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.
I can think kind and gentle thoughts all day. That doesn’t take care of the underprivileged, it just makes me feel a little better about me.
Hi again, mustard55. Thanks so much for responding. I’m not used to getting quick responses to posts here – it makes for a lively debate.
Did you ever read the 100th Monkey Syndrome? I won’t go into the details but basically the author shows that when a core number of individuals adopts an idea or behavior, it basically “catches on” and can become part of the collective unconscious of a species.
And also, I like what you said about “feeling better about me.” When you have a core group of people feeling better about themselves, they are less apt to cause conflict – unless, of course, they are sociopaths. You have proved my point exactly. I really appreciate your responses.
Have you considered that mentally ill people don’t usually get or spread the benefit of feeling better about themselves?
So if sociopaths are real, and I believe they are, they are incapable of spreading goodness. So what have we achieved when I feel good about me, but one of the other 24 is still a sociopath?
Yes, mustard55, no matter what we do and what kind of society we create, there will likely always be sociopaths to try and tear it (and us) down. But does that mean we shouldn’t even try? What do you recommend?
As I am understanding the libertarian philosophy, it would not prohibit removing from power a sociopath who was harming other people. I have no argument with you that sociopaths are everywhere and comprise (according to Martha Stout in The Sociopath Next Door) to 4% of the population. I believe you. And no, I’m not speaking to them, because I agree that they cannot be constructive members of a peaceful society.
Again I ask, if sociopaths are rampant in politics and government, and I believe they are, how do we go about specifically identifying and removing them?
I’m not opposed to what you’re saying, I just think it’s a bit naive to think we can eradicate the problem by thinking good thoughts.
And I read Martha Stout’s book years ago, I have even gifted copies to people I thought could benefit from the info.
BTW, I wanted to add on a personal note (since we don’t really know each other’s stories) that it took me a long time to believe in the kindness of people after my experience with the spath. And mine was much more benign than most people’s on LF. It has now been 7 years since my experience with the sociopath. I have found myself to be much happier and more trusting than I was 7 years ago. I would not have even been able to entertain this conversation back then. I respect that we are all coming from different places in our recovery.
I sincerely and happily believe in the goodness of others after my own long journey.
I just don’t think that ANY political philosophy or ideology is good enough if it doesn’t incorporate the basic tenet that we ARE our brother’s keepers.
We ARE responsible for each other’s well-being. I don’t come by this conviction lightly. I am not religious ( although I was raised as a catholic), but I try believe it is our responsibility as a civilized society to take care of the less fortunate. Individual freedom is a great idea but it can only be fully realized when balanced against our responsibility to and for others.
AnonymosaFurtivo, I would highly recommend that you watch the videos at the top of this site & read everything at the top to figure out if your husband meets the traits. But honestly it does not matter if he fits the traits you know in your gut something is not right with him because you found this site to figure things out about your relationship with him. He is abusing you otherwise your search would not have led you to LF.
I would also recommend that you contact your countries National domestic violence hotline to talk with a free counselors and also go to your local abuse center for free counseling and women group meetings. It would also be wise to find an outside counselor who is extremely knowledgeable with narcissist abuse to help you sort out what you have been enduring in your relationship.
Follow your gut!!
Search on love fraud at the top and on the net also:
gas lighting abuse
no contact rule
Read Donna Andersons’s book (Lovefraud creator) and her book recommendation located at the top under Book Store also Women who love psychopath by Sandra Brown is one my counselor gave me to read well worth the money.
Once you are educated on sociopathic abuse you will see that 1 sociopath out of 25 people is high rate and very scary. They are pure evil and will do anything and everything to destroy their victims. Think about this every class you sat in during school had at least 1 sociopath/psychopath in the classroom. Every time you walk in a building and there are 25 people standing in the building you are standing with a sociopath/psychopath. This is a site to discuss abuse at the hands of a sociopath the dialogue is very rational. Once you lived the hell of a sociopath you do not want others pushing their agenda on you, you want to think freely for yourself..so you can see why several of us are questioning the writers motives of placing his post on a site for victims of sociopaths.
