The Fascists That Surround You

[FirstAscent]

I think you need to read history and learn how rulers rise to power. It's amazing how you apply such a lack of imagination to ideas which challenge your dream society. Regarding AnCap, I can't think of a more optimal playground for a power grab.

Since you clearly have this well-planned out, if you were making a power grab in an AnCap society, just how would you go about it?

I don't have it planned out. I'm not really interested in power. I don't think you have it planned out either.

Consider these terms though: economics, wealth, inequality, disenchantment, minimal laws, complacency, cults, charisma, takeovers, buyouts, rallies, speeches, terrorism, sabotage, propaganda, influence, mob, poverty, etc.

Those all exist in your society. I see no difference from any other society where a tyrant, dictator or criminal rises to power. There's nothing special about AnCap.

EDIT: added mob and poverty to the list.

[myrkul]

I think you need to read history and learn how rulers rise to power. It's amazing how you apply such a lack of imagination to ideas which challenge your dream society. Regarding AnCap, I can't think of a more optimal playground for a power grab.

Since you clearly have this well-planned out, if you were making a power grab in an AnCap society, just how would you go about it?

I don't have it planned out. I'm not really interested in power. I don't think you have it planned out either.

Consider these terms though: economics, wealth, inequality, disenchantment, minimal laws, complacency, cults, charisma, takeovers, buyouts, rallies, speeches, terrorism, sabotage, propaganda, influence, mob, poverty, etc.

Do you ever do anything but list concepts? Do you ever combine those concepts? Ever put them in an order that makes sense? Or is life just one big word cloud for you?

[FirstAscent]

I think you need to read history and learn how rulers rise to power. It's amazing how you apply such a lack of imagination to ideas which challenge your dream society. Regarding AnCap, I can't think of a more optimal playground for a power grab.

Since you clearly have this well-planned out, if you were making a power grab in an AnCap society, just how would you go about it?

I don't have it planned out. I'm not really interested in power. I don't think you have it planned out either.

Consider these terms though: economics, wealth, inequality, disenchantment, minimal laws, complacency, cults, charisma, takeovers, buyouts, rallies, speeches, terrorism, sabotage, propaganda, influence, mob, poverty, etc.

Do you ever do anything but list concepts? Do you ever combine those concepts? Ever put them in an order that makes sense? Or is life just one big word cloud for you?

Yes I do. And you know I do. I'm not going to waste my time linking to the countless examples. Regardless, does your asking of such questions negate the possibilities that exist within your dream society that I have implied? Absolutely not.

[myrkul]

I think you need to read history and learn how rulers rise to power. It's amazing how you apply such a lack of imagination to ideas which challenge your dream society. Regarding AnCap, I can't think of a more optimal playground for a power grab.

Since you clearly have this well-planned out, if you were making a power grab in an AnCap society, just how would you go about it?

I don't have it planned out. I'm not really interested in power. I don't think you have it planned out either.

Consider these terms though: economics, wealth, inequality, disenchantment, minimal laws, complacency, cults, charisma, takeovers, buyouts, rallies, speeches, terrorism, sabotage, propaganda, influence, mob, poverty, etc.

Do you ever do anything but list concepts? Do you ever combine those concepts? Ever put them in an order that makes sense? Or is life just one big word cloud for you?

Yes I do. And you know I do. I'm not going to waste my time linking to the countless examples. Regardless, does your asking of such questions negate the possibilities that exist within your dream society that I have implied? Absolutely not.

Yes, and until you put those implications into a statement, I can't refute them, since they're only nebulous implications. Very clever, but typically dishonest of you.

Put up or shut up. I have outlined a system. You say it is flawed, yet you will not explain exactly how. I suspect because you know your explanation will reveal the weakness of your argument.

[augustocroppo]

Except in the strawman you made up in your mind. Do try and keep up.

There is no straw man, you are confused.

Yes it does. I've explained the analogy and how it explains the relationship in great detail earlier in the thread. Go back and read it.

Let's review your poor analogy:

Of course they do. But where roses exist inside a garden, they are the centerpiece (leadership, in our analogy), or often the entire theme of the garden (the entire power structure, in our example). You can have a garden without roses,  but the temptation to add a rosebush is constant (Fascistic governments attract sociopaths), and once you have one rosebush, you're well on your way to having a rose garden (sociopaths tend to take over any fascistic power structure they are introduced to).

This does not contain any coherent explanation of how FASCISM relates to SOCIOPATHY. You indeed produced false premises in 'great detail', but you completely failed to identify the parts compared. Therefore, your analogy DID NOT explained what is the relationship of the two definitions in question. Moreover, you committed serious misconceptions...

You initiated the analogy in this way:

Fascism:Sociopaths::Garden:Roses.

