A sociopath can't care for people, but he can care for a person (difference between public/private relationships)
A psychopath can't care for either.
I don't know in which anarchist "guidebook" you read that the life of a child is considered the property of its parents. The life of a being is its own. If the child makes a case of being poorly treated by its parents and tries to break free, it is the child's right, and if the parents oppose it by force, then there is coercion and concept of defending one's life and protecting a person in danger apply perfectly.
Topic: It's because of crazy people like this... - page 2. (Read 3724 times)
My point here is that people like this exist. And it is because of this fact that the collective, and hopefully restrained, legitimate use of force exists. To identify, capture and contain sociopaths with criminal tendencies.
I cannot accept the arguement, however rational, that a society of entirely self-governed people can exist peacefully or sustainablely until there is a solution for this kind of person.
You are concerned that ordinary people won't able to use violence against such kinds of sociopaths. But this is a non-sequentior against an argument against anarchy. Anarchists aren't necessarily against violence. But rather we (I should say "I") are against institutionalized violence by a single organization with a monopoly on coercion.
Socialpath and pyschopath are crafty people really good at imitating normal people, and they're not necessary criminals..
Congressmen, I bet are just mostly normal people with 1 or 2 percents pyschopath mixed in.t
When we lack economic rationality, we tend to let insitutions incentives to drive destructive behaviors.
Insanity is what kill humanity, not a secret cabal of evil socialpath.
Congressmen, I bet are just mostly normal people with 1 or 2 percents pyschopath mixed in.t
When we lack economic rationality, we tend to let insitutions incentives to drive destructive behaviors.
Insanity is what kill humanity, not a secret cabal of evil socialpath.
Quote from: Creighto
How do you figure that these people are conditioned to keep one child in a cage and possiblely kill another and bury it next to the shed? Do you think that they were raised this way?
Quote
"He went to church and everything."
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_stone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
The current system isn't that great at punishing criminal sociopaths. It's much better at putting them in power.
You said it like it's a bad thing. Sociopaths are way better at making rational decisions
I suppose that depends on how one defines "criminal". The halls of prisons are filled with unsuccessful and ignorant sociopaths, alongside the non-violent drug offenders. While the halls of Congress and the Pentagon are filled with successful and intelligent sociopaths.
The current system isn't that great at punishing criminal sociopaths. It's much better at putting them in power.
You said it like it's a bad thing. Sociopaths are way better at making rational decisions
If what you need is someone who is good at killing and oppressing people, then yes, a sociopath is ideal. Personally I think that's a bad thing.
You are mixing psychopaths with sociopaths
I always get those mixed up. I have a hard time determining the real-world difference between them.
These kind of solutions aren't anarchy.
That's your definition of anarchy. My definition differs from yours. I'd prefer to avoid debates over which definitions are "right" and instead focus on the meaning behind the words. I consider anarchy perfectly capable of having all sorts of elaborate rules and structures, as long as they are all voluntary with violence only ever being used in self-defense.
because in that imaginary system children are legally and economicly the property of their parents
Well, there's your problem!
The current system isn't that great at punishing criminal sociopaths. It's much better at putting them in power.
You said it like it's a bad thing. Sociopaths are way better at making rational decisions
If what you need is someone who is good at killing and oppressing people, then yes, a sociopath is ideal. Personally I think that's a bad thing.
You are mixing psychopaths with sociopaths
The current system isn't that great at punishing criminal sociopaths. It's much better at putting them in power.
You said it like it's a bad thing. Sociopaths are way better at making rational decisions
If what you need is someone who is good at killing and oppressing people, then yes, a sociopath is ideal. Personally I think that's a bad thing.
The current system isn't that great at punishing criminal sociopaths. It's much better at putting them in power.
You said it like it's a bad thing. Sociopaths are way better at making rational decisions
The current system isn't that great at punishing criminal sociopaths. It's much better at putting them in power.