If you need help deciding if your spouse is a sociopath you can post your story to Donna and she can posted on the main board for others to share their thoughts”this type of posting is very supportive and none judging. It helps many victims to see the truth about their relationship and to hear story similar to yours.
Wishing you all the best.
Since you have highlighted my statement about “living off the grid”, I will share where that idea even came from. I saw a recent documentary on an island off the Oregon Coast where a group of people inhabit who use no money, no banking, and no modern conveniences. I have no judgment one way or the other about their way of life, nor do I personally wish to live like that. It just came to my mind as an example of how some people have managed to avoid the civilized world. This was really a small diversion to what I was trying to say, which is basically that since we DO live in society and NOT off the grid, we have much power/choice/responsibility in creating the kind of governing body we want.
I am unfamiliar with that particular group, but I congratulate them on having achieved apparent social harmony thus far. If one of them becomes mentally ill, or sociopathic, what would you guess they would do? And do they have, or need, a governing body?
I don’t know, mustard55. I don’t have an answer to this question or what the best way is to eradicate sociopaths. Or even who is to decide when someone is a sociopath. I also don’t know and wouldn’t venture to predict the percentage of politicians who are sociopaths. I imagine so many are corrupted by power. I suppose if we elect people to office who are not drawn to political office, who are not in it for the power, who have more humanitarian values, who have a long history of service, we may have a better chance. What percentage of those can be corrupted by power, I don’t know. It would be an interesting sociological study. And perhaps a different system of checks and balances that cannot be bought by rich lobbyists.
I will go out on a limb and say that none of the people in this group are sociopaths due to the simple fact that it requires a lot of hard work to live like this. Sociopaths hate hard work. They would rather live off someone else’s labors.
BTW, I LOVE your questions. They are very thought provoking. Thanks so much.
I am happy to be able to have this conversation. And I wish everyone well on their journeys to healing and happiness 🙂
I appreciate those of you engaging n this conversation with me. I’m simply trying to say that a society cannot consider itself optimal or evolved if it values individuals and does not value the care and comfort of the most vulnerable and weakest. Again, individual liberty is a beautiful concept.. And I enjoy its benefits. But I’m aware that my means allow me greater personal liberty than those with less means.
It is my personal belief that the hallmark of an enlightened being is compassion for other sentient beings. Therefore, I would venture to say that in an enlightened society, we would be caring for one another and valuing each other’s needs as our own. I would completely agree with you there. I did not get that libertarians would want us to turn our back on the weak and vulnerable. Is that how you understood it? The pick-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps mentality is something I associate with the modern Republican attitude.
I appreciate your comments. I’m not really sure what the libertarian viewpoint is as it refers to the less fortunate in our society, but the obfuscation and lack of clarity in the explanations here is confusing to me. I don’t really endorse any of the political parties, and actually I don’t think we should even have political parties. A person should not have to affiliate themselves with a stated set of values to run for office, but rather should be able to easily explain their own personal set of values if running for public office. As voters and members of a collective society, we should be able to vote for the person who most closely exemplifies our own values, to represent us in the public forum when decisions have to be made. Disallowing my participation in any phase of the election process because I don’t want to pledge allegiance to a particular party is a de facto violation of my rights as a person.
mustard55,
This is my first chance back on the computer after I left it over 10 hours ago, so this is my first post back. Wow! I am so excited to see how this conversation is continuing and evolving. I think we can all learn so much from it.
I’m choosing to start here with a response because what you said about your being aware that your (greater economic) means allowing you greater “personal liberty” than those with less means…. falls within the part of the libertarian philosophy which you have said you disagree with. Namely, that valuing individuals AND NOT VALUING the care and comfort of the most vulnerable and weakest is NOT an evolved society.