This show how delusional you are. You seen to believe that by posting few words without an explanation implies that you have already explained what is your argument. That is exactly what did not happened. You did not explained anything at all. You indeed build your own failure.

In your analogy, you affirms:

'Roses exist inside a garden, they are the centerpiece (leadership, in our analogy)'

This imply the 'roses' are the political leaders.

'Roses exist inside a garden, they the entire theme of the garden (the entire power structure, in our example).'

This imply the 'garden' is the political structure.

'You can have a garden without roses,  but the temptation to add a rosebush is constant (Fascistic governments attract sociopaths)'

Translating: 'You can have a political structure without political leaders, but the temptation to add a political leader is constant (political regime attract psychological disorder).

'Once you have one rosebush, you're well on your way to having a rose garden (sociopaths tend to take over any fascistic power structure they are introduced to).'

Translating: 'Once you have one group of political leaders, you're well on your way to having political structure with political leaders (psychological disorder tend to take over any political regime power structure they are introduced to).'

In accordance with the above analogy, which is not 'ours', but only yours and solely yours, any group of political leaders are sociopaths and they tend to take over any political regime. Moreover, you affirmed that political structures are influenced by an unidentified subject, which causes the political structure to attract psychological disorder. This beg the question: who is the subject under the 'temptation' to add political leaders to the political structure? Where this 'temptation' come from?

Finally, when your analogy is compared with the appropriate definitions of fascism and sociopathy, it completely fails:

'Once you have one...'

...sociopath doesn't feel emotions, and therefore, can never understand interpersonal relationships...

'...you're well on your way to having a...'

... Fascist State [which] organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.

One DOES NOT care for (or look after the welfare of) all individuals, the other DOES care for (or look after the welfare of) all individuals.

So, then you argue that sociopaths would not seek political power?

I argue that they would seek political power as anyone which is not a diagnosed as sociopath. It is not the affliction of a sociopath which causes them to seek political leadership.

I never claimed that government departments offer jobs exclusively to sociopaths (though an argument could be made for military positions, they cater more to psychopaths, than sociopaths)

Western military institutions does not accept individual with PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDER. Western military institutions selects the most physically and mentally health individuals.

Uh huh. And then trains them to be soulless killers. 

You are implying that soldiers are trained to lose they 'soul'. What is 'soul' and what relation have with psychological disorders?

No? They're not uniquely suited?
They can't lie convincingly?
They can't present an outward appearance of benevolence, regardless of what is behind the mask?
They can't convince people to like them?

These are the defining characteristics of sociopaths, and also, you'll note, politicians.

Following your deceitful logic, all politicians are individuals with:

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

Glibness and Superficial Charm
Manipulative and Conning
Pathological Lying
Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
Shallow Emotions
Incapacity for Love
Need for Stimulation
Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility

Of course this is false. The above characteristics defines a sociopath, not a politician:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/politician?q=politician

Definition of politician
noun
a person who is professionally involved in politics, especially as a holder of an elected office

In a free society the damage sociopaths can cause to society will finally be limited to what they can accomplish via their own efforts instead of amplified by access to armies, nuclear weapons, police forces and taxation.

Provide evidence that any diagnosed SOCIOPATH has 'access to armies, nuclear weapons, police forces and taxation'.

Otherwise, your statement is false.

Adolph Hitler. Benito Mussolini. Kim Jong-il. Joseph Stalin. Do I really need to continue?

This is not evidence. This is your assumption with no evidence. Please, provide a diagnosis produced by a qualified person which indicates that any of the above names cited were afflicted by SOCIOPATHY. Otherwise, your statement is false.

[mobodick]

Sociopaths also will exist in AnCap, and render their personal brand of hell in all their ways within such a society as well. What is your point again?

In a free society the damage sociopaths can cause to society will finally be limited to what they can accomplish via their own efforts instead of amplified by access to armies, nuclear weapons, police forces and taxation.

What you mean, then, is they could never be worse than, say, someone like Hitler, as they gain wealth and power and a following? Nothing in AnCap precludes the accumulation of wealth, weapons, leverage through business, influence and followers. Good try, though.

Everything in AnCap, however, precludes the use of those resources for conquest.

A business built on producing high-quality automobiles will have a hard time turning into a military force.

What nonsense. Is AnCap only composed of automobile production companies? Does not AnCap also have people, weapons manufacturers, money, external suppliers, recessions, disenchanted individuals, criminals, defense companies, hatred, sociopaths, influential people, wealthy people, etc., etc., etc?

And besides, who do you think built tanks and airplanes in the U.S. during WWII?

Yes, an automobile manufacturer could switch to making tanks. or bombs. But who will drive those tanks? Who will drop those bombs?

What I am saying that workers in industry do not, and cannot, become soldiers overnight simply because their employer wishes it. Defense agencies are geared and staffed for defense, not offense. He would have to build, with his own money - or an external bankroll - a private army comprised solely of thugs and criminals. He would then have to take that private army, and set it against not only the defense agencies - businesses built around stopping exactly this sort of thing - but also every armed citizen in the region, who will be fighting to defend their homes.

Who do you think is going to win that fight?

Don't you think that by the time you have the technology to force the world into this ideal society that there will also be technology to make autonomous weapons?

[mobodick]

This is not evidence. This is your assumption with no evidence. Please, provide a diagnosis produced by a qualified person which indicates that any of the above names cited were afflicted by SOCIOPATHY. Otherwise, your statement is false.

This.
I havent heared an argument and we're already on page 5.

[mobodick]

I think you need to read history and learn how rulers rise to power. It's amazing how you apply such a lack of imagination to ideas which challenge your dream society. Regarding AnCap, I can't think of a more optimal playground for a power grab.

Since you clearly have this well-planned out, if you were making a power grab in an AnCap society, just how would you go about it?

This is a false question.
AnCap societies do not exist and cannot exist without using force.
I always ask AnCap people one question:

How will you convince russia and china to cooperate ?

I can see you ringing the russians doorbell:

You: 'Hey Putin, how about sharing your natural resources with the rest of the world?'
Putin: 'Go away'.
The End

The whole AnCap thing is complete nonsense and comes down to one religious believe: "Techology will automatically safe us from all bad things".
It's a fantasy. An ideology that is simply unexecutable.

[myrkul]

Except in the strawman you made up in your mind. Do try and keep up.

There is no straw man, you are confused.

Yes there is: your claim that what I am saying is that fascism = sociopaths. since that's clearly false, and I never claimed that, That is a straw man, that you set up so you could knock down with definitions. Unless you are just a fucking moron, and can't understand an analogy. So which is it, Straw man, or moron?
 

Yes it does. I've explained the analogy and how it explains the relationship in great detail earlier in the thread. Go back and read it.

Let's review your poor analogy:

Of course they do. But where roses exist inside a garden, they are the centerpiece (leadership, in our analogy), or often the entire theme of the garden (the entire power structure, in our example). You can have a garden without roses,  but the temptation to add a rosebush is constant (Fascistic governments attract sociopaths), and once you have one rosebush, you're well on your way to having a rose garden (sociopaths tend to take over any fascistic power structure they are introduced to).

This does not contain any coherent explanation of how FASCISM relates to SOCIOPATHY. You indeed produced false premises in 'great detail', but you completely failed to identify the parts compared. Therefore, your analogy DID NOT explained what is the relationship of the two definitions in question. Moreover, you committed serious misconceptions...

You initiated the analogy in this way:

Fascism:Sociopaths::Garden:Roses.

This show how delusional you are. You seen to believe that by posting few words without an explanation implies that you have already explained what is your argument. That is exactly what did not happened. You did not explained anything at all. You indeed build your own failure.

I'm leaning toward you not understanding an analogy...
 

In your analogy, you affirms:

'Roses exist inside a garden, they are the centerpiece (leadership, in our analogy)'

This imply the 'roses' are the political leaders.

This, right here, your very first premise, is where you go wrong. The Roses are the Sociopaths, the political leaders are the "centerpiece" of the government. Where roses are in a garden, they are the centerpiece. Where they are not present, other things, such as a fountain, or fruit tree are the centerpiece. Where Sociopaths exist in a government, you can be assured you find them in leadership roles... the "centerpiece."

'Roses exist inside a garden, they the entire theme of the garden (the entire power structure, in our example).'

This imply the 'garden' is the political structure.

Heh. You actually got one right.

'You can have a garden without roses,  but the temptation to add a rosebush is constant (Fascistic governments attract sociopaths)'

Translating: 'You can have a political structure without political leaders, but the temptation to add a political leader is constant (political regime attract psychological disorder).

Nope... You can have a political structure without sociopaths, but sociopaths are drawn to political structures.

'Once you have one rosebush, you're well on your way to having a rose garden (sociopaths tend to take over any fascistic power structure they are introduced to).'

Translating: 'Once you have one group of political leaders, you're well on your way to having political structure with political leaders (psychological disorder tend to take over any political regime power structure they are introduced to).'

No, I translated it for you. You even quoted it. Sociopaths tend to take over any fascistic power structure they are introduced to.

One DOES NOT care for (or look after the welfare of) all individuals, the other DOES care for (or look after the welfare of) all individuals.

No, One DOES NOT care for other individuals, the other PRETENDS TO care for other individuals.

So, then you argue that sociopaths would not seek political power?

I argue that they would seek political power as anyone which is not a diagnosed as sociopath. It is not the affliction of a sociopath which causes them to seek political leadership.

No, sociopathy does not, itself, cause them to seek political leadership. However, political leadership is a very comfortable place for a sociopath to exercise his sociopathy.

No? They're not uniquely suited?
They can't lie convincingly?
They can't present an outward appearance of benevolence, regardless of what is behind the mask?
They can't convince people to like them?

These are the defining characteristics of sociopaths, and also, you'll note, politicians.

Following your deceitful logic, all politicians are individuals with:

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

Well, let's run down the list, shall we?

Glibness and Superficial Charm

Yup.

Manipulative and Conning

Yup.

Pathological Lying

Yup.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt

Yup.

Shallow Emotions

Yup.

Incapacity for Love

Hmm. No proof of this one.

Need for Stimulation

Yup.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy

Yup.

Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature

Yup.

Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency

Yup.

Irresponsibility/Unreliability

Yup.

Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity

Oh hell yes.

Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle

Don't you know it.

Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility

Yup.

In a free society the damage sociopaths can cause to society will finally be limited to what they can accomplish via their own efforts instead of amplified by access to armies, nuclear weapons, police forces and taxation.

Provide evidence that any diagnosed SOCIOPATH has 'access to armies, nuclear weapons, police forces and taxation'.

Otherwise, your statement is false.

Adolph Hitler. Benito Mussolini. Kim Jong-il. Joseph Stalin. Do I really need to continue?

This is not evidence. This is your assumption with no evidence. Please, provide a diagnosis produced by a qualified person which indicates that any of the above names cited were afflicted by SOCIOPATHY. Otherwise, your statement is false.

To borrow a page from FirstAscent: http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-Stout/dp/0767915828/
Here's a quick run-down: www.bookbrowse.com/author_interviews/full/index.cfm/author_number/1097/martha-stout

[augustocroppo]

Yes there is: your claim that what I am saying is that fascism = sociopaths. since that's clearly false, and I never claimed that, That is a straw man, that you set up so you could knock down with definitions. Unless you are just a fucking moron, and can't understand an analogy. So which is it, Straw man, or moron?

Neither!

You are indeed intentionally try to stir up the discussion to disguise your confused definitions. There was no straw men. If you believe there was without even to explain how there was, you are indeed delusional.

At no moment I claimed or suggested that you were equaling fascism with sociopathy. I have been arguing that your analogy is beyond stupid and does not explain the hypothetical relationship of a political regime and a psychological disorder. You should read twice every time you answer, look at the dictionary, consult references, etc. This is all easily to be done with Internet available. For example, you could verify that:

Straw Man occurs when

an opponent takes the original argument of his/her adversary

and then offers a close imitation, or straw man, version of the original argument

As I said, you will find sociopaths in a fascistic government, just as you will find roses in a garden. That is the relation.

You will find individuals with psychological disorder in other political regimes as well. This does not prove that there is an exclusive relationship of fascism with sociopathy. It only proves that individuals with psychological disorder can be found participating in any political regime. You are failing to explain what is the relationship between fascism and sociopathy.

The original argument, 'you will find sociopaths in a fascistic government, just as you will find roses in a garden'.

My version of your original argument: 'You will find individuals with psychological disorder in other political regimes as well.'

I argued exactly over your argument, without limit the meaning, hence the premise that your argument '...only proves that individuals with psychological disorder can be found participating in any political regime'

That is exactly what you mean:

I only said your analogy works because it does indeed show that sociopaths are everywhere, like in your AnCap society.

Yes, but the Fascistic government has that tasty power structure for them to seize, and use to their (and their fellow sociopaths') benefit.

You agreed with my version of your original argument with a 'yes' to another user!

In your analogy, you affirms:

'Roses exist inside a garden, they are the centerpiece (leadership, in our analogy)'

This imply the 'roses' are the political leaders.

This, right here, your very first premise, is where you go wrong. The Roses are the Sociopaths, the political leaders are the "centerpiece" of the government. Where roses are in a garden, they are the centerpiece. Where they are not present, other things, such as a fountain, or fruit tree are the centerpiece. Where Sociopaths exist in a government, you can be assured you find them in leadership roles... the "centerpiece."

Wait... Do you read proof what you write? You wrote that 'Roses ... are the centerpiece', but now you are pretending that 'roses are the sociopaths' and then affirming that 'the political leaders are the centerpiece'. You are now implying that individuals with psychological disorder always become the central political leadership of any political regime.

'Roses exist inside a garden, they the entire theme of the garden (the entire power structure, in our example).'

This imply the 'garden' is the political structure.

Heh. You actually got one right.

So you agree that I am right, that 'garden' is the political structure:

As I said, you will find sociopaths in a fascistic government, just as you will find roses in a garden. That is the relation.

Translating: 'As I said, you will find sociopaths in a fascistic government, just as you will find sociopaths in a political structure.'

This prove that my argument was valid and not a limited version of your original argument:

'It only proves that individuals with psychological disorder can be found participating in any political regime'

Nope... You can have a political structure without sociopaths, but sociopaths are drawn to political structures.

No, I translated it for you. You even quoted it. Sociopaths tend to take over any fascistic power structure they are introduced to.

Do you have learning issues? How many times I need to repeat that sociopaths are individuals with a psychological disorder, not individuals conspiring to overtake political regimes.

No, One DOES NOT care for other individuals, the other PRETENDS TO care for other individuals.

They care:

The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after.

Your false premise is contradicting yourself:

'Once you have one...'

...DOES NOT care for other individuals...

'...you're well on your way to having a...'

other PRETENDS TO care for other individuals.

You are affirming that a group of individuals which does not really care will lead to a group of individuals which pretend to care. You are implying that a group of sociopaths leads to a group of fascists. That contradicts your own false premise: 'sociopaths tend to take over any fascistic power structure they are introduced to', which means that first there is the group which pretends to care, and then comes the group which really do not care.

Moreover, you ignored a important part of my observation:

Moreover, you affirmed that political structures are influenced by an unidentified subject, which causes the political structure to attract psychological disorder. This beg the question: who is the subject under the 'temptation' to add political leaders sociopaths to the political structure? Where this 'temptation' come from?

However, political leadership is a very comfortable place for a sociopath to exercise his sociopathy.

You seem to believe that sociopathy is some kind of skill, when in fact sociopathy is a  psychological disorder. Individuals diagnosed with sociopathy does not believe or understand they are afflicted by a psychological disorder. They cannot become aware of that knowledge to decide if politics is the best choice to them exercise sociopathy.

To borrow a page from FirstAscent: http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-Stout/dp/0767915828/
Here's a quick run-down: www.bookbrowse.com/author_interviews/full/index.cfm/author_number/1097/martha-stout

I asked for a diagnosis from a qualified person. You provided books, not results of a diagnosis. The first reference does not address your premise. It does not serve as coherent evidence to prove that the names you cited were afflicted by sociopathy.

Who is the devil you know?

Could it be your lying, cheating ex-husband?
Your sadistic high school gym teacher?
Your boss who loves to humiliate people in meetings?

Sometimes you just know 'em when you see 'em….
Historical sociopaths: Hitler, Stalin, Rasputin, Eichmann, Pol Pot, John Gotti

That is not a diagnosis, that is an assumption without any reasonable explanation or evidence.

[myrkul]

Straw Man occurs when an opponent takes the original argument of his/her adversary and then offers a close imitation, or straw man, version of the original argument

My version of your original argument:

Straw man.
Which you then attempted to defeat, in typical AugustoCrappo style, with dictionary definitions.

That is exactly what you mean:

I only said your analogy works because it does indeed show that sociopaths are everywhere, like in your AnCap society.

Yes, but the Fascistic government has that tasty power structure for them to seize, and use to their (and their fellow sociopaths') benefit.

You agreed with my version of your original argument with a 'yes' to another user!

In your analogy, you affirms:

'Roses exist inside a garden, they are the centerpiece (leadership, in our analogy)'

This imply the 'roses' are the political leaders.

This, right here, your very first premise, is where you go wrong. The Roses are the Sociopaths, the political leaders are the "centerpiece" of the government. Where roses are in a garden, they are the centerpiece. Where they are not present, other things, such as a fountain, or fruit tree are the centerpiece. Where Sociopaths exist in a government, you can be assured you find them in leadership roles... the "centerpiece."

Wait... Do you read proof what you write? You wrote that 'Roses ... are the centerpiece', but now you are pretending that 'roses are the sociopaths' and then affirming that 'the political leaders are the centerpiece'. You are now implying that individuals with psychological disorder always become the central political leadership of any political regime.

Where roses exist in gardens, they are the centerpiece.
Where sociopaths exist in governments, they are in the leadership positions.
I'm now strongly of the opinion that you are deficient in some way, and cannot understand analogies.

'Roses exist inside a garden, they the entire theme of the garden (the entire power structure, in our example).'

This imply the 'garden' is the political structure.

Heh. You actually got one right.

So you agree that I am right, that 'garden' is the political structure:

As I said, you will find sociopaths in a fascistic government, just as you will find roses in a garden. That is the relation.

Translating: 'As I said, you will find sociopaths in a fascistic government, just as you will find sociopaths in a political structure.'

This prove that my argument was valid and not a limited version of your original argument:

'It only proves that individuals with psychological disorder can be found participating in any political regime'

Of course they can be found in other political regimes! I never argued otherwise. Fascist governments, however, offer a ripe and tasty fruit for the sociopath to pluck.

Nope... You can have a political structure without sociopaths, but sociopaths are drawn to political structures.

No, I translated it for you. You even quoted it. Sociopaths tend to take over any fascistic power structure they are introduced to.

Do you have learning issues? How many times I need to repeat that sociopaths are individuals with a psychological disorder, not individuals conspiring to overtake political regimes.

Repeating it doesn't make it true.

Moreover, you ignored a important part of my observation:

Moreover, you affirmed that political structures are influenced by an unidentified subject, which causes the political structure to attract psychological disorder. This beg the question: who is the subject under the 'temptation' to add political leaders sociopaths to the political structure? Where this 'temptation' come from?

I ignored it because it was based on a false premise. A flawed understanding of my analogy. I continue to ignore it for the same reason, just as I ignore your attempt at diversion.

However, political leadership is a very comfortable place for a sociopath to exercise his sociopathy.

You seem to believe that sociopathy is some kind of skill, when in fact sociopathy is a  psychological disorder. Individuals diagnosed with sociopathy does not believe or understand they are afflicted by a psychological disorder. They cannot become aware of that knowledge to decide if politics is the best choice to them exercise sociopathy.

No, but they know that they enjoy exercising power over others, doing whatever they want, and avoiding consequences. Politics is a great way to achieve these ends, and their ability to lie convincingly, their "glibness and superficial charm," their manipulative nature, afford them a means to achieve political power. A sociopath makes a great political candidate. I notice you skipped the listing of diagnostic criteria... good choice, since I could provide specific examples of politicians displaying nearly every one of them.

To borrow a page from FirstAscent: http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-Stout/dp/0767915828/
Here's a quick run-down: www.bookbrowse.com/author_interviews/full/index.cfm/author_number/1097/martha-stout

I asked for a diagnosis from a qualified person. You provided books, not results of a diagnosis. The first reference does not address your premise. It does not serve as coherent evidence to prove that the names you cited were afflicted by sociopathy.

Sometimes you just know 'em when you see 'em….
Historical sociopaths: Hitler, Stalin, Rasputin, Eichmann, Pol Pot, John Gotti

That is not a diagnosis, that is an assumption without any reasonable explanation or evidence.

Did you read the book? It's available on Kindle, you could start reading it in less than a minute. Perhaps a little longer if you have to search Pirate bay.

It was written by a Dr. of Psychology. The explanation and evidence is rarely to be found in an interview... but it is to be found in the book. Regardless, when a Dr. of Psychology says someone is a sociopath, that is a diagnosis. If your doctor told you you had cancer, would you call it an "assumption without any reasonable explanation or evidence?"

Please, just admit that you stuck your foot in your mouth by responding without watching the video, and for fuck's sake, stop chewing!

[TECSHARE]

Yes there is: your claim that what I am saying is that fascism = sociopaths. since that's clearly false, and I never claimed that, That is a straw man, that you set up so you could knock down with definitions. Unless you are just a fucking moron, and can't understand an analogy. So which is it, Straw man, or moron?

Neither!

You are indeed intentionally try to stir up the discussion to disguise your confused definitions. There was no straw men. If you believe there was without even to explain how there was, you are indeed delusional.

At no moment I claimed or suggested that you were equaling fascism with sociopathy. I have been arguing that your analogy is beyond stupid and does not explain the hypothetical relationship of a political regime and a psychological disorder. You should read twice every time you answer, look at the dictionary, consult references, etc. This is all easily to be done with Internet available. For example, you could verify that:

Straw Man occurs when

an opponent takes the original argument of his/her adversary

and then offers a close imitation, or straw man, version of the original argument

As I said, you will find sociopaths in a fascistic government, just as you will find roses in a garden. That is the relation.

You will find individuals with psychological disorder in other political regimes as well. This does not prove that there is an exclusive relationship of fascism with sociopathy. It only proves that individuals with psychological disorder can be found participating in any political regime. You are failing to explain what is the relationship between fascism and sociopathy.

The original argument, 'you will find sociopaths in a fascistic government, just as you will find roses in a garden'.

My version of your original argument: 'You will find individuals with psychological disorder in other political regimes as well.'

I argued exactly over your argument, without limit the meaning, hence the premise that your argument '...only proves that individuals with psychological disorder can be found participating in any political regime'

That is exactly what you mean:

I only said your analogy works because it does indeed show that sociopaths are everywhere, like in your AnCap society.

Yes, but the Fascistic government has that tasty power structure for them to seize, and use to their (and their fellow sociopaths') benefit.

You agreed with my version of your original argument with a 'yes' to another user!

In your analogy, you affirms:

'Roses exist inside a garden, they are the centerpiece (leadership, in our analogy)'

This imply the 'roses' are the political leaders.

This, right here, your very first premise, is where you go wrong. The Roses are the Sociopaths, the political leaders are the "centerpiece" of the government. Where roses are in a garden, they are the centerpiece. Where they are not present, other things, such as a fountain, or fruit tree are the centerpiece. Where Sociopaths exist in a government, you can be assured you find them in leadership roles... the "centerpiece."

Wait... Do you read proof what you write? You wrote that 'Roses ... are the centerpiece', but now you are pretending that 'roses are the sociopaths' and then affirming that 'the political leaders are the centerpiece'. You are now implying that individuals with psychological disorder always become the central political leadership of any political regime.

'Roses exist inside a garden, they the entire theme of the garden (the entire power structure, in our example).'

This imply the 'garden' is the political structure.

Heh. You actually got one right.

So you agree that I am right, that 'garden' is the political structure:

As I said, you will find sociopaths in a fascistic government, just as you will find roses in a garden. That is the relation.

Translating: 'As I said, you will find sociopaths in a fascistic government, just as you will find sociopaths in a political structure.'

This prove that my argument was valid and not a limited version of your original argument:

'It only proves that individuals with psychological disorder can be found participating in any political regime'

Nope... You can have a political structure without sociopaths, but sociopaths are drawn to political structures.

No, I translated it for you. You even quoted it. Sociopaths tend to take over any fascistic power structure they are introduced to.

Do you have learning issues? How many times I need to repeat that sociopaths are individuals with a psychological disorder, not individuals conspiring to overtake political regimes.

No, One DOES NOT care for other individuals, the other PRETENDS TO care for other individuals.

They care:

The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after.

Your false premise is contradicting yourself:

'Once you have one...'

...DOES NOT care for other individuals...

'...you're well on your way to having a...'

other PRETENDS TO care for other individuals.

You are affirming that a group of individuals which does not really care will lead to a group of individuals which pretend to care. You are implying that a group of sociopaths leads to a group of fascists. That contradicts your own false premise: 'sociopaths tend to take over any fascistic power structure they are introduced to', which means that first there is the group which pretends to care, and then comes the group which really do not care.

Moreover, you ignored a important part of my observation:

Moreover, you affirmed that political structures are influenced by an unidentified subject, which causes the political structure to attract psychological disorder. This beg the question: who is the subject under the 'temptation' to add political leaders sociopaths to the political structure? Where this 'temptation' come from?

However, political leadership is a very comfortable place for a sociopath to exercise his sociopathy.

You seem to believe that sociopathy is some kind of skill, when in fact sociopathy is a  psychological disorder. Individuals diagnosed with sociopathy does not believe or understand they are afflicted by a psychological disorder. They cannot become aware of that knowledge to decide if politics is the best choice to them exercise sociopathy.

To borrow a page from FirstAscent: http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-Stout/dp/0767915828/
Here's a quick run-down: www.bookbrowse.com/author_interviews/full/index.cfm/author_number/1097/martha-stout

I asked for a diagnosis from a qualified person. You provided books, not results of a diagnosis. The first reference does not address your premise. It does not serve as coherent evidence to prove that the names you cited were afflicted by sociopathy.

Who is the devil you know?

Could it be your lying, cheating ex-husband?
Your sadistic high school gym teacher?
Your boss who loves to humiliate people in meetings?

Sometimes you just know 'em when you see 'em….
Historical sociopaths: Hitler, Stalin, Rasputin, Eichmann, Pol Pot, John Gotti

That is not a diagnosis, that is an assumption without any reasonable explanation or evidence.

Quote some more, maybe some one will be fooled into thinking you have something to say.

[FirstAscent]

To borrow a page from FirstAscent: http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-Stout/dp/0767915828/
Here's a quick run-down: www.bookbrowse.com/author_interviews/full/index.cfm/author_number/1097/martha-stout

I asked for a diagnosis from a qualified person. You provided books, not results of a diagnosis. The first reference does not address your premise. It does not serve as coherent evidence to prove that the names you cited were afflicted by sociopathy.

Sometimes you just know 'em when you see 'em….
Historical sociopaths: Hitler, Stalin, Rasputin, Eichmann, Pol Pot, John Gotti

That is not a diagnosis, that is an assumption without any reasonable explanation or evidence.

Did you read the book? It's available on Kindle, you could start reading it in less than a minute. Perhaps a little longer if you have to search Pirate bay.

Oh the irony. I'll accept this as nullification of everything you've ever said while in the absence of knowledge to be found in the books I recommended and which you pointedly refused to read because they would cost you effort to read. Don't make me point to all the posts where you complained about being asked to read a book that might require you to pay money or hike your ass down to the library.

Find the links and start reading.

[myrkul]

To borrow a page from FirstAscent: http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-Stout/dp/0767915828/
Here's a quick run-down: www.bookbrowse.com/author_interviews/full/index.cfm/author_number/1097/martha-stout

I asked for a diagnosis from a qualified person. You provided books, not results of a diagnosis. The first reference does not address your premise. It does not serve as coherent evidence to prove that the names you cited were afflicted by sociopathy.

Sometimes you just know 'em when you see 'em….
Historical sociopaths: Hitler, Stalin, Rasputin, Eichmann, Pol Pot, John Gotti

That is not a diagnosis, that is an assumption without any reasonable explanation or evidence.

Did you read the book? It's available on Kindle, you could start reading it in less than a minute. Perhaps a little longer if you have to search Pirate bay.

Oh the irony. I'll accept this as nullification of everything you've ever said while in the absence of knowledge to be found in the books I recommended and which you pointedly refused to read because they would cost you effort to read. Don't make me point to all the posts where you complained about being asked to read a book that might require you to pay money or hike your ass down to the library.

Find the links and start reading.

I don't have a PhD. She does. He requested a diagnosis from a "qualified person." I am not such. She is. You, presumably, understand the subject you wish "educate" me on. That makes you qualified to explain it to me. I don't want scientific studies, I want your personal opinions on the matter. You know where you can stick them.

[Rudd-O]

I watched part 2 (sociopaths) today as I drove to work in my T/A.  It was a FANTASTIC video.  As usual, Stef hits it out of the ballpark.

Do you remember the part where he talks about how sociopaths respond to being unmasked?

I remember that part, yes.

That's precisely why this thread is so amusing.  Lotsa sociopaths showing their fangs around here.

[Rudd-O]

Sociopaths also will exist in AnCap, and render their personal brand of hell in all their ways within such a society as well. What is your point again?

In a free society the damage sociopaths can cause to society will finally be limited to what they can accomplish via their own efforts instead of amplified by access to armies, nuclear weapons, police forces and taxation.

Well said.

[Rudd-O]

I think you need to read history and learn how rulers rise to power. It's amazing how you apply such a lack of imagination to ideas which challenge your dream society. Regarding AnCap, I can't think of a more optimal playground for a power grab.

Since you clearly have this well-planned out, if you were making a power grab in an AnCap society, just how would you go about it?

I don't have it planned out. I'm not really interested in power. I don't think you have it planned out either.

Consider these terms though: economics, wealth, inequality, disenchantment, minimal laws, complacency, cults, charisma, takeovers, buyouts, rallies, speeches, terrorism, sabotage, propaganda, influence, mob, poverty, etc.

Do you ever do anything but list concepts? Do you ever combine those concepts? Ever put them in an order that makes sense? Or is life just one big word cloud for you?

He chickened out of explaining what he claimed would be so easy to do.  Typical FirstAsshat behavior.

His credibility isn't zero -- it's negative.

[Rudd-O]

By the way:

This is another thread littered with the emotional droppings of AugustoCreepo and FirstAsshat.

I highly suggest to everyone here to please add these assballs to your ignore list and ignore what they say.  They're empty-headed emotional wreckballs of hate.  The more attention you give them, the more they fulfill their goal: sabotaging discussion of ideas that terrify them.

[FirstAscent]

By the way:

This is another thread littered with the emotional droppings of AugustoCreepo and FirstAsshat.

I highly suggest to everyone here to please add these assballs to your ignore list and ignore what they say.  They're empty-headed emotional wreckballs of hate.  The more attention you give them, the more they fulfill their goal: sabotaging discussion of ideas that terrify them.

There's this Looney Toons cartoon. A little tiny dog keeps hovering around a big bull dog. He keeps saying "So what do you want to do today?" "You want to chase a cat?" "You want to chase a car?" The little dog hangs on, sucking up to the bigger dog. All I see you do is pat the other guys on the shoulder, sucking up, throwing out insults to the opposition in the cocoon of safety of your gang. You've now made four posts in a row like that. One or two wouldn't call too much attention to yourself, but you've made four in a row. In each, you never actually demonstrate any substantive thought process, argument, logic, or provision of fact. I don't recall ever actually seeing any substance from you, ever. All I see from you is the behavior of an ass kisser, a suck up, and an intellectual wimp hanging out with others to inflate your own self importance.

[myrkul]

Did you guys hear something? Sounded like a loud, protracted fart.