Friday
(0)Perhaps it is the little things that gradually turn people against the priggish, curtain twitching statists who cannot bare the idea of people doing as they please.
People generally shrug wearily at the annoying impositions and regulations that grow by the year but that is why it is important that folks like us and journalists like Tom Utley let it be known that it is not alright that these things happen. We also need to convince people that those who enforce and apologise for the endless regulations are not alright either, they are psychologically twisted by compulsions to impose their will on others. Perhaps it will be when enough of society see the idea of prohibiting people from doing peaceably doing consensual things as the psychologically disordered behaviour that it is will real progress be possible.
We also need to convince people that those who enforce and apologise for these things are not alright either, they are psychologically twisted people
But it is that kind of rhetoric that ensures people simply won't listen to you.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 3, 2006 10:19 AM
Well of course you would think that, Euan. I would not expect (or care) that people like you will not listen because I am talking about people like you.
Posted by Perry de Havilland at March 3, 2006 10:33 AM
So it is that, nibble by nibble, our freedoms are eaten away, life becomes that little bit less enjoyable and politicians assume responsibility for aspects of our lives that should have absolutely nothing to do with them.
Exactly.
Hi Euan!
Posted by Johnathan Pearce at March 3, 2006 10:42 AM
It's perfectly in order to complain about the excessive impositions of regulation, but characterising the would-be regulators as mentally diseased is not calculated to encourage people to take you seriously.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 3, 2006 10:46 AM
The desire to micro manage every aspect of a complete stranger's life is not just a sign, it is the very definition of megalomania. That is a fundemental personality disorder or, to put it into simple terms, a mental disease. What euphemism would you prefer Euan?
Posted by MarkE at March 3, 2006 10:50 AM
Mentally diseased might seem a bit harsh, I'll agree with that. Having said all of which, one has to remember that one of the biggest mass addictions in our society, arguably worse than tobacco, booze or drugs, is the addiction to power over other people, to bossing them around. The drug of power is more dangerous than crack.
Posted by Johnathan Pearce at March 3, 2006 10:59 AM
That is a fundemental personality disorder or, to put it into simple terms, a mental disease
Only if you view the world through the polarising lens of ideological absolutism.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 3, 2006 11:00 AM
I think being an argumentative git with delusions of absolute wisdom is a mental disease too.
Posted by David at March 3, 2006 11:10 AM
What is "absolutist" about taking a dim view of the political desire to regulate every tiny aspect of our existence, Euan?
Posted by Johnathan Pearce at March 3, 2006 11:12 AM
Note that requiring a separate seat for each child is also an incentive to get one of those big evil cars.
Posted by Nancy Lebovitz at March 3, 2006 11:25 AM
I would be interested to know what sort of healthy mind believes it can understand the life of any other person enough to make informed decisions on that person's behalf. Who is arrogant enough to believe their own decisions are so perfect that others must be compelled to follow the same decisions in living their own lives?
Posted by MarkE at March 3, 2006 11:53 AM
What is "absolutist" about taking a dim view of the political desire to regulate every tiny aspect of our existence, Euan?
I was referring to the characterisation of a regulatory mindset as mental illness.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 3, 2006 12:13 PM
Thanks Perry,
I have always wondered why so many people wanted to do things for other people's "own good". I always assumed that they were misguided. That never really explained it enough for me. A mental illness. Hmm... That plays well with me. But, of course, it's lacking something. It needs a name. "Blunkett's syndrome by proxy" or something, preferably something better.
Posted by Nick M at March 3, 2006 12:57 PM
Once upon a time, there was a country which mobilised the people to understand political theory. So assiduously did they spread their theory that soon enough it became orthodoxy, and people seemed no longer to believe the lies and hypocrisy that underpinned the ancien regime, but seemed to give themselves wholly to the new orthodoxy.
People who opposed the orthodoxy were clearly disturbed. After all, it was proven logically that the orthodox politics and morality were correct, were in fact the only possible correct answers. It seemed only natural that those who questioned should be considered worthy of treatment, and soon enough they were assessed and found to be mentally ill. Naturally, for public safety and to stop their noxious ideas spreading, they had to be confined to asylums, as is only right and proper for the mentally diseased.
You know what country I'm talking about.
Don't go down the road of trying to denigrate as mentally ill those who happen to disagree with you, for we all know what happens then.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 3, 2006 01:03 PM
Of course it is a mental disease - a regulatory mindset is a symptom of 'delusional superiority', which is definitely a mental disorder.
Socialists seem particularly prone to it, as do most poorly educated Britons...as exemplified by traffic wardens, at the lowest level, and by Prime ministers at the highest level...(Blair and Major, being two excellent examples).
Posted by GH at March 3, 2006 01:07 PM
Euan,
Your point is well made, but I'm afraid you won't get much of a hearing. You would have thought that pleading for tolerance for those who disagree with an orthodoxy (which on Samizdata is that of Libertarianism, often quite radically expressed) would play well here.
But it doesn't, because zealots for any cause hate middle-grounders even more than they hate the notional opposition.
Posted by John Ellis at March 3, 2006 01:17 PM
I think Euan is right - describing the behaviour as a sickness is missing the point.
This behaviour is not congenital, or a disease, it is learned, it is a choice.
I think "vicious" or "evil" describes it better.
Posted by Andrew McGuinness at March 3, 2006 01:22 PM
Don't go down the road of trying to denigrate as mentally ill those who happen to disagree with you, for we all know what happens then.
And it is denigrating the genuinely mentally ill, too, to class evil ideas as disease.
Posted by guy herbert at March 3, 2006 01:26 PM
The other thing about considering opposition as a mental disease is that many diseases can be cured. This of course requires "treatment centres."
Such is the way by which even the most well-meaning ideology when in a position of influence can so easily descend into barbarism and brutality. If you think you can prove that you are right, you by definition think you can prove those who disagree are wrong, and the temptation inevitably exists to re-educate those benighted souls in error.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 3, 2006 01:27 PM
I too greatly enjoyed Tom Utley's column in the Telegraph today. It made me think along the lines of ridiculous aspects of state control.
As an example, what if it was suggested that eating bananas supported terrorism, and should therefore be made illegal. If this was suggested, what would happen?
Would the whole world rise up against the banning of bananas?
No they would not. The vast majority of the world would view it as a silly idea that would go away.
What then happens with an idea that is less barmy, which does some good, but for which the good done is very small? This is especially when compared with the imposition on the majority of the population, who do not suffer from the small bad effect of not doing the good thing, but are only slightly and rarely inconvenienced by having to do the good thing (or abstain from the bad thing).
Most people would not climb onto their horse and ride to their MP (or whoever), nor write to the Times or Telegraph. They all have more important things to do. They will ignore the issue, or assume that its enforcement will be totally impractical and so will fade away with time.
There may well be a problem currently, with an excess of trivial suggestions for state control of the people. However, I feel that there are other problems associated with this.
First taxpayers’ money is wasted, as is the time of Government staff, police, courts, etc. More worthwhile things are not done, which is perhaps an even bigger “crime”.
Next, what is Parliament doing, wasting its time on this stuff. Surely Parliament should be doing important things, like making important laws and holding the executive to account. ... ... Ah! Surely not?
Best regards
Posted by Nigel Sedgwick at March 3, 2006 01:29 PM
Euan has a point here. The tendency to impose one's vision upon everybody else is in fact widespread among the population. You just have to ask any pedestrian what his opinion is on X subject, and sooner or later he will tell you that "the government should do something about it." It shows you that Nietzsche was right all along.
However, that tendency is not a mental illness. Please don't dignify that conduct by just labelling it a mental disorder. If it is a mental disorder, then the individual in question is not really responsible for it, but his "illness" is. That is simply not the case.
The tendency to impose one's view of the world upon others is not a disease, it is plain evil.
Posted by Jaime Raúl Molina at March 3, 2006 01:33 PM
The tendency to impose one's view of the world upon others is not a disease, it is plain evil
It's plain human nature, neither evil nor good - it's just the way people are.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 3, 2006 01:37 PM
Yep! I think you are absolutely correct.....this is a mental disease.
Posted by victor at March 3, 2006 01:42 PM
Samizdata folk are not really interested in action, they just want to feel morally and mentally superior to the common run of humanity. That's why they hurl Soviet-style smears and insults, or boast that some dissident has been banned from their 'private property'.
They clothe themselves in the little brief authority of their bandwidth and accuse millions of others of being authoritarian lunatics or the dupes thereof. And then they wonder why the world doesn't fall in gratitude at their feet.
Ayn Rand was much the same, an apostle of freedom who ran a private tyranny of cultists.
Libertarianism, the autism of politics.
Posted by Heterodox at March 3, 2006 02:02 PM
Nigel Sedgwick writes,
Next, what is Parliament doing, wasting its time on this stuff. Surely Parliament should be doing important things, like making important laws and holding the executive to account.
Sad to say, many people think that this is what parliament is for, and worry if it is not actively doing something about everything they personally see as a problem. As I have remarked before on Samizdata, parliament, even under its new unversally guillotined procedure, simply cannot produce law and regulation fast enough to satisfy the demand from departments, quangos and pressure groups, and this is a probable motive for the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.
You could see this as a cognate of Powell's Law. The demand for regulation paid for by someone else is, in effect, infinite.
Posted by guy herbert at March 3, 2006 02:09 PM
Andrew McGuinness writes
"I think Euan is right - describing the behaviour as a sickness is missing the point.
This behaviour is not congenital, or a disease, it is learned, it is a choice."
You are both wrong. Go and read something by B.F. Skinner, or any of his disciples - even Aaron Beck, if you really must.
Perry de Havilland's description is perfectly reasonable.
Tidiness is a common human trait - carried to extremes, reinforced by a variety of mechanisms, it becomes OCD.
Societies can have widespread mental illnesses and this one pretty certainly has.
Posted by GCooper at March 3, 2006 02:19 PM
Samizdata folk are not really interested in action, they just want to feel morally and mentally superior to the common run of humanity. That's why they hurl Soviet-style smears and insults, or boast that some dissident has been banned from their 'private property'.
You sound very bitter, what's the matter, love?
Posted by Johnathan at March 3, 2006 02:27 PM
Memetics. Yeah, you heard me right. Dawkins might be an hectoring git at times, but sometimes he hits the bull. If you believe the problems of the world (from climate change to childhood obesity) are something that the government should do something about - i.e. pass laws about, and you teach your kids this as the gospel truth then regulation becomes self-perpetuating. Ah, you ask, "where's the percentage for these people?" Simple, they get cushy jobs working for the government.
Posted by Nick M at March 3, 2006 02:31 PM
The English are the bossiest people in the world. They are never happy unless they are regulating their fellow citizens. No one enforces regulations with such verve as the English. I wonder why this is. One doesn't encounter this enthusiasm for bossing one's fellow man around in other parts of the world (although I do have a feeling, for some reason, that Scandinavia might be similar).
Posted by Verity at March 3, 2006 02:31 PM
Verity,
I think you've got the cart and horse the wrong way round. It isn't that the English are bossy, it's that we're compliant. That's why we properly implement various EU regulations while our French chums pass the laws and then ignore them as they see fit.
Posted by Nick M at March 3, 2006 02:34 PM
What would Heterodox have as do as a form of action? Take to the streets in impose our will by sheer force?
The most powerful movements that exist in the world are those that change society from the bottom up, not those that impose change from the top.
For my part, every day, I talk to collegues, friends and sometimes even strangers and explain why I have the beliefs I do.
I get involved in issues locally where I can. I suspect many of us here do the same. And I am winning converts, slowly but surely. Scarcely a week goes by when I do not get at least a serious reconsideration from someone on the validity of what is currently accepted orthodoxy.
This is action by any definition of the word you choose. And yet, because I choose not to shout it from the rooftops I am a mere Demagogue with a superiority complex. A sweeping statement indeed. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts, otherwise attack the person.
The world will not change overnight. Short of a huge poltical unheaval, which will have much unintended and undesirable fallout, the liberties we have lost as a society will be regained in the very same way they were lost, a single little step at a time.
I would rather change the stance of 100 people who vote than change 1 politician. It is the difference between the long and the short game.
Earl.
Posted by Earl Harding at March 3, 2006 02:43 PM
I'd argue that all transcendental beliefs are rooted in a mild form of non-organic mental disease. The problem really is even mild superstitions, once melded with the incredible power of the State is damaging. Each individual is welcome to whatever logical disengagements they can muster in the conduct of their own lives. I've always felt that there is too much to life to examine with the exactness of the scientific method, so we have to take some things nearly unexamined. But I certainly resist turning my gut notions into public policy. I'd ask that others do the same.
Unfortunately the masses ARE superstitious, by and large, and while there is no universal agreement about which black cats are the ones to be avoided, the grinding give and take between various forms of superstition have outputted the leviathans we exist under today. Illogic has become rooted public policy.
I guess it never has been really ever very different. I guess what peeves me the most is the New Order sweeps in and truly believes THEY are the purveyors of progress when they are merely ushering in a different shade of the Dark Age.
In the immortal words of Pete Townshend - "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."
Posted by toolkien at March 3, 2006 02:58 PM
What would Heterodox have as do as a form of action? Take to the streets in impose our will by sheer force?
Don't feed the troll.
The English are the bossiest people in the world.
Maybe, but my personal vote goes for the Germans. You simply would not believe the kinds of trivial, harmless things they are not allowed to do. Briefly touching the outside of the bike lane with your front tire regularly occasions shrieks of condemnation from old women waiting for the bus. It must be seen to be believed.
Posted by Joshua at March 3, 2006 04:05 PM
Euan Gray takes exception to characterising statists and collectivists as mentally ill.
I pause only to remark that characterising their opponents as mentally ill/downright evil has yielded considerable dividends for the Left.
Personally I don't view it as a tactic so much as an outright truth. But we can agree to differ on that. The point is, whatever the intention of thus characterising your opponents, politically it works.
Posted by Edward Lud at March 3, 2006 04:06 PM
Euan Gray takes exception to characterising statists and collectivists as mentally ill
No, I take exception to labelling anyone as mentally ill simply because they have a differing opinion on something. I don't care what that opinion may be.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 3, 2006 04:11 PM
Well I think you rather finesse the point made by P de H.
He is more than capable of defending himself. However it seems to me that he was not labelling anyone as mentally ill because they disagreed with him, so much as he identified a pathology specific to the statist mentality: the desire/need to impose your will on others. A Napoleon complex, if you will, and the greatest single cause of societal atomisation. Now, a society which is atomised is ipso facto a very ill society.
Posted by Edward Lud at March 3, 2006 04:19 PM
Euan,
I disagree with David Icke's opinion that the world is being run by a millenia-old cabal of 10-foot tall lizards with Jewish names who like to drink the blood of blond-haired, blue-eyed children.
What is your opinion of his views and sanity?
Posted by Simon Jester at March 3, 2006 04:32 PM
I should add that I view statists as evil, rather than ill - their moral deficiency in wishing to impose their views on others is (imo) similar to the desire to steal, rape and murder - but I don't believe anyone here is simply labelling anyone they disagree with as insane; rather, they view statists as insane, which is why they disagree with them.
Posted by Simon Jester at March 3, 2006 04:38 PM
I'm with Thomas Szasz; there is no such thing as mental illness.
Posted by Radical Sceptic at March 3, 2006 04:39 PM
Nah, I only think the statists are stupid. Not mentally diseased. Unless you regard stupidity as a mental disease. To some extent, that's true as it may be acquired through inadequate education or just plain bad luck through the genetic draw. BF Skinner, behaviorism, Mendel, and all that.
Some people are born stupid, they can't help themselves. Some have the potential to be more than stupid, but never do so because they never had the opportunity to realise that potential, so they end up stupid as well. Are they to be faulted for being what they are?
The best cure for stupidity is education, though the next question would be: 'What kind of education?' And education is hardly a 100% cure. Just witness all the highly educated figures in academia on the left.
Come to think of it, the fact that even educated, supposedly very smart people can be statists tells me that something might be wrong with our definition of stupidity... or Perry could be right.
TWG
Posted by The Wobbly Guy at March 3, 2006 04:56 PM
Well I think you rather finesse the point made by P de H
Perry asserts that statists are "psychologically twisted." I disagree with this. I disagree not because he is attaching the label to a specific group, but because I think as a general principle that it is wrong to label people mentally ill just because you happen not to agree with them. I wouldn't care if it was Perry saying it about statists or statists saying it about Perry. As a general principle, I think it is wrong. There's no finessing there.
And the benighted century of ideology has shown us what happens when that sort of mindset gains power - dissenters condemned to mental hospitals, re-education camps for those who can't see the logically proven truth, and so on. It's not a road anyone should be going down.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 3, 2006 04:58 PM
I have a ten foot tall lizard with a Jewish name. I call him "Dave". He's a sweet pet and very relaxing to stroke.
And no, not stroke in that way.
I'm glad someone mentioned the Ickester. He is absolutely bonkers in the nut. Look at his website, he's finger-painting-the-walls-in-his-own-feces mental. He's managed (hats off to him for it) to suture all the madcap conspiracy theories of the last thousand years into on (in)coherent whole. But what do you expect of a mediocre goalie with a turquoise fetish.
David Icke come to save the world. He saved fuck all for Coventry City.
Posted by Nick M at March 3, 2006 05:01 PM
Good ol' Euan. Of Perry's statement that statist control freaks are "psychologically twisted" he writes:
But it is that kind of rhetoric that ensures people simply won't listen to you.
but apparently thinks that people are keen to listen to him when he says:
And the benighted century of ideology has shown us what happens when that sort of mindset gains power - dissenters condemned to mental hospitals, re-education camps for those who can't see the logically proven truth, and so on.
That sounds very much to me like calling Perry a closet nazi. But I guess the key here is that if you do not clearly say what you mean (as Perry did) but dress it up in fancy words instead you get a free pass?
Whatever.
Posted by Joshua at March 3, 2006 05:22 PM
It amazes me that some people still respond Euan Gray's posts. Why? He offers nothing but circular drivel, and when he realises he's trapped, he shifts his position ever so slightly.
Posted by Query at March 3, 2006 05:40 PM
I don't think for-their-own-good statism is so much a mental disease as plain old vanity. It is a failing, a terrible
failing. It should not be rewarded with votes.
Posted by Brett at March 3, 2006 05:41 PM
I may agree with the general ideology of Samizdata, but EG's been chewing you jokers up and spitting you out recently.
- Josh
Posted by Wild Pegasus at March 3, 2006 05:50 PM
A great American liberty-lover is dead:
http://tinyurl.com/m4cvb
But you won't mind too much, because he opposed the Iraq War.
Posted by Matt O'Halloran at March 3, 2006 05:59 PM
"But it is that kind of rhetoric that ensures people simply won't listen to you."
The fact that these people will not listen to start with is part of the psychosis,they know best,from the Dome to ID cards,it is no use telling them,their minds are made up,do not try to confuse the issue with facts or a contrary point of view.
Posted by Ron Brick at March 3, 2006 06:12 PM
That sounds very much to me like calling Perry a closet nazi
Nice smear, but it doesn't work.
For the record, I may disagree - sometimes quite strongly - with many of Perry's suggestions, but I am absolutely convinced that he is genuinely and sincerely committed to the idea of maximising the individual liberties of all people, and I applaud him for it. I don't for a moment think he's a Nazi, closet or otherwise. He even extends to me thus far the liberty of commenting on this blog, which isn't exactly a terribly Nazi-esque thing to do.
That, of course, doesn't mean I think he's right about everything.
apparently thinks that people are keen to listen to him when he says
Hmm. You'd deny these things happened? You'd deny they happened in regimes driven by messianic ideologies? You'd deny that ideology which pretends it can prove the truth sometimes winds up, however much it wasn't intended to, dumping people in asylums simply for having the temerity to disagree with the logically proven "truth" of the ideologues? All those things happened, and they all happened in ideologically-driven states.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 3, 2006 06:26 PM
Joshua: Just love your German cyclist story. They don't live in England & have their own way of doing things which, for the most part, suits them just fine because that is the way they have chosen.
A few years ago I had a slight altercation with a very well-known academic & prolific book-reviewer whose German experience was to have lived for a while in Berlin-Kreuzberg, (well!) In a press article he disparaged the Germans for waiting (at the red light) at a pedestrian crossing when there was no traffic in sight. In true Brit fashion he had dashed across shouting "Verpisst Dich" (sic)...."Euch" might have been better for this man-of-letters.....at the murmering burghers. His vast experience was unable to take in that very, very few Germans will cross a red-lighted pedestrian crossing if there are CHILDREN in the group.
But then, that's academe English style, is it not?
Posted by permanent expat at March 3, 2006 06:28 PM
It is in the nature of human beings that some are instigators and some are followers. Just watch children in a playground and you will see the ones who are learning that they can influence/control/manipulate others. You see the whole range of personalities, the assertive, the docile etc etc. Grown up human relationships are no different except in the way we all learn to justify/explain our actions.
It may well be that the only way to ensure a base level of freedoms is to have a written constitution that is impossible for politicians to alter without at very large majority of the voting public saying it is ok.
The problem is that the political system we have at the present allows the bossy and egotistical to do practically anything they feel like because it is almost impossible for there to be an effective opposition.
Posted by Nick Timms at March 3, 2006 06:36 PM
I do not think that statists are mentally ill, neither do I think they are stupid, far from it.
Idiotic? yes. Vain? yes. Pompous and sanctimonious? yes. Disingenuous? Absolutely!
Posted by TimC at March 3, 2006 06:39 PM
I'll support Euan here.
The bottom line is that it doesn't really matter if you think someone is mentally insane for the ideas that they put forward.
What matters is that you can show why their ideas are wrong.
Describing someone as insane falls into the same stupid name calling as calling Blair "Bliar" or Microsoft as Micro$oft. By doing so, you are doing nothing but preaching to the converted.
If we actually want a more libertarian world, we won't get there by writing about the insanity of people. We have to go out and take the arguments to people.
Posted by Tim Almond at March 3, 2006 06:47 PM
No comment on David Icke's views and sanity?
I assumed it wasn't a serious point. However, if you insist:
Icke might be charitably described as eccentric. As far as I'm aware, though, he is a harmless eccentric. He appears to think Prince Philip is a 10 foot tall Jewish Freemason shapeshifting lizard who drinks the blood of babies. At the risk of committing lese majeste, I say let him carry on - the biggest risk to public safety he appears to represent is that of causing sore sides from excessive laughter. As far as his views are concerned, then like everyone else he has the right to them and like everyone else as long as he causes no actual harm he's allowed to voice them.
Whether he's insane or not I am not qualified to judge, but he certainly doesn't seem to be culpably mad. Unless he posed a real threat to people, possibly by trying to drive a garlic-impregnated stake through their reptilian hearts (or, for the humour impaired, by inciting others to do the same), I can't see any justification for locking him up.
Having said that, I don't see the relevance of the Turquoise One to the concept of declaring political opponents mentally ill.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 3, 2006 06:53 PM
Matt, I will mourn Harry Browne because I am a great fan of his book, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World.
And I very much doubt that HB had a lot of time for bunk like "collective genetic interests" or such blather.
Posted by Johnathan Pearce at March 3, 2006 06:56 PM
What matters is that you can show why their ideas are wrong
I think it's better to say "you can show why *you think* their ideas are wrong." They can, after all, show you why they think your ideas are wrong, and just as yuo won't necessarily accept their logic, so they won't necessarily accept yours. Slanging matches about who can *prove* which ideas are right don't get us anywhere.
Apologies if you had that qualification in mind.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 3, 2006 06:57 PM
The problem is that the political system we have at the present allows the bossy and egotistical to do practically anything they feel like because it is almost impossible for there to be an effective opposition.
Precisely the problem, they do not discuss or debate - they just bully their way through. The plea to discuss only comes when the boot is on the other foot, and it their ideas that are derided and ignored.
Discussion with the enemy never won a war...
Posted by GH at March 3, 2006 07:01 PM
it is wrong to label people mentally ill just because you happen not to agree with themIt's not about their beliefs, Euan. Blair and his beggars' army of failed barristers, over-promoted social workers and buttinskis-without-portfolio are welcome to believe anything they like. No, the problem is that they act on their beliefs to the detriment and inconvenience of those who don't share them.
I think you'll find that Perry's characterisation of this sort of behavioural pattern as a mental illness is entirely consistent with the DSM criteria(Link) for diagnosing a personality disorder. (You'll note that cognition is one of those criteria; IOW clinicians working from DSM are entirely prepared to "label people mentally ill" on the grounds of disagreement).
Perhaps "Controlling Personality Disorder" would be a good name for this tragic condition that Perry has identified. I imagine the final DSM definition will also capture other kinds of controlling personalities, such as abusive spouses and possibly sadists.
Posted by xj at March 3, 2006 07:15 PM
Joshua: Incidentally, many German river banks have cyclist/pedestrian tracks where both species, for the most part, happily coexist. That said, IMHO, cyclists are, tax free, the most blatant & irresponsible offenders against good behaviour in traffic. Ecofriendliness is the excuse for outrageous boorishness.
By the way. in the interests of better traffic flow, it is permissable in most German cities to park your car with two wheels on the pavement, with the obvious proviso that there is sufficient space (offenders are fined) for pedestrians. Try that one in the Septic Isle.
As for the current thread, I object very strongly to being "regulated", especially by those who (as in Brussels) have never been elected........and even if! Each of us has an opinion but, let it be said, only a fool will not revise his opinion in the light of better information.
EG: PUH-lease no quibbles about the meaning of "better".
Posted by permanent expat at March 3, 2006 07:24 PM
No, xj, it isn't at all consistent. That's because psychiatric assessment of cognitive ability is carried out to more-or-less-objective clinical standards by trained professionals, whereas the categorisation of a political opponent as mentally ill is entirely subjective and carried out by people committed to a specific narrow ideology.
It's really the same thing as declaring an inconvenient person to be a witch or heretic, as was done in earlier times - they don't agree with you, you can prove you're right, therefore they are insane. It's certainly no more compelling.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 3, 2006 07:34 PM
Perhaps "Controlling Personality Disorder" would be a good name for this tragic condition that Perry has identified.
I might well suit the authors of the DSM schemata, who seem intent on psychopathologising every quirk of human life. (It isn't completely one-way, though, they famously began to phase out homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973, and nowadays it is seldom regarded as an illness by mainstream psychiatrists in the west.)
Posted by guy herbert at March 3, 2006 07:35 PM
permanent expat-
I have no quarrels with German culture being what it is - it has many admirable qualities (though it is nothing for me personally).
I was merely pointing out that they are bossy - at least in Wuerzburg (which is where I lived). There didn't seem to be a problem with pedestrians walking in the bike lane, incidentally - no one ever yelled at me for doing that. But they certainly did for even minor violations of the sacred white line when I was on a bicycle. It wasn't just this - they seem to generally enjoy yelling at people for minor violations of public order rules. I saw many minor traffic violations end in yelling (though never in fist fights, as was frequently the case in South Korea - which has no traffic laws that I am aware of...). This being the first foreign country I had ever lived in, and being from North Carolina (which is about as nearly opposite on this issue as it gets), it took a bit of getting used to! :-)
Posted by Joshua at March 3, 2006 07:36 PM
I don't see the relevance of the Turquoise One to the concept of declaring political opponents mentally ill.
Oh, but I think you do, otherwise you wouldn't have declined to comment on his sanity.
I have no hesitation in saying that I think Icke is barking mad. It is not because I disagree with him, but because he appears to be insane.
And I'm not proposing to lock him up, either.
Posted by Simon Jester at March 3, 2006 07:37 PM
Harry Browne will be sadly missed. He never told us anything new; he simply reminded us of truths we had forgotten. A small tragedy is that he neglected to follow his own advice against joining groups. His association with the American Libertarian Party was a disaster. "How I found Freedom......", though not too well written, should still be required reading for those who really believe in personal freedom.
Posted by permanent expat at March 3, 2006 07:38 PM
Oh, but I think you do, otherwise you wouldn't have declined to comment on his sanity.
Damned if I do and damned if I don't, hmm? Nice try, but that one didn't work either.
I think any reasonable person would have seen the question of Icke as nothing more than light relief in a thread discussing the characterisation of *political opponents* as mentally ill. There's nothing sinister or evasive about not commenting on what appears to be a comic interlude.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 3, 2006 07:44 PM
They can, after all, show you why they think your ideas are wrong, and just as yuo won't necessarily accept their logic, so they won't necessarily accept yours. Slanging matches about who can *prove* which ideas are right don't get us anywhere.
Showing someone why you think your ideas are right is the same thing as attempting to prove it to them. Anything less is either an appeal to emotion or authority. You are right that the two people in the conversation may not accept the other's logical conclusions, but logical standards themselves are the same for all humans. This is why logic is really the only acceptable standard for public discourse in most cases. (A possible exception would be if two people shared exactly the same religious beliefs - but that is rare, even in theocratic societies.)
Posted by Joshua at March 3, 2006 07:45 PM
Joshua: Lovely city Würzburg..........
...........and on one of your points, as I'm sure you experienced, even Germans will complain about themselves in that every German is his own policeman. Yes, it's comic..........even to Germans;-))
Posted by permanent expat at March 3, 2006 07:48 PM
You are right that the two people in the conversation may not accept the other's logical conclusions
Or premises & axioms. Of course logic is logic for all people, but it doesn't work if there's fundamental disagreement on the validity of the starting assumptions.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 3, 2006 07:51 PM
Is EG a spoof, permanent expat? Are you serious? He's either a spoof or tragic.
Tim Almond says: "it doesn't really matter if you think someone is mentally insane". What if you think they're insane, but not mentally? Is the tautology redundant?
Posted by Verity at March 3, 2006 08:26 PM
EG is not a spoof, mut he should be declared mentally inane.
Posted by Midwesterner at March 3, 2006 09:03 PM
Maybe it's bad form to try to lead the thread back toward the specific topic, but ...
In California, at least, there have been similar regulations for baby seats, booster seats, etc. for some years. When this legislation (or DMV regulation) was being proposed, I suggested that the government's role ought to be limited to advertising the test data and accident statistics (from NHTSA, the federal highway safety agency). The responses were generally of the form "well, that's fine for *you*. You read stuff, you can do the math, you can make up your own mind to do the Right Thing. But what about the great unwashed masses? Don't you agree they need to be *told* what to do?"
Posted by Fred the Fourth at March 3, 2006 09:16 PM
xj writes:
"I think you'll find that Perry's characterisation of this sort of behavioural pattern as a mental illness is entirely consistent with the DSM criteria(Link) for diagnosing a personality disorder.
You're thinking along entirely the right lines, xj. DSM is a work in progress and it's right that it should be.
There's always room for debate as to where what we regard as normal human behaviour ends and a personality disorder begins. It's a ragabag diagnosis, certainly - but that doesn't mean it is without use.
There are people around one would regard as quite seriously 'disturbed' yet who can't be classified in any other way - politicians certainly not excepted.
I quite like your 'controlling personality disorder', by the way. It seems to cover the subject rather nicely. It would be good to see society evolving the concept as way of weeeding-out the dangerous personalities who end-up becoming dictators. Or even prime ministers - where there is a distinction to be made.
Posted by GCooper at March 3, 2006 09:41 PM
There is one significant component of this syndrome,the ideas enforced never apply to the enforcers,a good example comprehensive education,perfect for the great unwashed,not for the Bossy Tendency.
Posted by Ron Brick at March 3, 2006 11:04 PM
Am I just getting paranoid or does anyone else notice the benign Stasi tactics of our overseers? No sooner does the government anounce a new initiative to save money than the BBC turns out some ready made documentary to get the public all indignant. Witness the recent initiatives against benefit fraud and now tax dodging. They then assault us with adverts to encourage us to become Inoffizielle Mitarbeiter or IMs (unofficial collaborators) by snitching on those who we think are screwing the system. I know our governors may have good intentions but they should perhaps bear in mind what the proverbial
road to hellwas paved with.
Posted by als at March 4, 2006 12:05 AM
A little clarification for the spoofs above:
Unlike the busybody lefty statists Perry referred to as "mentally ill", Libertarians do NOT support Soviet-style legal sanction against those with whom we disagree. That is the habit of busybody lefty statists.
We'll argue, resist, ridicule, and insult freely, but we will NOT advocate or support anti free speech laws. Libertarians want to revoke idiotic legislation like “hate crime” laws, not pass more to save the “feelings” of every infantile twit who gets "offended" by disagreement or disapproval.
Implying totalitarian intent by Libertarians is a blatant example of projection.
BTW, I vote for “evil” and “stupid” to describe lefty statists.
F
Posted by Frogman at March 4, 2006 02:09 AM
What the righteous Dissident Frogman said, and double it!
Posted by Verity at March 4, 2006 03:05 AM
Nigel Sedgwick writes:
As an example, what if it was suggested that eating bananas supported terrorism, and should therefore be made illegal. If this was suggested, what would happen?
Well the US government ran TV ads trying to suggest that smoking pot supported terrorism. Equally as daft I think.
Posted by ResidentAlien at March 4, 2006 03:21 AM
Uh, oh. I was afraid that would happen. Verity, I'm not the Dissident Frogman. I chose my handle before I knew of that excellent Frenchman.
My own choice of handle merely reflects my fondness for sitting on the bottom of the ocean and watching . . . whatever . . . swim past.
I'll have to think up another handle.
And thanks for the support!
F
Posted by The California Frogman at March 4, 2006 04:48 AM
Well the US government ran TV ads trying to suggest that smoking pot supported terrorism. Equally as daft I think.
We can top that. Local authorities in London - who run so many officious, bullying ads, I've almost been tempted to buya a camera to record them - have posters suggesting that giving money to beggars finances terrorism.
The whole idea that terrorism, or other crime, is very expensive and requires great intelligence and sophisticated finance to do (beggars running it all to the contrary), is a product of the statist midset, where there's no return, people don't act without procedure and orders, and someone else provides large amounts of cash for you to set up a steering group and a procurement programme before you start. Bureaucrats attempting to restage 9/11 would begin by arranging to tour the Airbus and Boeing plants to see what sort of aircraft they needed to buy.
Posted by guy herbert at March 4, 2006 07:20 AM
Implying totalitarian intent by Libertarians is a blatant example of projection.
As I at least made perfectly clear, it is not a question of implying totalitarian intent. It is the case, though, that messianic ideologies which believe they can prove they are right do have a distressing tendency to end up "proving" others wrong, and this sometimes results in dissenters in lunatic asylums or re-education camps.
It doesn't matter so much whether the belief is that God justifies the action, whether some supposed collective racial conscience does it, or whether the socio-economic theory posited can be proven logically - at least to the proponents' satisfaction - to be objectively true.
It's not intent. It's more an unintended consequence.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 4, 2006 08:40 AM
Euan:
"BTW, I vote for “evil” and “stupid” to describe lefty statists.
Is it ok to call those people evil and stupid but wrong to call them "mentally disordered" ? What's the difference ?
On the other hand - you call "mentally ill" people who deviate fron a norm, or normal behaviour. That's certainly not the case here - it's rather we the libertarians who are deviant - we love to look indifferently on people who kill themselves smoking, and do nothing to save them !
On the third hand - whenever I think about those 176 heads of states that signed the Kyoto portocol back in 1996 I can't abstain from murmuring: "stark crazy".
Posted by Jacob at March 4, 2006 09:51 AM
Is it ok to call those people evil and stupid but wrong to call them "mentally disordered" ?
A fascinating question, and although simplistic answers can be given I suggest it's worth thinking about it more deeply. Verity or Query, whatever she calls herself today, can probably skip the rest of this.
"Evil" implies an absolute moral standard against which the action or thought may be objectively judged. No such thing exists outside a religious or quasi-religious context, and therefore to describe someone as objectively evil is itself a subjective opinion. One can, of course, described someone as subjectively evil if they do something that violates one's personal moral code.
This runs into a difficulty when we consider people like Hitler or Stalin since the vast majority of people would consider it evil to murder for the sake of an ideology. On the other hand, the tradition which culminated in certain areas in violent anti-semitism is the same tradition that produced the liberal democracies of the west. Appeals to tradition are distinctly dubious, because the liberal democrat can make appeal to the same tradition as the racist demagogue. Much non-Arab anti-Semitism derives from the idea, once extremely common amongst Christians, of the Jews as "Christ-killers," which has a certain perverse logic. Equally, the message of Christ - who actually was Jewish - in this respect is possibly best summed up in the Beatitudes, specifically Matthew c5v38 to 48. So depending on which way you wish to interpret this tradition, anti-Semitism is either justified or condemned and it's possible to derive an internally consistent morality either way.
Personally, I find the message of Christ rather more compelling that the message of those who choose to subjectively reinterpret it for narrow socio-political ends.
"Stupid" does not directly depend upon but does connote a separate absolute, a standard of truth and wisdom. It's as well to separate here "stupid" in the sense of an inability to reason from the sense of not sharing the same premises in the reasoning process: let's consider only those who are capable of reason.
If we take as valid the notion that humans are deeply flawed creatures liable to make very stupid decisions now and again, such decisions having the ability to produce seriously adverse outcomes both for the individual and for others; and if we also assume as valid the idea, backed as it is by all of recorded history, that society in its concrete expression as the state is not acting unreasonably in forcibly restricting such excess since such restriction is necessary for an orderly functioning society to exist, then if we reason logically from that position, there is nothing inherently stupid in proposing a system of moderate regulation.
However, if we do not accept the second premise, then we cannot reason that a system of state regulation is justifiable. I think this is the fundamental distinction between some strands of libertarian thought and the vast majority of social, economic and political thought - some libertarians do not accept that premise. This, incidentally, is at the root of most of my objection to libertarianism: that type of libertarianism is in flat contradiction to our pragmatic knowledge of human nature over all of recorded history.
The secondary question, if we accept both these premises, is what degree of regulation is necessary and reasonable. I would argue that there is no fixed answer to the question, since the particular circumstances of culture, society, technology, population and so on all have major influences.
Numerous examples are possible, but we might consider the one cited in the linked Telegraph article. Requiring the use of child seats in cars is arguably a bad regulation since even on the most utilitarian calculation the cost and effort saved in reduced casualties is outweighed by the cost and effort of enforcing the regulation. However, a precursor regulation in this case is an example of reasonable regulation - the law requiring car drivers and passengers to wear seatbelts. There is as always a cost involved in enforcing the law, but in this case it is greatly outweighed by the cost saving in significantly reduced deaths and serious injuries.
There is also a handy illustration here of the impact of culture and technology. If in Britain there were only a few motorists, the cost of a seatbelt regulation would outweigh the benefits quite considerably, but if there were a large number of motorists the savings would easily outweigh the costs.
Excessive regulation is patently counterproductive since it results in some regulations not being enforced if they are seen as less important than others, and it is well enough known that law honoured more in the breach than in the observance has a tendency to bring into disrepute the whole body of law, which weakens the rule of law - especially when the regulation is selectively enforced, which is in flat contradiction of the principle of the rule of law. There are, therefore, good practical reasons for having regulation but there are also good practical reasons for not having too much regulation.
What I consider to be the sensible course of action, therefore, is to accept the need for regulation but to implement regulation only where it is needed, only where it can be enforced, and only where the benefits of the regulation outweigh the cost of enforcement and/or the cost of not regulating.
Libertarians of course will not agree, because they do not accept the second premise in the reasoning process. This raises the primary question, which is whether or not the premises of the argument are valid. To castigate somone as stupid simply because he does not share your ideological preconceptions is again a subjective view. Someone who believes most strongly that our second premise is invalid is unlikely to agree with someone who holds that it is valid, but accusations of stupidity being flung back and forth won't advance the argument at all.
In sum, I say one should not describe "statists" as either mentally diseased (leads to the gulag), or evil (assumes an unjustified moral superiority) or stupid (assumes an unjustifed greater wisdom). It is better by far, I think, to say instead "I think you are wrong, and the reason I disagree is X. Let's talk about X."
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 4, 2006 11:04 AM
EG,
"as the state is not acting unreasonably in forcibly restricting such excess since such restriction is necessary for an orderly functioning society to exist..."
This assumption of your's (that you accept, and say libertarians don't) needs to be broken down into two distinct cases.
The first is where excesses cause harm to others - in which case the state must indeed act to forcibly restrict them.
The second is the case where the excesses cause harm only to the perpetrator, and not to others. In this case - libertarians maintain - there is no need for intervention. It is this second principle that was the subject of this thread.
Posted by Jacob at March 4, 2006 01:09 PM
EG,
Excessive regulation is patently counterproductive since it results in some regulations not being enforced if they are seen as less important than others.
Or less easily enforced.
Posted by guy herbert at March 4, 2006 01:39 PM
Euan Gray is not a spoof, alas. He's the product of the magnificent British education system. Articulate, but invariably misses the wood for the trees.
Posted by Johnathan Pearce at March 4, 2006 01:46 PM
Now I AM dissapointed...........but articulate? Do you mean like a rattler is articulated? EG.... ;-)
Posted by permanentexpat at March 4, 2006 01:53 PM
I constantly encountered an error message when I tried to post yesterday (and today). I signed myself Query and did a row of xxxxxes to test whether posts were being posted despite the error message. I did this in tandem with sending a query to samizdata.net and a query to the webmaster@samizdata. It wasn't a pseudonym or an attempt at cleverness, Euan Dull-and-Gray. What a sad person you are to occupying checking out email addresses.
I didn't bother to read the rest of your Phd dissertation.
Posted by Verity at March 4, 2006 02:02 PM
Verity: I had, and am still having, the same problem when posting and have reported it to the Webmaster.
Don't mind too much about EG; verbal diarrhoea or logorrhoea (as he would doubtless prefer) is, once contracted, quite incurable.
Posted by permanentexpat at March 4, 2006 02:13 PM
Upon pondering this, I think that it is not the politics or the political philosphy even which is the mental disorder but rather it is a manifestation of one. In other words the need to control other people when they are not trying to hit you over the head or otherwise unreasonably impinge on your life, is the mental disorder, one any one of any political philosophy might suffer from (I know some pretty unpleasent libertarians when it comes to their private lives).
But things like regulatory statism or fascism or communism or imposed fundimentalist [insert religion here] could not happen without this psychological disorder being manifest in the people who push it.
I suspect many people do not really think their politics through and so the notion that passing laws to regulate things really is imposing something by force does not occur to them. I have often asked people why they think their views should be imposed by force and frequently get the reply "Oh no, I don't want to impose anything by force, I just want their to be a law to stop people smoking near me in the pub". This person does not 'get' the connection between laws and force, it was as if laws were just polite suggestions. Yet many clearly take delight in using political power to make people do things even though they are not being threatened with force themselves (even abstractly) and understand well what is happening... these people really do strike me as disordered.
That said, I do not therefore favour locking up such disordered people as we are all 'disordered' in some manner. I just wish the control freaks would realise that they do indeed have a 'problem' and it is others who pay the price for it, like most mental disordered.
Posted by Perry de Havilland at March 4, 2006 02:16 PM
This assumption of your's (that you accept, and say libertarians don't) needs to be broken down into two distinct cases
Well, yes, but I addressed that.
It wasn't a pseudonym or an attempt at cleverness, Euan Dull-and-Gray
I don't think anyone suggested it was.
In other words the need to control other people when they are not trying to hit you over the head or otherwise unreasonably impinge on your life, is the mental disorder
It's just human nature, Perry. Any practical political, social or economic system needs to take account of this aspect of humanity.
I suspect many people do not really think their politics through
Indeed they don't, because most people are not interested in politics or political questions, or indeed economics beyond "have I got enough money for my needs/desires?"
I just wish the control freaks would realise that they do indeed have a 'problem'
They simply have a different set of assumptions than you, and in all likelihood would suggest that it is in fact you who have the problem because you cannot see the obvious "truth" of their point of view. This is why describing people as mentally ill, stupid or evil just because you don't agree with their world-view is unproductive, because they'll just say exactly the same about you and how far does that advance anything?
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 4, 2006 03:12 PM
PdH - I'm not in favour of locking them up either. But your wish that control freaks would realise they do indeed have a problem. Well, they don't and won't. What I wish is, that other people would be stronger in the face of these people. As in, more use of the magnificent word, "No."
I see one of Britain's prime, not to say stellar, interferers, the Minister of Culture, Sport and Whatever is getting a divorce. Nothing like standing by your man, eh?
Posted by Verity at March 4, 2006 03:19 PM
Perry, you are right that there is a lot to learn from psychology about why people hold the views they do. One could argue that a certain "type" of mentality is drawn to fascim, communism or fundamentalist religions, while other types are drawn to more liberal, individualistic world views.
But I think we need to be a little careful, though. I have met many delightful, well-adjusted folk who are socialists and there are some libertarians who, frankly, I would not pee on them if they were on fire.
most people are not interested in politics or political questions, or indeed economics beyond "have I got enough money for my needs/desires?"
Possibly. The trouble with that point of view, of course, is that it means a relatively small section of the population get to impose their wills on the apathetic majority. This is not exactly a good thing, unless you like the idea of imposing your views on people.
Posted by Johnathan Pearce at March 4, 2006 04:54 PM
it means a relatively small section of the population get to impose their wills on the apathetic majority. This is not exactly a good thing
Perhaps not, but that's the reality of it. People AREN'T generally interested in politics.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 4, 2006 05:36 PM
The Government does not intend these things to happen, the Commission on whose report the Bill was founded did not intend these things to happen, but in legislation intention is nothing, and the letter of the law everything, and no government has the right, whether to flatter fanatics or in mere vagueness of mind, to forge an instrument of tyranny and say that it will never be used.--W. B. Yeats, speech to the Irish Senate in Free State days
Posted by The Sanity Inspector at March 4, 2006 07:44 PM
Perry writes:
In other words the need to control other people when they are not trying to hit you over the head or otherwise unreasonably impinge on your life, is the mental disorder
To which Euan responds:
It's just human nature, Perry. Any practical political, social or economic system needs to take account of this aspect of humanity.
Which is, amazingly enough, a concise defense of Libertarianism. Euan is right - many people do seem naturally to want to control people. In a state of anarchy they do it with physical force. In a statist society, they do it by making endless regulations. Only Libertarianism addresses both concerns - by retaining the police to enforce bans on physical violence while simulatenously confining government to well-defined boundaries. Indeed, Libertarianism exists to give individuals the maximum amount of freedom from the coersion of others while still maintaining an ordered society; it is defined in terms of what demands may not be made.
Posted by Joshua at March 4, 2006 10:41 PM
by retaining the police to enforce bans on physical violence while simulatenously confining government to well-defined boundaries
What about non-physical force? Economic force and coercion such as cartel, for example - very common in the real world, but rarely acknowledged in libertarian thought. What happens if some company wants to erect a huge advertising hoarding on its own property, but the bloody thing's an eyesore and all the neighbours complain because it destroys their view of the lovely state buildings? Is that force? Is it reasonable? Have people no valid objection?
Who gets to define the boundaries of government, why are they right, what happens if it turns out they are not right, and what happens if the people want to expand those limits?
Libertarianism of this type is far too simplistic in its view of the world to provide a reasonable and practical system of government.
it is defined in terms of what demands may not be made
You must be a heretic, Joshua - everyone else evades a definition or says that such a thing cannot be done.
Please enlighten us all by defining, with coherent justification, what demands cannot be made.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 4, 2006 11:14 PM
In an idle moment between thinking up statis