Well, that I would agree with — but I do not consider that part of a libertarian philosophy — an all or nothing focus on the individual AT THE EXPENSE OF the vulnerable and weakest.
Your example shows that you, being INDIVIDUALLY STRONG (I’m emphasizing, not “yelling” with the CAPS 🙂 ) are in a position whereby you are able to VOLUNTARILY give above and beyond the taxes required by our society, to help the poor and disadvantaged. You do this for your own definition of what is best for the society and best for YOU ALSO (“and I enjoy (the) benefits (of helping the poor and disadvantaged)”)
So again I would say, if you were not in this strong individual position, you would not be able to help voluntarily.
The part of the libertarian philosophy which supports this view is about creating as many strong individuals as possible who, from their positions of relative comfort, will do the human kindness thing. Americans are as a group, very charitable people. But if many of us are not in strong individual positions, we are less able to VOLUNTARILY help. Instead, our “help” is extracted from us (government taking from the strong, making them less strong, in order to give to the weak, thus removing the previously strong individual’s ability to VOLUNTARILY help).
I know how good it must make you feel to help. That is not a bad thing. It is a good thing. Would you not also think that a less economically strong individual would benefit greatly from being able to contribute in some way, rather than always being on the receiving end?
I have been on both economic ends, and I can tell you it does not feel good to be ALWAYS the recipient of some stronger individual’s generosity. I can be grateful, I can be appreciative, I can make good use of what is given to me (though it may not be what I would choose — I take what is given, gratefully) — but I am a much happier individual if I can make my own choices, and once I am in a stronger position I am able to give.
The giving and receiving works best if it is an exchange — not a one way thing.
This is just food for thought and I’m not disagreeing with you. So, a libertarian philosophy would try to empower the weaker individuals, to make them stronger — rather than just keep giving them stuff for the “greater good.” But I think you also do mean that, if it isn’t just your giving money and stuff to poor people, but to perhaps help them with their education, to build skills and knowledge to be future productive and strong individuals, perhaps someone like you.
That is what we do when we raise children, for example — we are the stronger adults but eventually we expect them to become strong and independent adults, too. And then one day when we are old and feeble, perhaps they return the favor. That fits within libertarian philosophy.
I was just scanning through a little file of quotations I’ve collected, looking for something entirely different, when I happened upon this little gem. It’s attributed to Edward R. Murrow, although (not surprisingly) it has roots in the writings of Thomas Jefferson, among others, and seems singularly appropriate:
20years, I agree with what you have said, in principle.. I do think disadvantaged people feel better contributing and not just being on the receiving end of a one-way “handout”. However, I also feel that human nature, being what it is, is not going to eradicate the problem of the (variously) impoverished. There will still always be underprivileged people, because there will always be selfish people.
mustard55, it sounds like you have it all wrapped up and tied with a bow! (all figured out) — I can understand how hopeless it all seems at times. My position is more optimistic for the human race.
I continue to appreciate your (and everyone’s) engaging in this discussion — there is so much to learn from each other as we share our varying perspectives.
So, a few things. One thing is that I think “human nature” is not set in stone as “being what it IS” but rather there are great variances in us…. so many ways to view this concept, but I’ll just select one for the moment: we (individuals) are all at varying stages of psychological/spiritual/social development. This is similar to the developmental stages one goes through from birth until independent adulthood. But it is across many spectrums (not just physical, or learning to walk, but learning to navigate different systems, learning to communicate, forming an identity, forming a relationship with God (or not), learning social norms, etc.)
Is there some kind of inherent “human nature?” that is something I do not have the answer to! It is one of those philosophical questions that better minds than mine have grappled with throughout the ages. But I would posit that “human nature” is neither all bad nor all good, but is instead a creative learning dimension, learning who and what we are as individuals, and within relationships to others and to the environment or matrix we are surrounded by.
Will there always be underprivileged people and selfish people? Maybe and maybe not. I like to imagine the possibility that there might not be, and then in imagining it, wondering how that might be achieved or at least steps taken towards that.
It is interesting that you said as a cause and effect statement, that selfish people are the reason for underprivileged people. I am not certain that is actually true (the true reason for it) but it may appear to be the reason.
There are many unselfish people (the majority I think) who are in the middle between “selfish” and “underprivileged” and those unselfish people can do a great deal, IMO, to help solve this problem. To remove the power from the selfish people, and empower the underprivileged people.
To illustrate, I will use a visualization/analogy.
First, imagine the way things “are” (in the sociopathic system we have now): imagine a pyramid. The top is smaller than the base. There is not room at the top for very many people. The base (the vast numbers of underprivileged) supports the pyramid; if you did not have this base, you would not have the support to allow for the top. The way to maintain this base is through several means: one way is deception by making everyone believe that a pyramid is the only system (no other possible system). Another way is to keep the people at the bottom in a state of desperation and right on the edge — if you kill a few off from starvation, not a biggie because there are so many of them. But the rest will live in fear and here is where you might jump to Maslow’s Hierarchy to explain what it is like to be at the very bottom. There is absolutely NO incentive to give these people a hand up — because the people at the top (and also the people at the higher levels who are in the middle) “NEED” the people at the bottom in order to maintain their positions. Some of the people in the middle may be moved by the plight of the people at the bottom and give them a handout. Or they may feel guilty. Or they may realize that if they don’t give anything, they will appear selfish — so they give for appearances. But there really is no incentive to empower the individuals at the bottom.
Now imagine a second system. This one also has steps (or stairs) but the top is the same size as the base. The top is anchored in place as something to reach, but there is no need for a bottom base to support the top. People are at varying levels along the steps. They can climb up as they are able, and they can observe others climbing up and learn from them HOW and also that this is possible (which it is). And those who are at the top are yelling encouragement to those who are at lower levels, “you can do it!” And those who are one or two steps ahead of the others, look each other in the eye and reach out a hand and say, “come on, brother. I’ll help you.” And they in turn are helped or inspired by the ones who are but a step or two ahead of them.
This is just an illustration to get a person’s mind open. Then we can start to think of examples of ways this might happen in our material world.
I can think of one already. The CEO of this company cut his own salary 90% to raise the salaries of all of his employees: http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/14/news/companies/ceo-pay-cuts-pay-increases/
Ideas like this can go viral. Or inspire other acts of helpfulness. And these are VOLUNTARY acts — not compelled through force or fraud. This CEO was already in a position of individual strength, which enabled him to take this risk and he decided to take a very large one. Not many would go so far. But I do think he will inspire others to give in this very personal way, which is what strong individuals can do.
This is all intended as food for thought.
One other example or illustration I will offer, has to do with two different ways of giving. One way is from afar, or from a safe distance. This is for example a person who gives cast off clothing to Goodwill, or donates food to the food bank, or sends the kids around the neighborhood on a fund drive for the homeless shelter but never actually visits the homeless shelter. Or participates in the “Christmas Angel” program where you select a recipient (an anonymous stranger) to give to, perhaps a “Boy, age 12” and you take your kids to Target and pick out a toy and a pair of snowboots for this boy, so your kids can learn about charitable giving and you can both feel good about yourselves while doing good.
Now, none of that is wrong. However, there is a second way of giving that is more personal. This is the way of giving where you see someone on the street begging and you go up to him or her and look them in the eye and talk to them for a few minutes to find out a bit of their circumstances, and what they might need — you may give them money then or maybe take them to a restaurant and buy them whatever they choose. Or, you and the kids go to the homeless shelter once a month and cook and serve a meal there and spend time with the people, talking to them. Or, you find out that one of your friends has lost her job and is having trouble affording food, so you give her a grocery gift card and invite her and the family over once a week for dinner. Or, you volunteer to be a mentor for a child whose family is struggling, and you take time to know him or her personally.
This is just something to consider, ways of helping each other that are personal and respectful and voluntary. When we take the time to know each other in personal ways, our shared humanity becomes evident, and we find we are all deeply connected and it becomes less easy to turn away from helping one another. Rather than sending all of our money overseas to help those poor, struggling and impoverished people, we discover there are people close by who could use our help. No longer are the impoverished “those” people — but we see that they are our brothers. When the government gets involved in redistributing money (coercion, theft) it puts up a wall between “groups” of people. It creates division. When we are a free group of individuals, and think of ourselves that way, it helps free not only ourselves but each other (the rest of us).
I also want to mention some charitable giving by businesses. The point here is that it is voluntary and some of these are experiments which do not exactly turn out as hoped for, but it is at least a start, and voluntary (and thus libertarian). Sure, publicizing such efforts gives great PR, but we don’t have to be cynical about it, if it works, or at least give credit for trying. One example is Panera’s Meal of Shared Responsibility where you can pay what you like including over and above (a donation), or what you can afford. It is voluntary. Another example is a local grocery my daughter works at, which will quietly allow food stamp recipients to buy the food they need, when it is clear that they don’t have enough SNAP funds. For example, a person came through the line the other day to buy some cheese and an apple, and that cost $5 but she only had $2 left. They just let her pay the $2. There was no government causing this to happen through force and fraud. This is a libertarian philosophy in action (the store freely chose to do this, they were in a position of strength to do this and it is not prohibited by law)
20 years, I wish there were a “thanks” button to thank your post. Very well said.
20 years,
i do not believe that anyone who is struggling just to survive has much chance of moving up your staircase.
i think we need to change the model.
we need to recognize the many things people do in our society that have economic and social benefit but that we have delegated to the realm of unpaid labor. we have to look at the very real part that privilege, in the broadest sense, ( not just race and gender), plays in terms of ability to move up that imaginary staircase.
we also need to re-examine the concept of “charity”. Charity is a paternalistic, power-based, top down concept.
perhaps if we provided as A social contract A bASE subsistence level of income,(covering basic housing, food, medical care, and education, and childcare) for All citizens simply becAuse they exist, not becAuse they prove they are deserving or worthy And without requiring anything in particular this basic humAn Survival and dignity, And then allow people to earn more, even a lot more (more capitalist in nature-still taxed but not wasted on huge and corrupt and inefficient bureaucracies and lots of money wasted trying to figure out if someone is deserving or cheating the system, And eating up the time, energy, and dignity, of the poor). perhaps from that base of not having to fight for survival and or prove your worthiness to receive charity, we could then have a more libertariAn Society And a society where
we value not only great producers, and consumerism, but where we have a broader view of what constitutes work
and contribution to society, and value. people
living on the edge of economic survival, in a world of obscene disparities, as in our country and much of the world, can never be truly free. we must get rid the paternalistic concept of charity,and base our laws and distribution of the resources on a concept of all are if value, all human beings have a human right to at least the basics in this world of abundance. Scarcity is a lie that keep the poor and middle class fighting each other and voting against there own interests, while those at the top and the spaths keep taking whatever they want and convince us that one can only have theirs but making sure that someone else doesn’t get theirs. in our society, money is power over ….one cannot create a truly libertarian society, when one group has the power of life and death over another.
Philomena
What would you do with those who don’t want your free housing, food, medical care, etc.? There are many who just want to be left alone.
they wouldn’t have to take it or use it. but most who don’t want it and want to be left alone feel that way because of the price in dignity and privacy they must pay in order to receive that help in our society. if everyone just got a base level without having to prove Anything, wIthout hving there privacy invaded, Without giving up 5heir right to choose how to live 5heir lives or spend their money, it would not be charity the way we model it. even those who just want to be left alone need money And healthcare And fooD And Shelter, but they don’t want to give up their liberty and dignity and free will to get it. being poor is very expensive.
philomela,
I appreciate your thoughtful response. Changing the existing model is something I very much hope can happen. All I was doing with my visualization exercise was contrasting a model that has a heavy downward energy (oppressive, weighing people down, no respect for humanity especially the downtrodden) with a model that has a strong upwards pull (lifting people up, a recognition of the sacredness of each individual human spirit embodied here). so maybe think of it that way — we currently have a model of oppression and the “lie” given to us (which so many believe) is that this is the only possible model. That there is no other possibility, so we might as well abandon all hope and thought of ever transcending what we currently appear to have. The “lie” is an illusion. So my suggested visualization is simply an illustration and an expression that I do believe each individual human life is sacred, we are all “brothers,” and no one is above anyone else in terms of value, though we may be at different levels of understanding and awareness, and certainly we are currently at different levels of economic advantage or disadvantage — this economic advantage/disadvantage is a big part of the engine which fuels the illusion of oppression. They way out of it (IMO) is by increasing awareness and evolving in our spirituality. Which cannot be imposed or forced, but only discovered if sought diligently and with free will. That is my view of things, and I know that others have different views, which I respect.
I totally agree with you that scarcity is a lie. We live in a world of abundance with a small number of people interfering in the lives of many, tricking us in many ways and doing their utmost to keep a vast percentage of us in a state of desperation and fear, so that we do not believe ourselves strong enough to fight back. These are predators and parasites, and we must find a way to get rid of them or at least contain them so that they will not wield such power over others.
Again, there are more of us than there are of them. Spread awareness and a message of hope to as many people as you can.
the idea that people who are poor are poor because their is something wrong with their actions or choices, or because they are lazy, or…..and that if they just fid x,y,z is a concept that smacks of the kind of victim blaming i hear thrust on many of us for the destruction “the spath” caused to us, our lives, and our survival. Victim blaming is an excuse for doing nothing in the face of harm to others. it is a way to feel safe…that it wont happen to us, because we are, better, smarter, more deserving, not as gullible, etc. i cant count the people whom i’ve met who e absolutely certain that they coukd never be conned by A spath, Who rather than believing in the reality of spAths, and that Any of us iS susceptible to being victimizEd, would rather believe that my victimization is my fault And therefore deserved. but even it was because of something wrong oR WeAk or wounded in me, that does not mean that i don’t desrve care or compassion or that i derserved to be victimized or harmed. it takes the presence of a predator for someone to become prey. no matter how stupid or vulnerable one is, it does not mean they are responsible for being victimized. if i walk nakef down a dark street in a bad neighborhood, it still takes the presence of a rapist for me to be raped and no matter how bad my judgement m7ght have been in walking down that street naked, it does not minimize or excuse the actions of the rapist. it would not be because of my nakedness that i was raped, it would be because of the presence and action of the rapist….no rapists=no rape.
I do know what you mean about this “choices” thing. I too have had friends tell me that my bad marriage was due to a bad “choice” I made. That was not a nice thing for them to think or say. Unfortunately it was a belief I also held, going into my marriage, because I ended up blaming myself too, and the whole thing about “you made your bed, well baby you are going to lie in that bed for the rest of your life!” as some kind of punishment for the choice that I had made. (Divorce was not an option in my mind at that time)
So it took a very long time for me to gather enough truthful information and realize that my spath husband had acted very nice towards me before the wedding (1.5 years he kept up this nice act!) and so did my friends’ husbands also act very nice toward them when they were dating and engaged…. but once the ring was on the finger, my husband changed into a monster, and theirs didn’t.
It took me many, many years post divorce to FINALLY understand what it meant, to accept “the part which I played” in the dynamic, without shaming/blaming myself or allowing others to, but simply to see it clearly, without judgment.
I also hadn’t realized how much I had judged other people according to this “choices” fallacy, until I stopped judging myself. A very tough lesson to learn. For me, anyway! 🙂