My point here is that people like this exist. And it is because of this fact that the collective, and hopefully restrained, legitimate use of force exists. To identify, capture and contain sociopaths with criminal tendencies.
We don't need a government for that. There will still be collective self-defense under anarchism. The only difference is that it will be paid for voluntarily and there will be competition among services.
Of course, in other cases there will be firms that take cases like this on contingency. They will rescue the child and then demand restitution from the parents for their services. You really need to delve into the literature and start looking for solutions to problems instead of just settling on whatever objections you can come up with.
I still consider private security/defense and 'phyles' to be sort of government in it's own right. These kind of solutions aren't anarchy. BTW, I've read many of the documents that anarchists point me to, and this is one objection that I've never seen well handled. I'm not saying that what we have is any good at identifying criminal sociopaths either, but once identified the system we have does a very good job of punishment. That is, in fact, the one thing that it's good at.
Even in the 'phyles' type of voluntary minarchy described in The Diamond Age, a phyle wouldn't have the right to take these children away from their parents, even if they had the motivation. At a minimum, the parents would have to be compensated for the children taken from them, because in that imaginary system children are legally and economicly the property of their parents.
My point here is that people like this exist. And it is because of this fact that the collective, and hopefully restrained, legitimate use of force exists. To identify, capture and contain sociopaths with criminal tendencies.
We don't need a government for that. There will still be collective self-defense under anarchism. The only difference is that it will be paid for voluntarily and there will be competition among services.
Of course, in other cases there will be firms that take cases like this on contingency. They will rescue the child and then demand restitution from the parents for their services. You really need to delve into the literature and start looking for solutions to problems instead of just settling on whatever objections you can come up with.
I think we are all animals and put ourselves first. The only thing that prevents society from such things is moral and environment in which they live. What today's "you are the best, you are worth it, you are individual" culture does is makes us compromise our moral more and more. This is just an extreme case of that and isolation from general society where other factors like fear of punishment against such things exist.
For majority of people, especially with strong ego, it is quite difficult to grasp that what they perceive as reality is only in their heads and it can be very different.
For majority of people, especially with strong ego, it is quite difficult to grasp that what they perceive as reality is only in their heads and it can be very different.
And I don't eat apples because penguins huddle together for warmth. What're you getting at?
My point here is that people like this exist. And it is because of this fact that the collective, and hopefully restrained, legitimate use of force exists. To identify, capture and contain sociopaths with criminal tendencies.
I cannot accept the arguement, however rational, that a society of entirely self-governed people can exist peacefully or sustainablely until there is a solution for this kind of person.
Clearly this is a government failure. In the world you are describing, these people would have become police officers.
People may be born with all sorts of tendencies, but I do not believe this kind of people would exist if they had the chance not to. They are simply conditioned to be such
How do you figure that these people are conditioned to keep one child in a cage and possiblely kill another and bury it next to the shed? Do you think that they were raised this way?
People may be born with all sorts of tendencies, but I do not believe this kind of people would exist if they had the chance not to. They are simply conditioned to be such
And I don't eat apples because penguins huddle together for warmth. What're you getting at?
My point here is that people like this exist. And it is because of this fact that the collective, and hopefully restrained, legitimate use of force exists. To identify, capture and contain sociopaths with criminal tendencies.
I cannot accept the arguement, however rational, that a society of entirely self-governed people can exist peacefully or sustainablely until there is a solution for this kind of person.
I don't find it surprising in the least. If we continue on the path we currently are this is going to be our society in not too distant future
...that I don't think that anarchists on this forum, or anywhere else, have any realistic argument.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/05/04/2011-05-04_virginia_girl_found_eating_herself_in_cage_in_mobile_home_parents_brian_and_shan.html?obref=obinsite
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/05/04/2011-05-04_virginia_girl_found_eating_herself_in_cage_in_mobile_home_parents_brian_and_shan.html?obref=obinsite
Non sequitur.
Jump to: