1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/20249/the-worst-rise-to-the-top/

The worst rise to the top

January 4, 2012 by

This year’s Republican primary race has turned politics into a continuous 24-hour carnival for political junkies to gawk at and speculate about. The weekly debates, packed field, plus the poll surges and collapses by virtually every candidate, has been a boon to MSNBC, CNN, and FOX.

However in the end, as the saying goes, “no matter who wins, the government gets elected.” This political primarypalooza is just a 7 days a week infomercial for democracy and the state. The coverage from Iowa last evening was continually laced with high minded “the people get to choose” pronouncements from both the TV talking heads and the candidates.

Choosing is the problem. F.A. Hayek famously argued in The Road to Serfdom, that in politics, the worst get on top, and outlined three reasons this is so. First, Hayek makes the point that people of higher intelligence have different tastes and views. So, as Hayek writes, “we have to descend to the regions of lower moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive instincts prevail,” to have uniformity of opinion.

Second, those on top must “gain the support of the docile and gullible,” who are ready to accept whatever values and ideology is drummed into them. Totalitarians depend upon those who are guided by their passions and emotions rather than by critical thinking.

Finally, leaders don’t promote a positive agenda, but a negative one of hating an enemy and envy of the wealthy. To appeal to the masses, leaders preach an “us” against “them” program.

“Advancement within a totalitarian group or party depends largely on a willingness to do immoral things,” Hayek explains. “The principle that the end justifies the means, which in individualist ethics is regarded as the denial of all morals, in collectivist ethics becomes necessarily the supreme rule.”

According to law enforcement examiner Jim Kouri, politicians share a number of traits with serial killers. People with a talent for mixing charm, manipulation, intimidation, and occasionally violence to control others, to satisfy their own selfish needs are psychopathic.

Not all psychopaths are serial killers, but according to Kouri, serial killers display numerous psychopathic traits. Kouri writes,

What doesn’t go unnoticed is the fact that some of the character traits exhibited by serial killers or criminals may be observed in many within the political arena. While not exhibiting physical violence, many political leaders display varying degrees of anger, feigned outrage and other behaviors. They also lack what most consider a “shame” mechanism. Quite simply, most serial killers and many professional politicians must mimic what they believe, are appropriate responses to situations they face such as sadness, empathy, sympathy, and other human responses to outside stimuli.

On the same theme, H.L. Mencken wrote of politicians in Notes on Democracy,

His business is never what it pretends to be. Ostensibly he is an altruist devoted whole-heartedly to the service of his fellow-men, and so abjectly public-spirited that his private interest is nothing to him. Actually he is a sturdy rogue whose principal, and often sole aim in life is to butter his parsnips. His technical equipment consists simply of an armamentarium of deceits. It is his business to get and hold his job at all costs. If he can hold it by lying he will hold it by lying; if lying peters out he will try to hold it by embracing new truths.

So now it’s on to New Hampshire where the motto is “Live Free or Die.” But Mencken wrote that the Democratic man “is quite unable to think of himself as a free individual; he must belong to a group, or shake with fear and loneliness–and the group, of course, must have its leaders.”

{ 69 comments }

Michael A. Clem January 4, 2012 at 1:06 pm

As an ancap, I’m not holding my breath waiting for the results of the election. Nonetheless, I’m pleasantly surprised at Ron Paul’s showing in Iowa, and hope that he gets more chances to express his views.

Nile BP January 4, 2012 at 2:29 pm

I have mixed feelings about Ron Paul’s campaign. He said it himself that the objective is not to get elected but to spread the message; however, some libertarians are making a push specifically for his “victory” in the ballot box. Sad, because it risks not only diluting the message but outright damaging it in the likely case of a “defeat”. It’s comforting to see that French is sticking to the traditional (and much sturdier) position of denying politics altogether.

scineram January 4, 2012 at 4:20 pm

“denying politics altogether.”

Which will achieve exactly nothing.

Sione January 4, 2012 at 4:39 pm

scineram

You are too pessimistic. You neglect the opportunities to promote by example, persuasion, productivity, behaviour, expression of morality and so on. There are many paths leading to the goal. Not all of them demand engagment in politics.

Sione

Jim from Ohio January 4, 2012 at 4:46 pm

>He said it himself that the objective is not to get elected but to spread the message

Do you have a link? This is untrue to the point of being offensive.

EzekielZ January 4, 2012 at 7:00 pm

What they do is ask him a hundred times why he’s “really” running for president, and then the one time he doesn’t jump right up and say “to win, of course!” they paint it how they wanted to paint it when they ask him the question.

There is so much anti-Paul propaganda woven throughout the MSM coverage, some of it subtle.

Nile BP January 4, 2012 at 10:36 pm

Well, that was a gaffe; indeed he never explicitly said “I don’t care about winning the election”, not that I could find anyway. “Offensive” is a little harsh though. But my point stands – his priority is scoring points in the intellectual battle, not the political one. He says so at around 0:34 of this LRC podcast: http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2011/06/08/205-ron-paul-im-running-against-keynes/; and this idea pervades everything he says and does.

And rightly so. Any libertarian with half an ounce each of common sense and humility should know that ours is a steep uphill battle, and that we need to even the odds before ever dreaming of dislodging the party of statism. If it turns out that things aren’t so bleak, well, so much the better; but ignoring our reality and cheering for Ron Paul as the Messiah who’s going to defy the Evil Media’s smears and single-handedly tear down the Establishment is not only succumbing to the sickening President-cult, but also setting up the stage for a crushing disappointment.

RFN January 6, 2012 at 1:39 pm

Nobody that I know is saying that Paul is a “messiah” or anything close to it. But, he is a bell weather, and quite possibly a stop gap to the constant growth of leviathan. I often think that too many people in here make the perfect the enemy of the good. It’s not him, who we are excited about, but rather his ideals and ideas. We’re on Earth. Nothing is perfect, but it could be a hell of a lot better.

Phil M January 4, 2012 at 5:51 pm

I think Nile BP has half a point. However, no society can go from damn-near totalitarianism to strict anarcho-capitalism in a matter of days. In fact, it would take generations. Just as some wise Marxists embraced social democracy to slowly “ratchet” the world to communism, we have to elect people like Ron Paul to slowly move our society towards better ends.

If holding my nose to VOTE for Ron Paul is the only bit of pragmatism I have to endure, so be it.

Jim January 4, 2012 at 6:37 pm

Far more importantly than electing Ron Paul as our new Head Overlord, is that if a sufficient number of people are so turned on to the ideas of liberty that he could be elected so, that is a peaceful revolution. In some way, voting for the only anti-government candidate (who has the past record to be believable as a politician) is a vote against government itself. The idea can’t be stopped.

Jim January 4, 2012 at 6:13 pm

People have a chance for a self-defense vote that is usually non-existent. We can vote to be left alone. We shouldn’t have to, but we do.

nate-m January 4, 2012 at 7:52 pm

Sad, because it risks not only diluting the message but outright damaging it in the likely case of a “defeat”.

You are falling for ‘their’ bullshit.

It’s comforting to see that French is sticking to the traditional (and much sturdier) position of denying politics altogether.

The campaign and their successes are important to help people realize that the people that there is still a huge number of people that believe that freedom should be the top priority for engaging in politics. People who care and get frustrated and hate the system may not understand why they hate it and the majority feel as if they are unique or alone in their beliefs. It’s important to help people realize that if they care about freedom that they are not alone and they are right.

The ONLY negative thing I see from Ron Paul is that the Republicans are using his campaign to help convince the libertarian-leaning folks that they are preferable to the Democrats. After all, they appear to be giving him at least some chance even though he is being hamstrung by “The Media”. Of course this a load of crap, but it’s going to be convincing to most people. The republicans won’t let him win anymore then the Democrats would.

They will keep him from winning the primary. After all, the primary elections are just a stage show paid for by state taxes in order to convince people that we have some vestiges of real democracy left. These elections are not constitutional bound and have little to no bearing on who actually ends up being elected. It’s just a show ran by the political parties for their party member’s benefit.

They don’t have to ‘rig’ the elections because their is nothing to ‘rig’. It’s just a dog and pony show.

Horst Muhlmann January 5, 2012 at 11:12 am

The ONLY negative thing I see from Ron Paul is that the Republicans are using his campaign to help convince the libertarian-leaning folks that they are preferable to the Democrats.

This is the only sentence I disagree with. The Republican and “conservative” blogs I read call Ron Paul worse names than they do Obama. They only serve to cement the fact that there is no substantial difference between Socialist Party A and Socialist Party B.

My favorite line form them, although not at all indicative of the vitriol: “That Ron Paul is too radical. He want to cut one trillion dollars from the budget in the first year!” That would only take us back to the size government was in 2009 or so.

nate-m January 5, 2012 at 7:04 pm

Well I still disagree with you. Why?

Because the Republicans understand the thinking patterns and emotional tendencies of the ‘Libertarian leaning’ Republicans much more then you do. Hating on other Republicans is normal and expected in a Republican versus Republican match, but the ‘Liberal Democrats’ are spawn of satan and must be countered no matter what horrible things the Republicans end up doing.

Do not try to read much logic into it. If the voting public was logical then we wouldn’t be having these problems.

Ned Netterville January 5, 2012 at 1:28 pm

“The campaign and their successes are important to help people realize that the people that there is still a huge number of people that believe that freedom should be the top priority for engaging in politics.”–nate-m

Voting is immoral because, among other reasons, it solidifies the rulers’ b.s. that they–the winners of an election–have legitimate authority to rule. They don’t. I didn’t give them permission to tell me what to do or not to do. I’m not their slave; they are not my masters. What say you?

You do point out a grave problem, which is that there definitely are a huge number of people who do not understand freedom, and so they mistakenly believe that it can somehow be the product of politics. They think that freedom comes from government action, whereas the truth is that all government action is an assault on freedom.

nate-m January 5, 2012 at 7:11 pm

I can vote and still reject their legitimacy. While you have a point, I think you are vastly overstating the effect of individual choice in the act of voting in this election.

I also think that nobody is going to achieve anything by staying aloof and taking a absolutist position on things. Continuous, grinding, evolving, and unrelenting pressure is how things change: Not by sitting back and throwing your arms up in the air and saying ‘My way or the highway’ and hoping that one day everything you want will come true.

So participation and just being a ever present and unrelenting bastard; being right while everybody else is wrong; pointing out fallacies and infantilistic reasoning and excuses.. and just being a thorn in the side of the system at every opportunity is what is called for.

Michael A. Clem January 12, 2012 at 5:23 pm

“why vote if you wont accept the results?”

That’s an entirely different question than the question of legitimacy. Why not vote? Unless there are no good choices to vote for at all.

“However, if Obama won 100 percent of the votes in the Electoral College but only 100,000 people voted in the election–all for Obama–I doubt if he could continue as president.”

And you would be wrong–of course he would continue as president–after all, he would have gotten an “overwhelming mandate” for his policies. As it stands now, only about a quarter of the eligible population votes in elections today, and nobody thinks that compromises the legitimacy of the vote. Instead the political pundits wonder about the apathy of the citizens.

Michael A. Clem January 6, 2012 at 1:16 pm

“Legitimacy”? The results of the vote are forced on “the citizens” whether they vote or not. Voting isn’t what gives it legitimacy. It is the acceptance of the results that gives it legitimacy.

Ned Netterville January 6, 2012 at 10:41 pm

“…just being a ever present and unrelenting bastard; being right while everybody else is wrong; pointing out fallacies and infantilistic reasoning and excuses.. and just being a thorn in the side of the system at every opportunity is what is called for.”

nate-m, I certainly agree with these words of your comment, but if you can’t bring yourself to not voting, how about not paying taxes. That is the single most effective way to stick it to the system.

Michael A. Clem, why vote if you wont accept the results? If Obama beat Ron Paul by one vote in the Electoral College, with the popular vote of almost two-hundred million evenly divided, Obama would obviously feel his continuance as president was 100% legitimate (ala Bush in 2000), and he would continue to do his best to take the nation down the road to serfdom. However, if Obama won 100 percent of the votes in the Electoral College but only 100,000 people voted in the election–all for Obama–I doubt if he could continue as president.

Walt D. January 5, 2012 at 1:05 am

I am also very cynical.
The result of the democratic process is usually:
“Same trough, different hogs”.

Vedran January 4, 2012 at 1:21 pm

This reminds me of another quote outside of Austrian economics showing the poor decision-making capabilities of democratic masses:

“Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would. And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? For he knew that for envy they had delivered him. When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.

The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas. Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.

When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.”

Mathew 27:15 -27:26

Old Boy January 5, 2012 at 7:18 pm

Ned Netterville’s exegesis casts this show trial in a different light. Jesus of Nazareth, Illegal Tax Protester:
http://jesus-on-taxes.com/Page_7.html

Walt D. January 4, 2012 at 2:19 pm

“The worst rise to the top”
I think this is called “The Cesspit Theory” – the biggest turds have a tendency to float to the top!

Stephen January 4, 2012 at 3:22 pm

The market is dynamic; the state is stagnant. Scum always accumulates on the surface of stagnant ponds.

Dagnytg January 4, 2012 at 3:48 pm

I think it’s also called the Peter Principle…though I like your description better.

Walt D. January 4, 2012 at 4:41 pm

I think the Peter Principle only refers to incompetence – a person is doing a good job will keep getting promoted until they arrive at a job where they are incompetent. It does not say anything about the character of the person.
Politics is more insidious. You do not need to have a core competency to become a politician – a big mouth any an empty head will suffice. You also don’t need any prior experience. Even the Presidency has become an entry level job – no prior experience at anything required.

Sione January 4, 2012 at 4:41 pm

Walt D

Indeed.

And what an apt analogy!

Sione

dat p January 4, 2012 at 9:16 pm

median voter theorem? assuming the average voter is more scum than he/she is aware of.

Washington76 January 4, 2012 at 3:56 pm

EPIC Urges Appeals Court to Shed Light on Google-NSA Agreement
http://epic.org/privacy/nsa/foia/NSA-Google_FOIA_Request.pdf

Bruce Koerber January 4, 2012 at 6:57 pm

We are in the midst of an epic swing of the economic equilibrium towards its point of entropy and this is combined with the educational prowess of the greatest classical liberal of all time (arguably). In other words, analysis based on ‘what has been’ or ‘what the limitations are’ fit into the category of shortsightedness.

Kyle Ambrosas January 4, 2012 at 8:45 pm

There has definitely been an insane amount of coverage of the Iowa Caucus. I don’t remember it ever being this crazy before

RTB January 4, 2012 at 10:07 pm

It’s true, you know. Even the phrase “the cream always rises to the top” really only applies to cream gone bad.

Art Thomas January 5, 2012 at 7:51 pm

Taken literally, the phrase applies to fresh cream, i.e. milk that has not been homogenized. Either raw or pasteurized.

David C January 4, 2012 at 10:09 pm

My perspective of what’s happening, is that because of the internet, the government media mouthpiece has lost control, and people are getting their information online and in forums and blogs where socialist dogma and bullshit can be directly challenged, and so the consequence of that is that the online generation is becoming distinctly more libertarian and ancap, and these people are no longer social outcasts. And since, online everybody is equal, it is becoming very hard to play rich against poor, man against woman, old against young, black against white for political gain. It left the door wide open for Ron Paul to go in there and unify people who are more left than Obama, and more right than Gingrich. We haven’t had this kind of a shakeup since the civil war caused the Whigs party to fall from power.

fakename January 5, 2012 at 12:05 am

I don’t think that the political class is psychopathic, it’s just that they need to emote and empathize on command to gain popularity; of course their feelings won’t perfectly align with everyone else’s.

Also, if sheer psychopathy or self-interest was their highest value, then dictators would be the most psychopathic lot of people. However even dictators have a certain altruistic character streak; Cinncinatus stepped down after he saved the republic from the dangerous consequences of the tribunes and their push for the twelve tables.

Gil January 5, 2012 at 12:40 am

The criteria for “psychopathy” are vague and can apply to most people. Would people say Ayn Rand was extolling psychopathy when she wrote about selfishness?

Old Boy January 5, 2012 at 7:21 pm

Rand sure spawned plenty of psychopaths, if she wasn’t one herself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoAWCwm-UXw

Inquisitor January 6, 2012 at 9:11 am

No, unless you completely strawman her.

freeman January 5, 2012 at 8:59 am

Ron Paul is clearly “In it to win it”, but he’s also campaigning on two fronts simultaneously: the political and the ideological. The two reinforce each other; the stronger the political results, the more people hear his ideas, and the more he gets to frame the debate. The more people hear his ideas, the stronger the political results.

If he wins the nomination and the Presidency, he’ll be able to do something about the size of the federal government. Neither the politicians nor the pundits will be able to pretend that there is any confusion about what needs to be done: ending the wars, bringing the troops home, and making real cuts to the budget. Will he accomplish everything he would want? Everything that I would want? No – but what might be accomplished is not nothing.

Meanwhile, regardless of the outcome of the political campaign, the ideological campaign has gotten a huge boost. Millions of people know more about Austrian School economics and libertarian ideas than ever before. We’ll be “framing the debate” for years to come.

bill wald January 5, 2012 at 3:47 pm

“The worst rise to the top”

WE FINALLY AGREE!!!!!!!

BUT THEN a Libertarian government can’t be any better than any other variety. Christians call it our “sin nature.” As Dutch Calvinists put it, sin contaminates all human activity including the Church. Atheists – call it defective DNA if you prefer.

Topher January 5, 2012 at 6:48 pm

You may agree with us more than you realize. What you say about the *nature* of a libertarian minarchist government is certainly true. All governments of any possible design will be staffed by self-interested humans, who will use their position for their own advantage at the expense of others.

Austrian economics recognizes that *everyone* acts in what they perceive to their own self-interest in everything they do. This is why von Mises titled his magnum opus “Human Action”. However, even though all people, whether political or not, act selfishly, MOST people choose to cooperate with others rather than trying to beat them up and harvest their resources. We cooperate because we correctly recognize it as being to our own personal gain, not because we are of a superior nature than the criminals of the world.

My question is, since it is clear that everyone has the capacity to ruin others by violent means for personal gain, why support an institution, e.g. the state, that gives people the incentive to do this by removing the personal consequences?

Sione January 5, 2012 at 11:02 pm

Topher

Exactly.

Your question is the one that ALL supporters of the notion of government need to carefully consider…

Sione

Michael A. Clem January 5, 2012 at 5:03 pm

Considering that about half of the eligible people don’t register, and that only about half the people who do register bother to vote, then a majority of people apparently agree that voting is a waste of time. Why aren’t we free yet???

Mitch Kordonowy January 5, 2012 at 8:22 pm

Apathy and tyranny of the majority.
Need only a fiery minority to start the brush fires of the mind, to take from Samuel Adams.

Washington76 January 6, 2012 at 12:54 pm
M E Hoffer January 6, 2012 at 3:00 pm

OT:

on a different website, I was posed with:

Mark E Hoffer, you quoted Sullivan:

This kind of gotcha-association game is particularly easy because libertarians favor liberty above all, and that will necessarily mean liberty for bigots as well as others. A principled belief in states’ rights will doubtless lead to more racist and homophobic policies in many states – but also, of course, more enlightened and successful inclusive states like Oregon or New York or Massachusetts or California. A rejection of statism might lead to more discrimination in the private sector. But it doesn’t mandate it. And it need not encourage it.

So the view of libertarians doesn’t mandate or necessarily encourage bigotry and discrimination. What a relieve. But when they occur what then? What’s the point of view of a libertarian in this case? Is it just “shit happens”? And where does a libertarian draw the line regarding liberty for bigots and discrimination? Is there any line at all? No matter how bad it gets? Could you enlighten me, please, since you seem to share these views.

It seems to me that the view of libertarians on liberty and the rights of the individual is very one-sided. It doesn’t really seem to include the right to be protected from racisms, anti-semitism, gender discrimination etc., although those can strongly infringe the liberty of the individuals who are targeted by them.

As for the support Paul get from fringe groups. I’m not really surprised. From what I have observed, there is an above average tendency among libertarians themselves to resort to conspiracy-paranoid explanations of the world. The last link in your comment is a nice example. Or look at websites where libertarians cluster (e.g., the comments section of zerohedge). I suspect this is because the real world conflicts as strongly with the anarcho-capitalist free-market paradise w/o government about which libertarians dream as ideal world, and they cannot explain this deviation of reality from the wished world other than being caused by sinister, all-powerfull conspiracies that prevent the paradise to become reality.
from:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/01/10-thursday-pm-reads-8/#comments

maybe, some of y’all could assist this Individual with a better understanding of what he “asking about”/positing..

I’d appreciate it~

Sincerely,

Mark E Hoffer.

Ned Netterville January 6, 2012 at 11:48 pm

Mark Hoffer, just a few random rejoinders to your comment:

With the exception of Oregon, the states you mention as enlightened rank near the top (9th, 10th, and 11th, according to Wiki) in the amount they tax. Using lots of OPM (sounds like opium, is equally addicting, stands for other people’s money) to satisfy one’s wants and needs certainly isn’t enlightened. I’d call it rather uncivilized, even brutish, since all of the states you mention, including Oregon, resort to force and coercion to get their fix of OPM.

Mark, you ask (although I’m sure it is a rhetorical question rather than a sincere desire to be enlightened): “And where does a libertarian draw the line regarding liberty for bigots and discrimination? Is there any line at all? No matter how bad it gets? Could you enlighten me, please, since you seem to share these views.”

On Discrimination (in the sense that is bad0: It only occurs when the discriminating person or institution has the capacity to exert authority by force, in other words, when it is done by the State or its agents. Although you are probably one of those progressive thinkers who believes that government, particularly the federal government, has been instrumental in ending or at least reducing some of the blatant discrimination that existed in the US in the past, I like to point out to progressives that in almost every instance the blatant discrimination–like slavery, for example–has always been a product of and supported by governments and their legislation. Seems rather stupid to me to look to government to solve problems created by government. Why not just put an end to government?

Mark, you say, “It seems to me that the view of libertarians on liberty and the rights of the individual is very one-sided. It doesn’t really seem to include the right to be protected from racisms, anti-semitism, gender discrimination etc., although those can strongly infringe the liberty of the individuals who are targeted by them.”

There is, of course, no “right” to be protected against those things you mention because someone would have to pay for your protection against those follies, and you don’t have a right to forcibly impose on your neighbor to pay for your protection. But rest assured that the liberty of the libertarian correctly understood is the best possible protection against the negative effects of racism, antisemitism, etc.

rootless January 7, 2012 at 11:08 am

“Mark Hoffer, just a few random rejoinders to your comment:”

Actually, you are replying to comments made by me starting from the second paragraph. The first paragraph is a quote by Sullivan to which I commented. Mark just asked here for help with replying to me, and while doing this, he also messed up the proper marking of the quotes, leading to confusion who said what.

“On Discrimination (in the sense that is bad0: It only occurs when the discriminating person or institution has the capacity to exert authority by force, in other words, when it is done by the State or its agents.”

The assertions that only the state or its agents have the capacity to excert discrimination by force is not based on reality. Private institutions, private owners of capital who employ other people have such an authority in the realm of their private ownership as well. Unless you think in this case it’s nothing to be considered “bad”.

“Although you are probably one of those progressive thinkers who believes that government, particularly the federal government, has been instrumental in ending or at least reducing some of the blatant discrimination that existed in the US in the past,”

You are assuming. I think that the civil rights movement was instrumental, or, more generally, social forces in society are instrumental in this. Government, and government legislation reflect the socio-economic relationships in society. Establishing rights that protect from racist, anti-semitic, gender-discrimination etc., is the result from that these forces have become influential enough to change government with respect to that.

“I like to point out to progressives that in almost every instance the blatant discrimination–like slavery, for example–has always been a product of and supported by governments and their legislation. Seems rather stupid to me to look to government to solve problems created by government.”

How do you explain that there is government? Where does it come from? In the case of slavery, how do you see the role of private owners in establishing and maintaining slavery? Slavery wasn’t imposed on the private owners against their interests and will by the government. Again, government and their legislation that protected slavery, instead of protecting the individual against slavery, reflected the socio-economic relationships of society. So, I don’t see government per se as the root cause for slavery and similar. That there can’t be other government legislation, which protects the individuals against slavery, doesn’t logically follow from the protection of slavery by government back then.

“Why not just put an end to government?”

Because this is a pointless proposition. It’s not based on reality. There is no capitalism w/o government. It’s just what it is. Your proposition is based on some ideal fantasy world you have constructed in your head, for which you have postulated that everything will be just fine there, once it would be established.

As for the rights.

“There is, of course, no “right” to be protected against those things you mention because someone would have to pay for your protection against those follies,”

So, consequently, there are no individual rights at all in the organization of society what you think would be the ideal one. Not even any right to be protected against torture or murder, since someone else would have to pay for my protection and that can’t be. Consequently, there aren’t any property rights either, and everyone who is powerful enough could take your private property away from you, if you can’t pay enough for your own protection.

“But rest assured that the liberty of the libertarian correctly understood is the best possible protection against the negative effects of racism, antisemitism, etc.”

So that’s what you have to offer me when I ask how libertarians think to deal with those phenomena of real society today. Some verbal assurance that everything will be just fine once the promised land has arrived and everyone has got what you think is the correct understanding of liberty in the anarcho-capitalist paradise. How will you achieve that every one get the higher insight and arrives at this “correct” understanding, anyway?

Ned Netterville January 7, 2012 at 3:38 pm

Rootless, sorry for the confusion regarding who said what. Anyway, here are some response to your comments (in quotes), which I hope I don’t take out of context.

“Private institutions, private owners of capital who employ other people have such an authority in the realm of their private ownership as well.”

The cannot force anyone to enter the realmof their private ownership, and in a laissez-faire regimen devoid of government intervention, there will always be alternatives to the discriminator, whose competition will eventually either drive the discriminator out of business or force him to change his ways.

“You are assuming. I think that the civil rights movement was instrumental…”

No, I was merely preparing to make the observation of the irrefutable truth that slavery and other widely damaging discrimination has always depended on the support of legislation, and it does not make sense–at least not to me–to look to government to right the wrong its legislation caused in the first place. Correcting the government created wrong by new laws and government regulations serves to strengthen the hand that is capable of doing so much damage to so many people. The next systemic wrong it inflicts on its subjects will be all the more difficult to oppose because the State was made more powerful in order to rectify its own previous wrongs. And I am confident that the State will continue to commit legislative malfeasance with harmful consequences on many people because the State is a human construct that is utterly dependent on the use of force–nay, the initiation of force without provocation if for no other reason–and there will always be many other reasons–than to collect the taxes on which it depends.

“So, consequently, there are no individual rights at all in the organization of society what you think would be the ideal one. Not even any right to be protected against torture or murder, since someone else would have to pay for my protection and that can’t be. Consequently, there aren’t any property rights either, and everyone who is powerful enough could take your private property away from you, if you can’t pay enough for your own protection.

I do not know how you came to these preposterous conclusions on the basis of my remark. Let me try to enlighten you: Our rights as human beings come from God, not government, or, alternatively, they are ours by virtue of our human nature. Each one of us possesses the same God-given rights, which I think were well describe in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, none of which are possible without the right to private property. Now you also want the “right” to be protected against murder, and that protection must be paid for by others. But your protection cannot be had for free, and it cannot by obtained by forcibly taking the private property of others, so your right isn’t a right at all, it is an “entitlement” that you can only get through government. And when the government does what you want, it becomes destructive of the very purpose for which it was constructed: to secure these rights.

But, rootless, it is obvious to me that you are stuck in the abyss of Statolatry if you cannot think of any alternative to government to secure yourself from murder, an alternative that is not dependent on forcibly taking your neighbor’s property. May I suggest in place of force creative thinking combined with persuasion and cooperation could turn the trick. Given some of the statistics I’ve seen on the rate of democide (murder by governments) in the 20th century, I feel sure you will be safer from murder without the government robbing others to protect you. And keep this in mind: the authority of the State on which you would rely exists only because you–and most others–believe it is legitimate.

Real society today? Watch this video and then tell me who is realistic and who is not; who believes a superstition and who does not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Msr01w7iYw&feature=related

rootless January 7, 2012 at 8:14 pm

“The cannot force anyone to enter the realmof their private ownership, and in a laissez-faire regimen devoid of government intervention, there will always be alternatives to the discriminator, whose competition will eventually either drive the discriminator out of business or force him to change his ways.”

In real capitalist society how it is choices people have are often very limited, even more when the unemployment rates are high like currently.

And your alternative to today, well, it’s just some promise of the paradise again, where allegedly there wasn’t such a problem in the realm of private ownership, and even if there was, it would solve by itself since everything went into some harmonic equilibrium that ensured happiness for everyone. What reason should I have to believe that? Just take you by your word?

“No, I was merely preparing to make the observation of the irrefutable truth that slavery and other widely damaging discrimination has always depended on the support of legislation, and it does not make sense–at least not to me–to look to government to right the wrong its legislation caused in the first place.”

On what evidence is the assertion based that slavery or similar was caused by government legislation in the first place? Again, how do you see the role of the private property owners and their interest in slavery? After all, they were the ones who owned and exploited the slaves for their economic advantage.

“I do not know how you came to these preposterous conclusions on the basis of my remark. Let me try to enlighten you: Our rights as human beings come from God, not government, or, alternatively, they are ours by virtue of our human nature. Each one of us possesses the same God-given rights, which I think were well describe in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, none of which are possible without the right to private property.”

I’m not a believer, and when someone starts to base his/her arguments on axioms like God, I don’t see the possibility for meaningful further discussion about this. You make a metaphysical argument, which is, by its nature, neither logically nor empirically refutable, since its a purely faith based. I just don’t share your axiom.

“Now you also want the “right” to be protected against murder, and that protection must be paid for by others. But your protection cannot be had for free, and it cannot by obtained by forcibly taking the private property of others, so your right isn’t a right at all, it is an “entitlement” that you can only get through government.”

Here I am confused. If there was a God-given right to life doesn’t this imply a right to be protected from murder? What meaning has the declaration of right to life then? What is the meaning of “right” then? When and how does it apply?

“And when the government does what you want, it becomes destructive of the very purpose for which it was constructed: to secure these rights.”

What are you saying? That having indvidual rights as established legislation, the function of which is to protect the individual, also against arbitrary exercise of force against the individual by the state and its agents, will have the opposite effect? If you are, is there any evidence for this? Because I don’t see that.

“But, rootless, it is obvious to me that you are stuck in the abyss of Statolatry if you cannot think of any alternative to government to secure yourself from murder, an alternative that is not dependent on forcibly taking your neighbor’s property.”

With “forcibly taking your neighbor’s property”, do you mean taxes? Yes, it must be a lack of imagination on my side. How would this work in your anarcho-capitalist paradise? Chicago in the 20ies? Somalia?

“Given some of the statistics I’ve seen on the rate of democide (murder by governments) in the 20th century, I feel sure you will be safer from murder without the government robbing others to protect you.”

I may be safer than under state forms and governments where mass murder was committed. To conclude from those instances of mass murder that I would be also safer from murder than I am now, is a non-sequitur, though. So this is not an argument that could convince me.

“And keep this in mind: the authority of the State on which you would rely exists only because you–and most others–believe it is legitimate.”

The believe in the legitimacy of the government by most, this is true, a necessary condition for government, but only one aspect. Why do most people believe in it? Because they just haven’t seen the light yet? Or, perhaps, a convincing case is missing that 1. your alternative of capitalism without government would be a functioning society, instead of just be torn apart because of the prevalence of centrifugal particular interests, and 2. people generally would be better off in such a society than they are now.

For instance, if it really would be possible to get rid off all government, and your anarcho-capitalist society wouldn’t just descent into warring factions. How would I personally be better off than I’m now? (I’m a scientist working in a field of nature sciences. My source of income is soft money through government grants, like NSF grants). If there isn’t anything in it for me why should I even consider it?

“Real society today? Watch this video and then tell me who is realistic and who is not; who believes a superstition and who does not.”

I watched the video. I’m not clear what you mean with “superstition”. I’m not the one whose arguments resort to a divine entity as axiom. Intellectuelly, I’m not impressed by the speech of this dude. He says most Americans had accepted a double standard. That most people don’t see any legitimacy in breaking the law or even armed resistance (killing cops?) against the government today, although they accept the legitimacy and celebrate the armed resistance against the rule of the British Crown in the War of Independence. However, the premise of his argument his wrong. The premise is that the War of Independence was armed resistance against the rule by any government. Instead, it was armed resistance against what was seen a the wrong government, one which was seen as one without legitimacy, to establish their own government, one which was seen as legitimate. So, if people see the government today as legitimate, then there isn’t any double standard, if they don’t see (armed) resistance against it as legitimate.

I wonder, has this guy, Larken Rose, taken up arms already? Or his he just someone who is talking big?

rootless January 7, 2012 at 8:26 pm

He he, “intellectually”.

Hume January 6, 2012 at 3:50 pm

The biggest problem with the “Libertarian movement” as I see it is that it is ignorant of good political philosophy. Thus, you find many vomiting the sound-bites of Mencken, Nock, and other journalists, quoting Mises and Rothbard ad nauseum (both economists who later hoped to dabble in political philosophy). Unfortunately, these ‘libertarians’ are simultaneously badly informed of the most influential political philosophy of the last 50 years (Rawls, Dworkin, Nagel, Raz, Christiano, Gaus (a libertarian!), Pettitt, Waldron, AJ Simmons (philosophical anarchist!), Habermas, Scanlon, Scheffler, Walzer, Richardson etc. etc.). To make matters worse, most libertarians, especially of the Austrian bent, have zero theory of ideal government in the face of massive disagreement on matters of justice and the good. Here’s a hint: go back and actually read Hobbes and Locke (and definitely Waldron and Jean Hampton on this point) to understand what Waldron calls “the circumstances of politics.” The insight of Hobbes and Locke is this: people come together, they trade, they interact in innumerable ways. Thus, certain fundamental decisions regarding the structure of these relationships *must* be made. A fundamental question of political philosophy is how are these decisions to be made when those who need an answer fundamentally disagree (to me, the identification of a “People” is the most important question for political philosophy; one answer is “those who have voluntarily agreed to live in political community; another is that in addition to contractualism, associative relationships can give rise to a legitimate claim to political community). As I see it, Austro-”libertarians” would simply force their vision of justice upon everyone else, coercing those who do not agree to get in line. This is because they do not have a theory of democracy. It’s unfortunate that such self-professed libertarians have lost sight of classical liberalism and its commitment to the democratic ideal.

My harsh criticism comes from someone who views himself *as a libertarian*. I have been profoundly influenced by Nozick, Rothbard, and Hayek. Yet the repugnance towards the democratic ideal found in certain contemporary libertarian cliques is disheartening indeed.

Ned Netterville January 7, 2012 at 12:02 am

Oh, come, come Hume, the original Hume wouldn’t be so preposterously ignorant and grandiose as to pretend to know who comprises such a nebulous concept as the “libertarian movement.” Nor would Hume have vomited out such an outrageous charge against an implicitly large group of people, among which are many who–based on the utter stupidity of your comment here–know far more of sound philosophy–political or otherwise–than a dolt like you will ever comprehend. And, for your information, Mises has been more influential in the last 50 years than the entire group of people you mentioned.

What is repugnant is your mindless embrace of mob rule.

Hume January 7, 2012 at 10:49 am

“What is repugnant is your mindless embrace of mob rule.”

If you are interested in democratic theory, I suggest you read Ronald Dworkin’s The Moral Reading and the Majoritarian Premise (reprinted in Freedom’s Law). Although I disagree strongly with Dworkin’s egalitarianism and his conception of the democratic ideal, this essay will illustrate the fundamental misunderstanding in your claim of a “mindless embrace of mob rule.” In addition, if you are interested, Robert Dahl’s Democracy and Its Critics, Thomas Christiano’s The Rule of the Many, Henry Richardson’s Democratic Autonomy, and Gerald Gaus’ Justificatory Liberalism, are also good and easy reads that will quickly alleviate any worries you may have vis-a-vis the democratic ideal as the mindless embrace of mob rule.

“Mises has been more influential in the last 50 years than the entire group of people you mentioned.”

Although I am not at all interested in the “who is more influential” debate, this is a silly claim. John Rawls is the most influential political (and perhaps moral) philosopher of the 20th century. Although I think his legal philosophy is pretty bad, Ronald Dworkin is one of the most widely read legal philosophers of the last 40 years, and the man was highly influential in the writing of the South African constitution (not to mention his political philosophy and popular writings in the New York Review of Books). Joseph Raz is the most influential legal positivist since HLA Hart. Etc. etc.

Ned Netterville January 7, 2012 at 2:37 pm

Hume, One of the most intense examinations of democracy by some pretty enlightened people–the Founding Fathers, so called–found it wanting.

Silly claim? You point to the credentials of some of the group. What do you know about Mises and his work?

Dagnytg January 7, 2012 at 6:35 am

Hume,

You make an interesting observation but (as the libertarian you claim to be) the ignorance is yours.

The libertarian “ignorance of good political philosophy” and “repugnance towards the democratic ideal” that you lament is easily understood if one truly understands libertarianism.

Libertarianism is not a political philosophy. It is a very simple and minimal ethical principle. I define it as free will within the parameters of property rights and non-aggression.

Its essence as an ethical principle is a denial of anything political, which extends to the so-called democratic ideal that you so cherish. Why?

Because by its nature, political philosophy (politics) no matter how benign requires coercion and all libertarians (should) know that coercion is in violation of the non-aggression principle.

It is most distressing (or embarrassing) when you claim that “Austro-libertarians would simply force their vision of justice upon everyone else, coercing those who do not agree to get in line.” You see, again, that is impossible because the very nature of coercing others is non-libertarian.

Hume, if you hadn’t dropped so many names and attempted to look so intellectual, I would have assumed you were just new to libertarianism and that your ignorance was innocent.

Your comment only proves that all the book learning in the world is useless if you don’t understand the essence and essential principles of the knowledge you wish to attain.

Hume January 7, 2012 at 10:58 am

Dagnytg,

Thank you for the comment. I am very familiar with libertarianism and I subscribe to the same ethical principles you mention, which is why I consider myself a libertarian and philosophical anarchist. The problem, however, is that in a world of limited knowledge, bounded rationality, and cognitive biases, people have different “comprehensive worldviews” and disagree strongly about the requirements of justice, fundamental ethical principles, and conceptions of the good life. As a philosophical anarchist, I will never assume the legitimacy of any currently-existing political society/political unit. That being said, if there is ever to be a pluralistic society made up of people with fundamental disagreements about, e.g., justice, certain decisions *must* be made and made for everyone within this pluralistic group. So in the face of disagreement, the question is this: who decides? It is here that the democratic ideal is most valuable.

Ned Netterville January 7, 2012 at 2:47 pm

Hume, when you say someone must decide, it seems to me you are saying that someone must decide and be able to enforce the decision on others who disagree, which hardly fits my thinking of voluntaryism (or anarchism). Why? Why must some people rule others? Why do you need an “authority?” It isn’t necessary in a pluralistic society, and it isn’t logical. On this question I strongly recommend the writings of Auberon Herbert and, much more recently, THE MOST DANGEROUS SUPERSTITION, by Larken Rose.

Dagnytg January 7, 2012 at 5:56 pm

Hume,

I’m glad to see you didn’t take my conclusion with disdain… credit goes to you with my apology.

In my earlier comment, I defined libertarianism as free will within the parameters of property rights and non-aggression, to which you agreed. However, within those parameters, libertarian ethics does not define our actions as ethical or moral.

Therefore, the virtues of justice (along with many other things like love, digging for gold, or having children-Art Carden inappropriately wrote a blog piece on this) … have nothing to do with libertarianism. (This distinction is lost to all non-libertarians and many libertarians.)

I do not see why in an anarcho-libertarian society or “pluralistic society made up of people with fundamental disagreements about justice”… certain decisions must be made for everyone within the group. The keywords here are “everyone” and “must”.

Since justice is not a virtue of libertarianism and is nothing more than a personal choice or preference, justice can be attained through a variety of means. In the extreme, as in the defense of my property, I kill or maim a person. Yet, I believe most justice would be satisfied through arbitration, professional judges, professional juries etc. (or perhaps the wise elder of the neighborhood).

To reiterate, justice is a personal decision made in a society where libertarian ethics rule the day and not man-made laws. In all but extreme cases, justice will be a mutually agreed-upon outcome between two parties.

Note:
You and I differ in our understanding of justice. You assume justice is universal and absolute whereas I believe it to be relative and a matter of choice.

Eric Evans January 7, 2012 at 12:44 am

What’s funny is that Doug thinks this is a bad thing. This is exactly what we who desire change want. We want to see both sides of the aisle going after Ron Paul with blood dripping from their fangs. We want the Republican leadership to blatantly lie, cheat and steal for every vote that will keep Ron Paul from securing the Republican nomination. And if by some miracle he manages to get the nomination, we want Republicans and Democrats to join together in the exact same tactics against him to keep him from the Presidency. These are exactly the things we’ve been warning everyone else about since the last cycle, and if we planted any seed of doubt in their minds at all the political establishment is playing its part in the narrative to a ‘T’, giving those seeds all the water and sunlight they need to grow.

This is a bigger game than they even know how to play, much less win, so sit back, relax and enjoy. Let’s watch them plot their own destruction.

Gangrenebacks January 7, 2012 at 12:11 pm

Ned Netterville wrote:

“Ned Netterville January 6, 2012 at 10:41 pm

“…just being a ever present and unrelenting bastard; being right while everybody else is wrong; pointing out fallacies and infantilistic reasoning and excuses.. and just being a thorn in the side of the system at every opportunity is what is called for.”

nate-m, I certainly agree with these words of your comment, but if you can’t bring yourself to not voting, how about not paying taxes. That is the single most effective way to stick it to the system.

Michael A. Clem, why vote if you wont accept the results? [b]If Obama beat Ron Paul by one vote in the Electoral College, with the popular vote of almost two-hundred million evenly divided, Obama would obviously feel his continuance as president was 100% legitimate (ala Bush in 2000), and he would continue to do his best to take the nation down the road to serfdom. However, if Obama won 100 percent of the votes in the Electoral College but only 100,000 people voted in the election–all for Obama–I doubt if he could continue as president.”[/b]

What a horribly naive position. People who pursue power don’t care how they get it. They don’t even care if they get it illegitimately. So Obama doesn’t even have to win by one vote, he just has to be able to manipulate the system so that it appears he wins and then he will jam things down your throat that any freedom-loving person would find repugnant. His goal isn’t legitimacy. It’s power to run things, tell you what to do and get stuff undeserved. The real question is — is trading Obama for any of the Republican candidates or even Ron Paul going to change anything other than some fringe things?

Eric Evans January 7, 2012 at 1:09 pm

“The real question is — is trading Obama for any of the Republican candidates or even Ron Paul going to change anything other than some fringe things?”

This is where your lack of vision causes you problems. One presidential power Ron Paul is guaranteed to use is the veto, and he will likely use it more than any President in over a century. An establishment political operative knows that no matter what they are going to paint Ron Paul as the most hated President of all time. But it requires a little foresight from a legislative perspective (which we haven’t seen yet) to see that the inevitability of a Ron Paul presidency could play out in one of two ways:

1) They could use it to prop up the illusion of centrism in unifying the House/Senate members into overcoming virtually any vetoed bill that comes back to them. This strategy could be put in place in the hope that people would see that our politicians are now more concerned with getting the job done than with partisan politics. Paul is not likely to let such a tactic go unnoticed, and will use his bully pulpit to make the American people aware of it. How things would play out from there is a toss up.

2) They could let Paul use his veto power to do what they know needs to be done but they refuse to do themselves: slash the budget. The big bonus of this strategy to the current crop of politicians is that it is almost a guaranteed re-election scenario for them; they did everything they could to pass those bills and help the American people, it was Ron Paul and those dirty partisan // your political flavor here // that stopped them. The hope here is that 4 years of Paul and a slashed budget will be enough to lull his supporters into coming back into the standard political fold so they can slowly inflate things back to their version of normal.

There are certain advantages to the establishment elevating Ron Paul to the Presidency, the question is whether they will see them. The alternative is to keep playing the game as it is and risk civil unrest, which all these police forces with all of their new federally funded SWAT gear won’t be able to contain.

Gangrenebacks January 7, 2012 at 2:02 pm

Do I lack vision or do you have myopia?

Moving Washington is like kicking a 10 ton marshmallow – no matter how hard you kick it, it doesn’t move. Or maybe you’d prefer Newton’s First Law?

I think my farsightedness is pretty damn good.

Since you didn’t say anything about the other Rep hopefuls, I assume you agree with me on those? RP would make the Washington scene really interesting on domestic issues and I’d like to see it, but my “vision” also tells me that he hasn’t a chance in Hell of being the Rep nominee. I can’t live on Hope or spin.

BTW, I am a card carrying Libertarian – a badge of honor at times, and a badge of, well…….. at others. :)

Eric Evans January 7, 2012 at 2:42 pm

“Do I lack vision or do you have myopia?”

Most definitely you lack vision.

You see little more than hostility between you and them; there is no room in your worldview for maneuvering. You see no way that the political establishment might be forced to play with this issue, when the reality is that they have to consider it. I’m not living on hope that Ron Paul is going to win, but the political establishment doesn’t exactly understand what’s at stake for them, either. As I said before, Ron Paul winning may be a better strategy for them than to continue doing things the way they are now, the question is whether or not they will open to eyes well enough to see it.

Gangrenebacks January 7, 2012 at 3:26 pm

Hah! The “…political establishment might be forced to play with this issue…”? I’m not at all sure what this means, but you got the wrong driver if I think it means Washington can be forced into something they don’t want and is against their own personal interests.

Sorry, myopia is more likely.

I hope you are right, but neither hold your breath nor bet the farm on it, because I hate to see someone bleeding that profusely.

Greg January 7, 2012 at 4:30 pm

What a sad and lop-sided article. Government serves a useful function in society. Right now, the government spends and taxes too much, but politicians are NOT like “serial killers.” They have big egos, and some are undoubtedly driven by unwholesome motivations, but people need leaders. This is true on a micro level just as it is on the macro level.

Libertarians have a very elaborate and well-developed philosophy that asserts without any real-world empirical evidence that all societies regardless of size, culture, ethnic composition, etc. would be better off with limited government, individual liberty, and sound money. It sounds good in theory, and were it to be implemented, it might even work for a time.

Unfortunately, this will not happen in the US for the foreseeable future. Too many people depend on the government for survival, the global financial system is much too interconnected and complex for the US to go back to a gold standard, and individual liberty also entails a great deal of additional individual responsibility…and this ignores human nature itself. There will probably come a time when the US government as it now stands crumbles under social unrest, but this will take time. Mass revolution in our day and age would not be a pretty event, so I would not wish for this to happen anytime soon…

Gangrenebacks January 7, 2012 at 4:53 pm

If you were right, then we wouldn’t have such a big mess. I’d divide them into 3 groups:

1. Those purposely malevolent to Libertarian ideals.
2. Those who are philosophically weak and are easily pushed into supporting things contrary to Libertarian ideals – maybe not all the time, but often enough.
3. Those who reasonably support Libertarian ideals.

Take the 537 political critters in Washington and assign each to the group above that best describes them. I’d say 90% of Dems fall into category 1 – including (most unfortunately) our president and vice president. 10% of Dems go into group 2, but certainly none go into group 3. I’d say about 75% of Republicans go into group 2, the rest into group 3. That’s about 75 reasonable Washington politicians, most all of them in the House.

Sorry, I can’t see 75 (and that is being charitable) mostly House members pushing this massive government into things that are opposed to their own personal power/financial interests.

I know it sounds doomy and gloomy, but that’s the way it looks to me.

Anonymous January 8, 2012 at 12:41 pm

In 1964, Barry Goldwater use libertarian rhetoric and lost in a lamdslide. In the long run, he changed the terms of debate and Republicans would win many elections with our rhetoric. The key to winning in the long run is to keep fighting the battle instead of embracing defeatism. A single vote for Ron Paul does more good than all the Stefan Molyneux podcasts put together to advance our ideas. Actually, those that spread anti-voting defeatism do zero good and much harm.

I also think many of us need to change our tone. People need to just shut up about 9/11 “truth” and actually say things that are persuasive to other people. The last thing we need to do is give up the fight. We also don’t need to alienate people unnecessarily. Win or lose this year, we have the support of the majority of young Republicans, so victory is inevitable if we just keep fighting for it.

Mike January 12, 2012 at 4:27 pm

Politicians need certain traits to advance. The traits most commonly associated with psychopathic personality are seemingly ready-made to suit the psychopath to be able to claw their way to the top. And as we as a society have become more concerned with style than substance we make it all the easier for such people to take charge of society.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MZCHjGkTPg&feature=related

Video above describes the traits of the political psychopath in detail.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: