Chomsky on: Psychopaths and Sociopaths

[Toma]

http://zcomm.org/znetarticle/psychopaths-and-sociopaths/


R.K.: Okay, so you have written and I am going to quote you here,

“if you care about other people that’s now a very dangerous idea. If you care about other people you might try to organize or to undermine power and authority. That’s not going to happen if you care only about yourself. Maybe you can become rich, you don’t care whether other people’s kids can go to school or afford food to eat or things like that. In the United States that’s called libertarian for some wild reason. I mean it’s actually highly authoritarian but that doctrine is extremely important for power systems as a way of atomizing and undermining the public.”

Now, since we last spoke I have been doing a series of articles on psychopathy, psychopaths, sociopaths, and narcissists and it sure sounds like you’re describing them when you describe people who don’t care.

N.C.: Well there is a huge propaganda effort that we are all aware of to try to turn people into psychopaths who don’t care about anyone but themselves. That’s not new actually. They go back a hundred and fifty years, the early days of industrialization in the United States. Working people were bitterly condemning the industrial system that was being imposed, the way it was taking away their freedom, and one of the things they condemned is what they called the new spirit of the age– ‘Gain wealth forgetting all but self,’– Exactly what you’re describing. That’s a hundred and fifty years ago and ever since then there have been enormous efforts to drive these sociopathic attitudes into people’s heads. There are extreme cases like the Ayn Rand cult where it’s kind of like, open but yeah we should be psychopaths, and there are, you read a lot of what’s called libertarian shouldn’t be called that, it’s very authoritarian. But a lot of it is based on the same principles. ‘Why should I pay taxes to send somebody else’s kids to school or why should I support the disabled widow across town with, her social security is her problem, not mine ” That’s pathological. In fact there’s an interesting book that just came out which maybe you’ve seen called The Sociopathic Society by a very good sociologist, Charles Derber and he’s describing accurately the development of these things. And we see them all the time.

Take the huge attack on healthcare systems......

Read more http://zcomm.org/znetarticle/psychopaths-and-sociopaths/

[Toma]

Public schools are based on the principle that you care about other people. I care that a kid in the other side of town in a poor neighborhood should have a decent education. And I’m willing to pay taxes for it. That’s what public schools are about. But if you’re a psychopath, you don’t want that. It’s the kid’s fault or his parent’s fault or something else. Why should we pay for it, let’s destroy the system and privatize it.

[Arash Boodagh]

Thats one of the best explanations Ive read on our system and society.

Outside of brainwashing people to be sociopaths, I think citizens know that the system could chew and spit them out too to the streets or that it taxes them unfairly... so it becomes a fear or scammed feeling based consciousness to hoard for ones own comfortable survival.

[Mista Bob]

This is supposed to be a joke right?

If you honestly think this is something that only goes back 150 years, you clearly have not paid any attention to history.
This kind of thing has been going on in the entirety of human history. Only difference is. in the past 150 years it has gotten dramatically *better* for everyone in general.

Greed is human nature, hell you could argue greed *is* nature.
The difference is now, in this "modern" age, more people than ever in the entire human history are living a high quality life.
Go back even just 100 years and you will find this is not the case. Go further back and it only gets worse and worse, all due to greed.

It is absolutely hilarious if anyone actually thinks this is new, and that it is now getting worse. Or whatever it is this guy is trying to argue?

Yeah, I didn't read the entire article. But why would I? The bits you highlighted made it painfully obvious whoever this guy is has no idea what he is talking about.
In all of human history, there is no better time to be alive than right now.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[GTS4tw]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
This is what it boils down to:

Communism/Socialism: The belief that by sacrificing a few, it will ensure the well being of the many.
*“Caring” about others is encouraged, simply because you are expected to sacrifice for them voluntarily, or by force. Anything less than full submission to sacrifice for others is considered “Greedy”

Capitalism/Democracy: The belief that all people are important and equal, and deserve control over their own body, mind and choices.
Earning you own way through life is encouraged, your success is based on merit, and the recognition of personal rights such as speech, property, body, soul, and ideas is a core part of this system. Unlike socialism, “Greedy” people are classified as those who simply take without contributing.


Our society has both elements in it, and in some cases one philosophy is better than others. The problem with Socialism is that if the leader becomes corrupted or fanatical, people don’t have rights and freedoms to protect them from it.

Good example would be residential schools for aboriginals. This was a socialist idea started out as a good intention to help integrate native peoples by removing parental influence. It severely violated their personal rights and freedoms, however because socialism won out, they were not protected from it and it became a horror show.

I find that a lot of people with socialist or communist leanings tend to live in a dream world where greed can be legislated out, and natural human emotions and ambitions never come into play.

This author also says that people who say "why should I pay tax for that" are talking about helping some disabled woman, or supporting education, trying to use a tactic of taking something to the extreme. Most people who argue that are talking about total waste, which there is an epic amount of. They are arguing for more personal responsibility and less babysitting by the masses.

Either way, he calls people in a tax debate psychopaths, and says that any solution other than the one he buys into will "destroy the system"...do people really buy into this shit?

Does he understand the meaning of Narcissist?

[Modelexis]

Fitting quote from Noam himself on the very education he advocates for:


Mass education was designed to turn independent farmers into docile, passive tools of production. That was its primary purpose. And don't think people didn't know it. They knew it and they fought against it. There was a lot of resistance to mass education for exactly that reason. It was also understood by the elites. Emerson once said something about how we're educating them to keep them from our throats. If you don't educate them, what we call "education," they're going to take control -- "they" being what Alexander Hamilton called the "great beast," namely the people. The anti-democratic thrust of opinion in what are called democratic societies is really ferocious. And for good reason. Because the freer the society gets, the more dangerous the great beast becomes and the more you have to be careful to cage it somehow.

He's basically saying that anyone who doesn't want to fund mass dis-education camps by force is a sociopath who lacks empathy.

Within our current system I think the ideal solution would be to give people an incentive to donate to charities and to donate to private education.

Instead of taking taxes for public education, offer an 80% tax rebate on any funding directed towards private education.
This would not only make it easier for low income house holds to afford education but it would get people in the habit of acting like adults and taking a person interest in the community around them.
I gravitate towards positive incentives rather than threats of force when I'm seeking to do good in the world.

I don't really know exactly how it all could work but the point is just to illustrate how there are other ways to help poor people other than threats of force.

[ZenOps]

Narcisists tend to use "I" frequently in speech and belittle others who do not agree with them.

That being said: I think you all crazy.

[ercchry]

some times i wish it was still the 50s... i'd totally rat out toma for being a communist :rofl:

[googe]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
This is what it boils down to:

Communism/Socialism: The belief that by sacrificing a few, it will ensure the well being of the many.
*“Caring” about others is encouraged, simply because you are expected to sacrifice for them voluntarily, or by force. Anything less than full submission to sacrifice for others is considered “Greedy”

Capitalism/Democracy: The belief that all people are important and equal, and deserve control over their own body, mind and choices.
Earning you own way through life is encouraged, your success is based on merit, and the recognition of personal rights such as speech, property, body, religion, and ideas is a core part of this system. Unlike socialism, “Greedy” people are classified as those who simply take without contributing.


Our society has both elements in it, and in some cases one philosophy is better than other. The problem with Socialism is that if the leader becomes corrupted or fanatical, people don’t have rights and freedoms to protect them from it.

Good example would be residential schools for aboriginals. This was a socialist idea started out as a good intention to help integrate native peoples by removing parental influence. It severely violated their personal rights and freedoms, however because socialism won out, they were not protected from it and it became a horror show.

You might want to get informed on the difference between economic and political systems. Most "socialist" countries are democracies. There is no dictator. You've made a very bizarre conflation here. You also haven't made an honest attempt to define the two systems. You can't have an honest debate about something if you're going to begin with a definition that is aligned with your preferred viewpoint.

Could you pass an Ideological Turing Test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test) ?


Originally posted by GTS4tw


I find that a lot of people with socialist or communist leanings tend to live in a dream world where greed can be legislated out, and natural human emotions and ambitions never come into play.

This author also says that people who say "why should I pay tax for that" are talking about helping some disabled woman, or supporting education, trying to use a tactic of taking something to the extreme. Most people who argue that are talking about total waste, which there is an epic amount of. They are arguing for more personal responsibility and less babysitting by the masses.

Either way, he calls people in a tax debate psychopaths, and says that any solution other than the one he buys into will "destroy the system"...do people really buy into this shit?

Does he understand the meaning of Narcissist?

You have failed the Ideological Turing Test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test).


Originally posted by Mista Bob
This is supposed to be a joke right?

Or whatever it is this guy is trying to argue?

Yeah, I didn't read the entire article. But why would I? The bits you highlighted made it painfully obvious whoever this guy is has no idea what he is talking about.


This is supposed to be a joke right? You don't know who Noam Chomsky is?

[GTS4tw]

Originally posted by googe


You have failed the Ideological Turing Test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test).



Damnit first I failed a test I didnt even know I was taking, then I realized that the guy I was talking about failed the test, i was pointing that out but didnt even know it since I didnt know about the test, doing so apparently also caused me to fail the test. This is one tough test man! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[rx7_turbo2]

Gee a thread started by Toma with Chomsky in the title and the first 3 posters being:
Toma
Toma
Arash
:eek:

[Mista Bob]

Originally posted by googe


This is supposed to be a joke right? You don't know who Noam Chomsky is?

And your point? Being well known doesn't make him any less wrong.
There is no "conspiracy" to turn everyone into sociopaths/psychopaths only looking out for themselves.
Greed is human nature, always has been and at the very least will continue to be for a very long time.
And like I previously said (in the bits you cut out of my quote), it has been going on since the beginning of human history. Things are not getting worse, things are getting better.

But I guess you already know this, otherwise surely you would have argued my points rather than completely ignore them and latch onto some irrelevant point about who the author is.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[01RedDX]

.

[googe]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak




I guess if you wanted to define exactly the issue; it is socialism VS individual freedom... on a broader scale, it is nationalism vs capitalism.

This is what you (and many others) are missing about Chomsky's viewpoint. Libertarian socialism posits that it is individual freedom vs capitalism. Unchecked capitalism is incompatible with freedom and as tyrannical as a dictatorship.

He advocates individual freedom, and as such, seeks to preserve it by preventing those with either disproportionate political capital or economic capital from restricting the freedoms of others.

You have to ask yourself what freedom is. Is it freedom to screw over your neighbor, or is it freedom from being screwed over by your neighbor?

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by googe
You can't have an honest debate about something if you're going to begin with a definition that is aligned with your preferred viewpoint.


Says the guy who supports a statement accusing people who under fund public education as having an antisocial personality disorder. :rolleyes:

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by googe
You have to ask yourself what freedom is. Is it freedom to screw over your neighbor, or is it freedom from being screwed over by your neighbor?

In a perfect world pure capitalism claims the same thing.

My problem with some "socialists" is they say this:

http://i.imgur.com/u1e0qIh.gif

But really want this:

http://i.imgur.com/84ZXp2D.gif

[Sugarphreak]

....

[themack89]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
... on a broader scale, it is nationalism vs capitalism.

Still comparing apples and oranges dude. Nationalism is an attitude towards your country/nation, desiring unity essentially. Capitalism is an economic system used to control the means of production.

It's easy to be a nationalist and a capitalist.

[Arash Boodagh]

We are rich nations run by psychopaths short of taking the mentally disabled to the back of the barn and shooting them dead... for now, police kill the ones that act out in public.



Originally posted by Sugarphreak
....

Good example would be residential schools for aboriginals. This was a socialist idea started out as a good intention to help integrate native peoples by removing parental influence. It severely violated their personal rights and freedoms, however because socialism won out, they were not protected from it and it became a horror show.
Originally posted by Modelexis
Fitting quote from Noam himself ...
Mass education was designed to turn independent farmers into docile, passive tools of production. That was its primary purpose. And don't think people didn't know it. They knew it and they fought against it. There was a lot of resistance to mass education for exactly that reason. It was also understood by the elites. Emerson once said something about how we're educating them to keep them from our throats. If you don't educate them, what we call "education," they're going to take control -- "they" being what Alexander Hamilton called the "great beast," namely the people. The anti-democratic thrust of opinion in what are called democratic societies is really ferocious. And for good reason. Because the freer the society gets, the more dangerous the great beast becomes and the more you have to be careful to cage it somehow.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by themack89


It's easy to be a nationalist and a capitalist.

You're right on that one. Nazis were heavily involved in the execution of capitalist enterprise to further a nationalist agenda. That's how they were so efficient at liquidation of a whole race. They privatized it.

Same way China has stayed afloat. Capitalism is the most efficient way to get shit done. The only relevant argument is what a country wants to get done.

Capitalism is not inherently evil, all depends on where it's pointed. Which is why pure socialists are so off point. The only economic method that actually works is capitalism.

You can't have a self sustainable society (communist, fascist or democratic), without it.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Modelexis]

Doesn't Noam Chomsky accept Anarchistic philosophy?