is that? Libertarians strive for a political system which allows their honesty to be rewarded instead of punished. We are a long way from that society.
Each of us has suffered from the actions of the sociopaths in our lives. Yet we are also the confused and willing victims of the sociopaths in government. We remain in denial about these controllers, manipulators, liars and cheaters. We give them unearned authority and unearned credibility because we are taught to believe that they have the right to tell us what to do. We stick their names on our bumper stickers. We send them money. We vote for them. What are we thinking?
My recommendation? If you want the opposite of the sociopath to be your partner, seek out a libertarian. If you want the opposite of a sociopath to be your representative in congress, to be your senator, or to be your president, seek out a libertarian.
Libertarians and sociopaths
Libertarians are likely to trust any individual who claims to be a libertarian or is a Ron Paul supporter. This is because libertarians abide by a personal code that makes them, by definition, principled and honorable people. However, libertarians are human. They have no greater education about sociopaths than anyone else. They can be faked out by sociopaths too, although usually not for long. Because sociopaths are such effective liars, you of course need to beware that they can put on the act of being a libertarian, the same way that sociopaths often pretend to be Christian—to take advantage of people’s desires to trust others. Indeed, sociopaths can infiltrate any philosophy. But the libertarian doctrine stands so adamantly in contrast to the sociopath’s hardwired and distorted brain, that the sociopath cannot hold to a fake libertarian act for long. Sociopathy used to be called “moral insanity”, and maybe it should be called that again. True libertarians are the opposite: they are morally rational.
To a libertarian, there is nothing more dangerous than lying to oneself. Sociopaths absolutely rely on the ability of their victims to lie to themselves. Libertarianism therefore is a vaccination against the infection and the cancer of the sociopath.
Just in case you have some false impression of libertarians, they are not on the fringe of society, although they are on the fringe of politics! They can be found in the Democratic or the Republican party (always as reformers), or as members of other political parties, or most commonly not as part of any political party. Libertarians are most aptly described as Americans of the style we usually consider the country’s founding fathers to be, except that they are also exceedingly tolerant.
Characteristics of a Libertarian
As a quick introduction to your study of what a libertarian is, here is my list of characteristics. Libertarians are above all individuals, but most all ascribe to these concepts.
- They don’t initiate force or fraud against their fellow man. They are principled.
- They are tolerant people. Tolerant of anything other than force or fraud.
- They don’t use government power to commit force or fraud to benefit themselves or others.
- They don’t use propaganda or gaslighting to manipulate the people.
- They don’t vote for politicians who want to use government power to commit force or fraud, or to compel people to behave a certain way, or to compel people to buy certain products. They only support politicians who recognize the only job of government is to protect people from the force and fraud of others. To a libertarian, neither democracy nor the voting booth should be considered or used as means of compulsion.
- Libertarians favor a strong defense, but don’t attack unless threatened.
- Libertarians are commonly described as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal”. Libertarians do not oppose gay marriage. The don’t believe that victimless crimes are crimes. They think marijuana should be legal. They do not think that anyone’s money should be stolen from them and given to another through the tax code. They don’t believe that forced giving is either charitable or moral, but rather “forced giving” is just a form of theft. They never support bailing out Wall Street, nor giving power to one group over another. They don’t ever lend government power to special interests (Special interests are the opposite of the “general welfare” of the Constitution). Libertarians think that government is supposed to work for the people, not people work for government. They are opposed to the NSA spying on American citizens. Libertarians like immigrants. They think that America is not a geographically imprisoned nation-state, but rather a philosophy that can be found all over the world. Libertarians want to put a wall around the welfare state, not a wall around the country. Many libertarians are highly charitable. Many libertarians righteously fight against anyone who uses force against them or defrauds them.
- Libertarians are thoughtful people who above all respect the dignity and freedom of the individual to live as each individual chooses.
- Because of the moral principles to which libertarians ascribe—which are consistent and predictable based on the Nonaggression Principle—they can, better than most, recognize the fraud that permeates society.
If you want a world in which the sociopaths are not messing with your life and wreaking their havoc on society right and left, learn about libertarianism. If you want a partner that is the entire opposite of a manipulative sociopath, find yourself a libertarian.
The trend in society toward libertarianism is a wonderful thing for those who recognize that sociopaths are the embodiment of evil in the world. The central defining characteristic of a libertarians is moral sanity. Sociopaths, in absolute contrast, are morally insane.
John Hunt, MD is a pediatric lung physician and author of the novel Assume the Physician, which teaches about the medical system through constant humor, as well as Higher Cause, and a soon to be released guide for childhood asthma management.
it is this part of #7 in the description of libertarianism in the article that i have a problem with.
They think marijuana should be legal. They do not think that anyone’s money should be stolen from them and given to another through the tax code. They don’t believe that forced giving is either charitable or moral, but rather “forced giving” is just a form of theft. They never support bailing out Wall Street, nor giving power to one group over another. They don’t ever lend government power to special interests (Special interests are the opposite of the “general welfare” of the Constitution). Libertarians think that government is supposed to work for the people, not people work for government. They are opposed to the NSA spying on American citizens. Libertarians like immigrants. They think that America is not a geographically imprisoned nation-state, but rather a philosophy that can be found all over the world. Libertarians want to put a wall around the welfare state, not a wall around the country. Many libertarians are highly charitable. Many libertarians righteously fight against anyone who uses force against them or defrauds them.”
i do not believe that taxing wealth or providing social and economic supports or attempting to lessen the obscene wealth gap, is theft or coercion. nor do i believe that social supports should be considered charity, the wellbeing of individuals should be considered a human right, and the wellbeing, health, education, etc of all in in all of our best interests. people don’t start out equal =-that is a convenient myth! not everyone has the same privelege, abilities, oportunuities or choices. we all benefit from the wellbeing and care of the whole. then ofvcourse there are little things like infrastructure that need to be maintainedvfor a productive society. the only taxation that is not regressive isincome tax and tax on wealth. if the corporations and the wealthy actually paid their fair share of taxes, we could provide many social supports and services. scarcity is a myth. blaming the less fortunate or the poor is a ploy to set the have nots, against have less in our society. if we keep having to fight over scraps for survival, the sociopaths will certainly win! i am generally agree with libertarians in my social liberalism, but economically i am a socialist. i believe that the means of production and wealth should be owned by the people, the workers, ourcsociety as a whole. however i do not believe that weakth and means of production should be cebtralized in the federal goverment. i belueve more in collectives,.i also do not believe that as stated in #5 that “the only job of government is to protect people from the force and fraud of others. ” unless that “force and fraud” refers to the lack of 3ecognition of inequality and privilege. for on e person to eat the whole pie, while another is starving is certainly aggression and force in my eyes. tp pretend that we all have equal opportunity if we just xwork f=hard enough, is certainly a fraud, and to pretend that wealth is created or mantained independantly of the larger whole is also fraud and aggression in that it allows for just the kind of victim blaming that most of us who have been targerted by a spath have encountered and had to fight against.
honestly, most people agree with the 7dea af ‘nonaggression’ the problem is that the libertarian economic views are actually quite aggressive and harmful to the wellbeing of the whole. i believe 4hat we are interdepedent and to pretend that this is not true is a lie and fraud and justification for lack of care.
Philomela, the “obscene wealth gap” was CAUSED by theft and coercion (and deception). We have to go to the root of the problem in order to solve it.
The “wellbeing, health, education” of all is in all of our best interests, but here is a different take on that:
Wellbeing — how is that defined? Do you mean pursuit of happiness, life, liberty?
Health — how can society provide for the health of its members? Do we insist on “science-based,” government-approved methodologies forced upon everyone? Or should we allow individuals to choose alternative treatments without restriction? Should we force individuals to pay into a system they don’t believe in (conventional medicine) vast amounts more than they can afford, when by so doing, they lose the ability to afford to choose alternatives (organic fruits and vegetables, herbal and other alternative medicine not covered by the insurance they are forced to buy)? How does it serve the problem of the difficulties older people face in retaining their workforce jobs, when older people (who may be perfectly healthy INDIVIDUALS but considered statistically through GROUP affiliation to be less healthy!) may be charged up to three times as much as younger people for insurance? That is quite a discouragement all around!
Education — who gets to decide what we need to learn and know and think? What do credentials actually prove, with regard to intelligence and ability to do the work (which might in earlier days have been learned on the job) — whereas now we are saddled with crushing student loan debt through needing to get those letters after our names, and certifications, to even get a foot in the door for an interview? It’s a racket.
Both health and education are issues that directly pertain to employment and therefore the “need” for social services in the first place. If individuals can be empowered to take care of themselves (through accurate knowledge about health, about good health habits, basic care of the sick and minor injuries, and access to healthy food and inexpensive alternatives), we would not have these out of control health costs. Many basic illnesses and minor injuries could be taken care of at home, if we learned how and realized we could. Good health would be within reach of the vast majority of the population, and we as empowered individuals would not feel the fear and reliance on the medical industry. Our country does not provide “health” nor does it provide “education.” Those are two things that empowered individual provide themselves.
Increasing awareness of this deception will help solve some of society’s economic problems.
Philomela–I want to take one section of your comment piece by piece, as a demonstration of how a libertarian mind tends to work
I will quote a few statements you made.
“i do not believe that taxing wealth or providing social and economic supports or attempting to lessen the obscene wealth gap, is theft or coercion.”
I suppose it depends on what wealth you tax. If the wealth was obtained through cronyism (political force and fraud) then taking it back can be justifiable, for it was illicitly gained property in the first place. But not all in the 1% obtained their wealth through cronyism. Some created wonderful things that we all benefit from, and I for one am grateful to them and have no desire to steal from them. But I am with you, Philomela, let’s talk about instituting a 100% tax on wealth obtained by cronyism. Cronyism is a huge component of the wealth gap. The other main component being the fiat currency counterfeited by the Federal Reserve (but that takes a LONG TIME to get a head around!)
“nor do i believe that social supports should be considered charity,”
Your belief in this concept in no way means that you have to compel others to agree or pay, though, does it? I often wonder, if there are so many people in favor of assuring health insurance is available for all, why don’t all those people get together under the leadership of their most famous community organizer and organize a voluntary system of assuring that such provisions are made for all? We have the technology. But, instead, they turn to compulsion, forcing everyone to buy really crappy products from really crappy insurance companies (which profit from it). That’s kinda screwy to me. Sociopathic? Maybe. Or maybe it is just what happens when people start believing that ends justify means.
More from Philomela: “the wellbeing of individuals should be considered a human right, and the wellbeing, health, education, etc of all in in all of our best interests.”
I will try to gently say that just because you say so, doesn’t make it so. There are real problems with the concept you present above, problems that have to be worked through. Here’s a few questions: Who defines well-being? Is there a well-being cut-off? Determined by who? Why do these people get to determine the cutoff? What gets incorporated into this definition of well-being? Housing? How big a house? Good parenting? How determined? How enforced? Health care? How much health care? Does such a “right” apply globally, or just in the US? To immigrants or just natural born citizens? How much education does one get by right? Can everyone have a right to earn a PhD, because it is a “right”? These so-called “positive rights” are a type of “right” that involve other people providing them. So you may have to force some people to provide for others. Oops. Therein lies the rub: Forcing people to provide for these rights would mean forcibly consuming their time (liberty) or property. It would amount to at least partial indentured servitude, or partial slavery, wouldn’t it? Forced to work for another’s benefit? Isn’t that slavery? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, quite in contrast, are negative rights. They are natural and present and nobody has to provide for them. They simply exist.
From Philomela again: “people don’t start out equal =-that is a convenient myth! not everyone has the same privelege, abilities, oportunuities or choices. we all benefit from the wellbeing and care of the whole.
I absolutely agree with you completely in the above (except for the word “whole” which is kinda groupthinky). But “equality” in the US was supposed to mean “equality in the eyes of the law”, meaning no group or class should benefit from the LAW more than any other. For example, there should be no way for special interests to benefit from or control the law. I also personally agree with you that we all benefit when our neighbor is wealthier or happier. And many of us may consider our neighbors to be geographically on the other side of the world, even. However, I also suggest you consider that we all suffer when our neighbor is compelled to do something morally reprehensible to him (such as participate in fascism, for example). So how is wealth and happiness best obtained by our neighbor? I doubt the distant and socopathic national government folk are going to know how my neighbor can best attain happiness, and I doubt they even give it a thought as they contemplate how to force everyone to do what they want us to.
Philomela, you have a kind heart, that is very clear. I think you might have said you are a bleeding heart liberal, as I am a bleeding heart libertarian (although I never have examined the derivation of the term “bleeding heart” so I may be quite wrong..) I would ask you to consider this: kindness is not ever achieved through compulsion, but rather accomplished by love. Love is not forced, or obtained by fraud. (Except of course in the setting of a sociopathic relationship!). You and I have the same goal of maximizing the human condition. I remain unsure how to attain or achieve it, at least sufficiently unsure that I am entirely unwilling to compel people to follow me! But I am eager to see how the wonderful individuals who join together to create wonderful futures, living principled lives, figure it all out.
the devil is in the details. i learned that well from the spaths in m5 l7fe. it applies here as well.
It is interesting that you would use this expression. And what does “the devil is in the details” mean? I know that the commonly accepted meaning is that details can be problematic, or screwing up on details can derail an entire project.
But I see an additional meaning that applies to sociopathy, and it is more of a “you can’t see the forest for the trees” meaning. And, using the word “devil” also very interesting, if we think of a devil as a sociopath…. trying to distract us from the big picture or solution to the problem (through getting us bogged down in details). I have found that focus on solutions can often be derailed once people begin arguing finer points, rather than remembering the reason for the discussion in the first place.
Having said that, details are interesting and can certainly help create deeper understanding of some of the nuances of a problem.
In the end, though, remembering to refocus on the big picture is what is going to save us. (and yes, I am intending the metaphor of “salvation” since the word “devil” is used in this idiom).
The devil certainly DOES want to distract us from finding a solution. And the devil absolutely will use any means possible: distraction, division, deception, confusion, and through upsetting us. This is how we are led astray. Think of it as a metaphor or take it literally.
As this topic is so very interesting to me, and I thank Dr. Hunt for writing this article, Donna for publishing it, and commenters for commenting, I have wanted to do some further research to deepen my understanding. I googled and came across an excellent editorial that I recommend to all of you. It is Five Essential Libertarian Attitudes, by Martin Masse. (I think it should show up on search engines if you look for it that way).
He does a very good job of describing how libertarians think, including regarding how libertarians think about their role in solving the problems of the world.
One matter of contention is, how should we think about and act towards our fellow man? This is greatly misunderstood by many people who do not understand libertarians. The editorial I mention does a great job of explaining.
With regard to the problem of sociopaths in our world and how libertarian attitudes might be the “opposite” of sociopathy, I have to say I agree. Because sociopaths are about power and control over individuals, and libertarians are about the freedom of the individual.
The matter of “group” vs “individual” also is greatly misunderstood by many people. For many who have a more collectivist (or socialist) view, it sounds awfully selfish to talk about focusing on the individual.
I used to have this collectivist, or socialist mindset, myself. It was my revelatory experiences of spath betrayal that turned me around 180 degrees from that view. My former socialist views seemed to me to be the most correct, the most kind, the most helpful, the most selfless. I was wrong. But to describe the process of my evolution towards where I am now, with a focus on the individual, would be quite lengthy.
So, just a couple of points to ponder. Please read, or re-read, the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights, and read it while thinking deeply about such values as freedom (liberty, or where the word libertarian comes from), and read it while thinking about how it applies to the individual, vs how it applies to groups. Read it while thinking about tyranny and fascism. See if you gain any new insights.
Another point: if you are a parent, think about your role as a parent, towards your children, not fixed in time but as time goes by and they grow up. Are you an authoritarian parent? A permissive parent? Is there a 3rd option? How were you raised by your own parents? What should be the role of the State with regard to how you parent your children? What do you think of, for example, CPS investigating you and how you parent your children? What would you do if they came to your door?
20years,
Thank you for your words of wisdom.
I’ve learned many lessons having been married to a sociopath.
They do NOT ever engage in introspection.
They are profoundly tethered to their dark emotions.
They are not open to understanding another’s perspective (NO empathy).
They don’t admit the truth, they manipulate and throw temper tantrums.
They change the accepted definitions of words.
During their rants, they demand that others acknowledge their superiority, and at the same time they cry about their victimhood. (narcissism 101)
And damn it if others don’t agree how they are superior, they will beat and punish until we do.
They do this because no one who is rational and caring would chose to be enslaved to their lifestyle and their rules, a quality of life that is for their targets, just as they exempt themselves from the very oppressions that they force on others.
Just didn’t want you to think that silence meant that others didn’t agree with you.
Thank you for your posts.
ps I thought Frederic Bastiat’s “The Law” worthy of discussion.
pps I have been on welfare. It’s a trap, a killer of dignity and human spirit. I would sooner die than submit to such a social program ever again. Sadly, that is where the USA is, for example, with Obamacare. All those people on welfare, and they don’t seem to know that when the government “helps” them, it’s a social redistribution program, aka welfare.
Thank you, NotWhatHeSaidofMe, for writing this. I do understand exactly where you are coming from, and I hoped and figured some people might be reading and thinking to themselves, and not posting. That is what I do a lot anyhow (lurk and not post, but nonetheless read and get a lot out of what other people post).
Yes (regarding welfare), I have a friend who is on medicaid because he is not old enough for medicare and is in that age bracket where premiums are so high they are unaffordable. He is grateful for this public assistance, but he did not really think it through, that there are people like me who make just over the line where we do not qualify for a subsidy, but that does not mean we can afford the high premiums. So it is people like me, paying his premium. He can see how I struggle to afford basic things like food for my family. I was not trying to make him feel guilty, just make him understand that there is a price to pay, and somebody pays it. It is not “the wealthy” who pay necessarily. People like me work our a@.......@es off and are paycheck to paycheck (and grateful for our jobs, make no mistake) but it is very true that struggling people (not just “the wealthy”) are subsidizing people who are also struggling.
The posts that I make, I figure people will read and get out of them whatever they are meant to, for we can only each learn lessons when we are ready to. 😉
And I sure have a lot more to learn myself, I figure.
This is an important topic (sociopathy) and you have learned a lot of the same lessons I have about them, it seems. It is a very good feeling, once the veil falls away, and the red flags are so much more obvious now. Much easier to recognize these behaviors whenever we come across them — whether interpersonal, in our leaders, or in our societal institutions.
20years
I have been involved with social services three times in life.
1) when I was 9 and my father was nearly killed in a car accident. He spent 6 mo in a coma, and a further 18 mo in a rehab center. My mom and us 5 very young kids were on welfare until my mom finished some education and got a job.
2) when I was 13 and my best friend was raped by her stepfather, we reported her and told by social services how wicked and ungrateful we were, she/her siblings/me and my big mouth, that a man would marry her mom and take on all those kids(and the big mouth best friend.) He continued to rape each girl as she turned 13.
3) When I attended university late in life, I worried about no insurance for my daughter so I signed her up for well baby services. NOTHING else. But the social services people were so monstrous in their control, threats, and anger that I needed to learn to express my appreciation for all they did for me (the monthly threats that they would take my child or decide last minute not to cover if she got sick or injured… geeee. No stress there!)
Now that I left and divorced my ex, a sociopath, I have been very very sick from stress related illnesses. He did not follow the law and provide insurance (the law only matters if someone will enforce it.), so I can’t afford the high risk insurance, still high risk even though I am recovered and haven’t needed a doctor in over two years, but I am low income… so I am one of those awful people who don’t have insurance. Well, I did until Obamacare, I had catastrophic care and I paid my own normal care, which USED to be affordable. Now the choice is welfare or NO insurance. SO… it’s no insurance, and No medical care.
I accept the limitations of my life, and know that I am chosing death over welfare. I mean it when I say I’d rather die than be “in the system”. I married a man who turned out to be like my birth family, and I’m okay with the consequences.
What I am not okay with, is that I bought a cheap little house so I would not be homeless, and damned if the IRS isn’t lined up to put a lien on it and take it from me.
It is my eventual punishment for not purchasing health insurance, which I literally can’t afford because I am “high risk”… so I have realized that trying to not submit to government control, welfare, etc. will eventually make me homeless and kill me, b/c I refuse to submit to dominating, controlling, tyrannical social welfare from the “goodness” of a government that refuses to let me be. Our government is an institutionalized sociopathic entity and the majority of people LIKE it that way.
NotWhatHeSaidofMe,
I too was without health insurance for a period of time, for financial reasons. This difficult circumstance led me to investigate all methods of preventing illness and injury as well as ways of creating health. I went through this health seeking journey at the same time I was researching sociopathy to try to make sense of my spath relationship. I stumbled upon information about our medical system which paralleled what I was learning about sociopathy, so I began to make connections about the nature of tyranny in relationships to tyranny in government.
But back to the nitty gritty of what I learned about health and healing: I went from being a believer in modern medicine and fully relying on the wisdom of the system and faithfully getting my checkups and taking prescribed interventions — to being a person (now) who relies on herself for health, and I have learned how to do it. How to take care of myself (preventing illness and injury), how to diagnose, and how to treat, without using drugs or other conventional treatments. I’m just letting you know, vibrant health and healing from illness is possible, outside of our tyrannical medical system, at very low cost, if you are determined enough to do the research to find out the necessary information you need.
The other thing that happened to me was that someone reported me to CPS and I was subjected to a lengthy and abusive investigation and threatened with having the children taken away from me. This experience opened my eyes the rest of the way (they were already almost open) to the tyranny of the State.
Labels are just stand ins for the real thing. They are metaphors. People often forget this. We categorize and sort and put people into groups. But in doing so, we erase their individual humanity. People are not groups. Even though many of us voluntarily affiliate with groups and adopt those identities and beliefs as our own…. rather than maintaining an individual identity and thinking for ourselves.
We help “the poor” from a safe distance through donations and supporting social programs, yet do we really reach out in a personal way to the stranger on the street who is experiencing difficulty? That is just an illustration of what dehumanization of individuals through group affiliation (or labeling) might look like.
In Orwell’s 1984, everyone was expected to conform to a one-size-fits-all behavior and beliefs, yet torture was individualzed, due to the “NSA”-style spying program.
http://flowersforsocrates.com/2015/03/30/our-dystopian-future-delivered-by-libertarian-lunacy/
HI Philomela. I read your weblink above thoroughly. Internal contradictions are present in it, such as blaming libertarians for unregulated Wall Street economic parasitism (when in fact Wall Street is mostly in bed with the regulators and the central bank and the Treasury, and it is those government and para-government entities that empower and to a great extent fund them). There is nothing libertarian about Goldman Sachs or the Feds purchase of Treasury bonds with counterfeit currency while Goldman Sachs takes as profit a percentage of each years growing government debt! Several other such strange distortions are presented in the piece that blame libertarianism falsely. Is the writer sociopathic? Maybe. But probably much more likely to not be sociopathic, but rather just to have an ideological foundation that is unsound and internally contradictory, leading him to write an internally contradictory and unsound article. These sort of intellectually weak articles are all over the place, on all sides of the aisle. A sound ideology that is internally consistent and doesn’t contradict itself (which libertarianism strives to be) helps one to see the fairly obvious failings in logic in this article you link above, while not dismissing the very appropriate points it also makes.
Then there are the sins of omission in the article, which are harder to see. The comparison to Honduras is a bit of a straw man argument. In the US we are supposed to have a limited federal government, with very circumscribed powers. But then there are state and local governments. Limiting the excessive and illicitly obtained power of the federal government (now a national government) does not leave the states and the localities unable to deal with crime and safety issues. It just allows the localities to try various moral means to accomplish aims, in ways that best work for the various people, and allows people to move from one locality to another that might better fit their philosophy, without having to move out of the country altogether in order to escape from a nationalized philosophy that they consider evil.
Libertarianism in the US doesn’t mean that we become Honduras. Honduras is the way it is for reasons that are quite distinct to the situation that is or would be in the US if the US national government were restricted to its legal/constitutional authority via libertarian philosophy. Likewise, I would not think full fledged socialism in the US would necessarily be Stalinist tyranny. Nor is the fascism that dominates the federal government today (with programs such as Obamacare–which is classically fascist) going to mimic Hitlerism with Hitler’s set of specific evils.
One point of libertarian education is to help people be immunized against the sort of minor or major twists, frauds, errors of omissions, lies, etc that we get pummeled with in the media. A libertarian philosophy does not get forced on people, it just prevents other philosophies from being so easily forced (or maneuvered through fraud) upon them.
Libertarianism doesn’t mean the end of charity. It means the end of compulsion. There are bleeding heart libertarians galore. The bleeding heart libertarian strives to help the needy themselves, instead of using the power of government to force others to help the needy. Libertarians don’t consider forced charity to be moral or useful. Ends don’t justify means, and usually immoral means such as compulsion lead to unanticipated ends that aren’t desirable anyway. For example, welfare statism may be responsible for the destruction of the previously very wide supportive family and other social units that the poor (generally) used to have in the US (and are still so widely relied upon to help the poor manage themselves in Liberia)
Beware very much when the word sociopath starts getting perverted. When libertarianism is described as sociopathic, recognize that such is 1984 Newspeak entirely. The term “anti-social personality disorder” is a slippery step. Here’s why–libertarians stand in defiance of a social order increasingly controlled by sociopaths in government and bureaucratic power. You can consider libertarians therefore to be against this sociopathic society, and the media might start calling them “anti-social”. And that is how the words and meanings start being used by the sociopaths against their staunchest enemies (the libertarians).
To consider libertarianism to be sociopathic is to consider love is hate, or war is peace. It is Orwellian. I still try to figure out why a commentator or two have come to believe the untruth. I think it probably comes down to some people’s acceptance of force being acceptable to use to accomplish what they think is an important aim (such as fighting poverty), and people who stand against the force (libertarians) are falsely described by them as being against the aim. Not at all. They are only against the force (and fraud).
There are libertarian environmentalists, libertarian community organizers, libertarian civil rights marchers, libertarians eager to save the whales, libertarian human rights advocates, libertarian poverty fighters, libertarian job creators, libertarian fraud-fighters, libertarian freedom-fighters. And yes there are also libertarians who are out only for themselves (but if abiding by libertarianism, they gain for themselves entirely without force or fraud or rent seeking or government compulsion). Libertarians are adamantly opposed to slavery and adamantly in favor of equal treatment for all under the law. There is nothing sociopathic about any of that. And I reiterate my proposition that libertarians are the strongest enemies of the sociopaths.
I would like to suggest a link for people who might be interested in an article from a slightly different angle, written by someone with libertarian viewpoints, and it does a good job of describing the creeping tyranny in collectivism, and why this feels so oppressive to people who love individual freedom. It is just a lot of very good food for thought. And yes, this topic does have a lot to do with sociopathy.
However, I will offer this “trigger warning” as my kids say, that there is a small reference to defending one’s freedom from encroaching tyranny through violence. That may offend some readers. In the context of the article, it makes sense. It is also what our country’s forefathers did during the American Revolution. If that part of the article offends you, try to ignore it because the rest really is quite good.
http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2609-tyranny-it-pisses-me-off
Dr. Hunt, I really appreciate your explanation of the libertarian philosophy, and I also have a question for you at the end.
First I will say that I have always been more liberal politically, but have come to understand how pervasive sociopathy is across the the two main parties. I admit that politically, I live under a rock. I am a contemplative person and have not watched TV in many years and follow the news very loosely. I never really understood what the libertarian philosophy was about, and now I will give it another look. I realize that no group is exempt from sociopaths. But as you mention, there is usually a point when their masks fall off for everyone to see. I am hard pressed to find a sociopath who is working for healthcare in Africa or striving to end world hunger.I work at a Children’s hospital, and I’ve worked closely with pediatricians for years. As a group, I have observed them to fight tirelessly for children’s rights. Many of them volunteer their time in third world countries – for instance, a group of them went to Haiti after the big earthquake and risked all kinds of hardship and disease to help people needing emergency healthcare. I greatly respect and admire them. We did have one bad physician in the bunch at one time, but he got fired when his bad behaviors became obvious.
We live in an imperfect world where there is corruption everywhere at every level. But, like you, I believe there are good people. I do like to hold an optimistic view of what “could be” in this country, that it is possible to have a government of morally conscious individuals doing the highest good for society, continually questioning its motives and actions in a thoughtful and empathic way. And when mistakes are made, it is not for the aggrandizement of an individual seeking power.
Here is my question. How would a libertarian government handle the squelching of civil rights that is so prevalent in the middle east with all the sociopathic dictators? Would they send troops over to fight? How do they feel about having a strong U.S. presence in other countries? I’m asking with absolutely no bias on either side – just curiosity.
Thanks in advance for your response,
Star
Hi Star. How would a libertarian government handle the squelching of civil rights abroad and deal with sociopathic dictators? Great question. I can provide my answer, which isn’t necessarily the same as other libertarians.
One component is that libertarians are huge into civil rights. It’s one of their central political and social focuses, if an individual libertarian is involved in the larger pictures (some aren’t). Their main issue is in preventing government from interfering with civil liberties. Because government is the only entity legally empowered to initiate force against people, governments tend to be the major interferers with civil liberties over the course of history and geography. Sure, non-government entities can be racist, just as the government can be, but it is government that does it with force that prevents people from avoiding the racism (or other evil), and that is going to be the focus of libertarians.
The first step is to clean up all the evils in our own houses, including the house and senate.
Internationally, libertarians are very involved and encouraging of unhindered trade and commerce with as few trade barriers as possible. Thus libertarians are not in the least “isolationists” as they are often totally incorrectly described. They do tend to be non-interventionists from a military perspective. I would say libertarians generally have huge respect for the military (I was a navy officer myself), but not a lot of respect for the way the military has been used by the political class of late. Libertarians generally think that the US government is pretty incompetent (or outright sociopathic) at dealing with domestic issues. And there is no reason to think they are more competent dealing with issues overseas where the cultures can be radically different. For example, US government efforts at development in Africa almost always fall flat or the resources are wasted or misdirected or misallocated or “reinvested”. There are reasons for those failures in Africa that government folk just seem to not grasp, or can’t act on, perhaps.
So, how to deal with the sociopathic dictators in the world?
Summary: Don’t create them. Don’t support them. Don’t subsidize them. Don’t stop good people from fighting them. And maybe kill them. Then also, recognize that sociopathic leaders are not representative of the people of their nation, but rather simply control them.
Libertarians would first not FORCE individual Americans to fight or pay for fighting the tyrannical bastards overseas, because to do so is rather tyrannical itself. But libertarians would not in any way stop individual Americans or groups of Americans from fighting, or funding the fighting of the sociopathic tyrants. Before the sudden increase in US government control beginning in the early 20th century, before the US entered WW1, Americans went to fight in Europe without US government involvement, for example. I think a libertarian politician would encourage individual Americans to get involved with moral pursuits abroad, voluntarily, but won’t force them.
Second, I think libertarians wouldn’t create the tyrannical bastards overseas in the first place. I mean, the US government created Sadaam, it supported al Qaeda against the Russians, it subsidized the Shah, it defend the Saudis, it funded the precursor to ISIS. It doesn’t have a very good record in the last fifty years of avoiding the support of tyrants. It’s failure results from constantly using sneaky fraudulent methods. Probably not a surprise that they create what ends up being nasty tyrants.
If the tyrannical bastards overseas threaten America, well, then the libertarian president and Congress would usually abide by the contract of the Constitution, and that involves guaranteeing a republican form of government to the states and the people, and that means defending the republican form of government against foreign assault or threat of assault. That’s a bit different. It involves abiding by the written actual contract of the Constitution (which is radically different than the wiggly uncertain “social contract” that is often espoused by politically powerful folk who want to ignore the Constitution and take more power). Libertarians won’t defraud the people with hate propaganda into going to war over oil or to protect the petrodollar or distract from troubles at home, or to distract from their own misbehavior, or to enwealthen some bankers who want to fund both sides of a war, or to protect “American Interests” (usually defined by the politically powerful) or to exercise the troops, or to excite the military-industrial machine, or to enhance nationalism, or to try to get us through a recession, or any other non-moral or manipulative reason.
So if the tyrant doesn’t threaten the republican form of government or threaten Americans in the US, the libertarian US government would not get involved. But I expect it would strongly encourage that we American individuals support–however we wish to–all the good folk being oppressed and the nearby nations that might be defending themselves against the tyrant.
Americans aren’t serfs of the US government, or at least shouldn’t be. Americans can and should do what they want to help others (here and abroad) instead of waiting for and relying on the US government incompetence to do so.
For some reason, the US government has a rule against assassinating foreign leaders. The idea, they justify, is to help avoid other nations from assassinating US leaders. However, the effect is that in order to get a sociopathic tyrant out of power, the US govt drags Americans into war against lots of innocent people under the tyrant’s rule, and then kill lots of innocent people in the process. So perhaps a libertarian consideration would be this: If someone threatens us with force, we have the right but not obligation to respond, however we wish AGAINST the INDIVIDUAL(s) who threatened us.
Collectivism is a strange infection. When we blame a nation for an individual’s tyranny, that is collectivism. When we blame a people for a government’s misbehavior, that is collectivist. When we blame an individual for a religion’s tyranny, that is also collectivist. We should put the blame where the blame belongs.But we also live in a world where the collectivist infection is endemic, and until it is cured, we have to deal with the real life consequences of that disease, and I think that is hard for some particularly pacifist libertarians to realize.
Libertarians strive for peace whenever possible. But many will fight against the forcers and frauders. Libertarians are often pacifists who own guns for DEFENSE, not offense. But there are other libertarians who will willingly become mercenaries–paid troops to fight in a good cause on behalf of weak innocents unable to defend themselves who request that someone fight for them. Good mercenaries, or privateers.
Sociopaths are tough to deal with, we all know this. Libertarians tend to avoid giving them power, first and foremost, and then try to avoid killing a lot of innocent people in the process of trying to defeat them if they gain power. Libertarian dealings with tyrants might my analogous to the NO CONTACT Rule, but with a contract in the Constitution that offers up the possibility that we kick the damn sociopath’s ass (which I bet we all kinda wanna do now and again) if he threatens us. No contact applies to teh sociopathic tyrant, not to the people under his thumb. So libertarians aren’t so likely to restrict trade with the given country under tyrannical rule (never worked much for Cuba).
Libertarians feel for the individual victims of the tyrant, while trying to figure out how to rescue them. And discuss, and consider and care throughout the process. And don’t stop other people from acting if they are ready and raring to do so.
So, that’s my long summary… And again, it is not going to be consistent with every libertarian. But it is certainly different than most neoconservatives and progressives (who are pretty much identical to each other in their actions when it comes to international battles).
I forgot to add–troops overseas? As little as reasonably possible for to preserve the republican form of government in the US, and not where it requires initiation of force or fraud against innocents in order to accomplish the presence.
And that is subject to lots of discussion and opinion, of course, and it is the type of discussion we should be having instead of having to deal with all the unconstitutional stuff that the government keeps doing that distract us from having the appropriate conversations. But libertarians would not have a military presence to support the economy of another nation (a big aspect of our military presence overseas), nor to defend the other nation as if we were the only ones capable of providing defense, nor in exchange for support of the petrodollar as the Fed counterfeits our own fiat currency onto the edge of a cliff. There is lots of different views within libertarians about how to address military and defense issues, but abiding by the Constitution is the first part of the discussion always.
john huntMD
If I may ask for a little more from you… only because you site a term that seems to confuse people who are waking up to our responsibilities about voting/politics. “republican form of government” vs the Republican Party. Please enlighten?
Thank you in advance.
NotWhatHeSaidofMe… I think you know the answer!. Definitely not the same as Republican Party.
“republican” form of government–small “r”.
REPUBLIC–REX PUBLICA. Meaning Rule by the Public Law. As opposed to Rule by the Whims of a Ruler or by the whims of the mob/majority.
The supreme Public Law is the Constitution. It is supposed to not be easy to change the supreme law of the land, because brief whimsical faddish foolishness should not become law. Public Law should be long and seriously considered, debated, and broadly acceptable, because it becomes contract–and the law becomes our ruler. This is what is meant when we say that we are supposed to have the RULE OF LAW. It doesn’t mean we should have a ton of laws. It means that we should be ruled by Law, as opposed to being ruled by rulers.
Law in libertarian thinking is based on Natural Law, Nature’s Law. These are laws for human interaction, that like laws of physics, are not created by man, but discovered by man over time, sort of by the scientific method. Libertarians mostly think that there are two primary natural laws of human interaction that have been discovered and reasonably proven to be necessary to follow for long term success of humanity: 1) Do whatever you agree to do, and 2) Do not encroach on other people or their property. These are the laws that, if followed, prevent war. The first is the center of contract law, and the second is the center of criminal law.
Given that we are guaranteed this republican form of government, all the stuff that defies the Constitution, stretches it, distorts it etc, should be considered illegal. I don’t think we have been living in a republican form of government for many years. In my opinion our government is gradually transitioning to more of a fascist form of government.
Near as I can tell, the Democratic Party and Republican Party are two sides of the same coin that flip over their views about every 30-40 years, and become the other party.
I like the response of not empowering sociopaths in other countries to begin with. Not putting them in power because they support US economic interests, then turning around and dealing with the aftermath. This seems to be an important disconnect that gets glossed over by the phrase “fighting for our freedom”. The problem is one of lack of consciousness – failure to understand cause and effect.
You are proposing that good, fair, decent, and altruistic people can hold public positions. I think it is possible, too.
Most of us are so jaded that we feel voting is like choosing between the Menendez brothers, the lesser of two evils. How can the word get out that this paradigm can shift? Presumably, the libertarians don’t have as much money as the wealthy sociopathic constituents in the opposing parties, so they don’t have massive TV campaigns, and they don’t use smear tactics. So….How do we shift the thinking of this society to even allow for the possibility of a truly effective government instead of a sociopathic one?
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/28/why_i_fled_libertarianism_and_became_a_liberal/http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/17/1055627/-Four-Reasons-to-Reject-Libertarianism#
i need to try this again . somehow i posted without a space between the 2 links.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/17/1055627/-Four-Reasons-to-Reject-Libertarianism
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/28/why_i_fled_libertarianism_and_became_a_liberal/
I suppose if you rely on dailykos as a primary source of information, you will be misled about libertarianism, because libertarianism is a threat to progressives. The issue that I wanted to raise wasn’t merits or demerits of selfishness (as dailykos writer and other progressives label libertarians) nor the merits or demerits of narcissism (a label I sometimes perhaps partly incorrectly use to describe the people who are so darn sure they know what is best for everyone else that they are eager willing to compel everyone to do as they say.
Libertarians are opposed to initiation of compulsion and fraud by other people. Compulsion by non-human forces, like the weather or a cow or a fire, or by broad economic forces that no human controls, is not the same thing as human initiated force. When job loss from natural free market changes end up “forcing” people to move, it is not usually human compulsion (sometimes it is), nor is it the same sort of force that libertarians oppose. The dailykos guy conflated that pretty badly.
There are a lot of defensive attacks against libertarianism on the left and the right, because libertarianism draws attention to the left and the right’s internal contradictions. When internal contradictions are found, the defensive person attacks first, or shuts down, throws epithets around and runs away second, or depending on the personality type, might use other methods to avoid having to face the internal contradiction.
I would suggest that all sides of the coin be examined. Dailykos says libertarians are selfish. We have been taught extensively that selfishness is bad. There is a whole debate on that. Certainly selfishness in a society where compulsion of others is considered acceptable is bad, because then selfish goals can be compelled on others. But how about selfishness in a society in which compulsion is not possible? What does THAT lead to? Selfishness when compulsion and fraud are illicit ends up with people striving for success by selfishly working their butts off to identify and serve the needs of other people (free market capitalism).
The dailykos attack on libertarians as selfish, without concurrent recognition that libertarians are anti-coercion, is a spin, and rather a common toss-off/ manipulative or defensive spin at that. I would spin it this way: libertarians care so much about others that they don’t compel them to be slaves, don’t force them to behave a certain way, and they truly believe that everyone has the right to life, liberty and to pursue their happiness. Is that selfish?
I’ll reiterate what we all know. Sociopaths are among us, concentrated in political power, and we give them more political power over us every year that passes. Right or left, Republican or Democrat, it makes no difference. More power concentrates illegally at the national level every week that passes, every Congress that elected, and every president that enthroned. We no longer even give them the power, now they just take it, with little restriction by the law (Constitution). Libertarians are the ones, selfish or not, who are ideologically consistently opposed to the sociopaths having more and more legal power to compel everyone to do their bidding. To disempower sociopaths on the large scale, we need to disempower all politicans. From a political perspective, libertarians are the only ones who want to run for office for the sole purpose of decreasing the power of the office they get elected to. But politics is only a fraction of it. The key is to get people in society to retrain their brains to realize that initiation of compulsion by one human against another is wrong, always has been, and always should be, no matter what goal you have.
John H.
Many of us are professionals with letters behind our names.
We choose not to air them here.
Not sure how this has turned to a political point of view.
I will read to understand.
Your posts seem a bit out of place in this forum, but the rules are not to attack others here.
Stronginthecity
Stronginthecity – It was my decision to post Dr. Hunt’s article. I think it is important for all of us to realize that sociopaths affect all areas of our lives, not just romantic partnerships.
“I have always found it quaint and rather touching that there is a movement [Libertarians] in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.”
”• Christopher Hitchens
Or perhaps it is a movement that respects human dignity sufficiently to not compel everyone to comply with what they think is best for everyone.
It all depends on the spin you choose to spin.
Argghhh. When I see someone extol social compulsatory compliance as being “for the greater good”, I know it’s neither “greater” nor “good”. It’s oppressive and punitive. It’s the same logic construct that my sociopath ex husband used. Both strip people of the dignity of self determination. As if being hardworking and self reliant equates to being selfish. Why can’t people CHOOSE welfare and those of us who don’t want it be left alone????
Christopher Hitchens was a Marxist so this sort of anti American propaganda is to be expected, but demonstrably false.
The United States sends more volunteers and more charity per capita overseas than ANY other country on earth. Americans are literally the most charitable people on earth right now, and that’s counting only volunteers, not government aid. So Hitchens’ snarky comment about American selfishness has no basis in reality. And Dr Hunt is an American pediatrician who spends his time in Africa helping sick kids for FREE. So it’s absurd for you to be moralizing to him about selfishness.
The truth is people fled Hitchens’ bloodthirsty England to escape a statist empire indebted to a central bank driving endless wars, taxing and regulating citizens into economic serfdom.
Food Stamps are a fraction of 1% of where our taxes go. It’s a red herring to distract the masses from where our tax dollars are actually going and how they hurt the poor.
Libertarians are more interested in the control of our monetary and economic system by a very few unaccountable sociopaths. The endless wars for special interests. An unsound currency and inflation of the dollar that constitutes the largest transfer of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the top 1%. All are only possible through government force.
The best way to care for the poor is to promote economic and social liberty – philosophically they are the same thing – and they have proven results.
Whereas history is full of the failings of central planning, Marxism and fascism;
Freedom is how the United States quickly became the most peaceful and prosperous country to ever exist.
And free individuals have shared this wealth and innovation with the rest of the world, improving the global standard of living more than ever before in history.
We should not be listening to idiotic quips from Communist shills like Hitchens. We should be proud of American Exceptionalism and the great service it has done for the world.