Editorial
Politicians' Criminal Minds
It may have been either Will Rogers or Mark Twain, I cannot now recall which of the two great American humorists it was, who said all politicians are criminals. But it makes no difference because when something is true, its source is not the main issue. Fact is, politicians are extortionists at heart since their forte is that they will allow you and me to live and work provided we fork out nearly half of what we earn or otherwise obtain honestly so they can then dispose of it as they see fit.
In our time, not entirely unlike in others, the main appeal politicians hold out for millions is that they join them in their resentful bashing of the rich. This is a successful ploy because in the past, of course, most riches came from conquest, from governments and their favorite minions sending out thugs to confiscate whatever they desired from those who had some. As the saying has it, behind every great fortune lies a great crime, including extortion via taxation! This is why Robin Hood became a hero to so many: he went out and recovered what the tax takers took by force and returned it to the rightful owners. (No, Robin Hood didn't steal from the rich and give to the poor; he repossessed from the ruler and his vicious taxers!)
How can politicians live with the knowledge that they are what they are, confiscators, extortionists? Because they tell themselves the story so many tell themselves when they do the wrong thing – "The intended end justifies the means!" Nearly every criminal thinks this way and so do nearly all who perpetrate evil upon others. Some higher goal than what the victim seems to be pursuing motivates them. They are serving the public interest or God or the common good or the environment or science or culture – you name it, there are hundreds of candidates that make the politician feel at ease.
Criminals also have great goals that will be served by their loot and since their victims are well enough off, they have nothing to complain about. After all, isn't it selfish to insist on trying to hold on to your own resources, your own time, indeed your own life? Prominent university professors spell this out for us – we are all selfish bastards if we hold on to our own and allocate it was we judge fit. No, they will determine to what end my and your life should be devoted and if we disagree, they will send the politician into the arena who will make laws that compel us all to comply with their noble vision. As Professor Peter Unger wrote in one of his "ethics" books, "On pain of living a life that's seriously immoral, a typical well-off person, like you and me, must give away most of her financially valuable assets, and much of her income, directing the funds to lessen efficiently the serious suffering of others."
I personally know numerous such apologists for actions and politics that involve taking from people what is theirs so as to devote it to objectives the takers have failed to convince their victims to contribute to voluntarily. Never mind that – just like criminals, who cares about the rights of these victims when my noble goals are at stake?! And because there are at least some whose wealth was acquired through some shady dealings, one can rest easy in one's conscience by telling oneself, well they are all guilty of graft and theft, why shouldn't we then go after them in the same vein? With the likes of the famous French poet Charles Baudelair, who said that "Commerce is satanic, because it is the basest and vilest form of egoism. The spirit of every businessman is completely depraved" providing them the clear conscience they crave as they rob and steal and extort from us, why would politicians think any differently from criminals? In our day the leader of the citizenry has no hesitation about bashing the wealthy, insisting that robbing them of their lives and resources and liberty to dispose of these as they judge proper is perfectly honorable.
Until this attitude about people and their wealth – reminiscent of the days of serfdom and involuntary servitude – seriously abates, the dream of a genuine free country will remain, well, but a dream. The idea that when one is successful, or even simply lucky so far as amassing resources is concerned, others become authorized to forcibly remove one's wealth and use it without one's permission for their however desirable ends, is plainly barbaric. It amounts to subjugating others, actually enslaving them. And that has no place in civilized societies.
Latest Daily Bell Articles
Feedback


![]() |
Posted by Freeman on 10/26/10 08:13 AM
Here is a list from wikipedia under the WHO section:
Click to view link
WHO
The World Health Organization's ICD-10 defines a conceptually similar disorder to antisocial personality disorder called (F60.2) Dissocial personality disorder.[8]
It is characterized by at least 3 of the following:
1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy.
2. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
3. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships.
4. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
5. Incapacity to experience guilt and to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior bringing the subject into conflict.
7. Persistent irritability.
The criteria specifically rule out conduct disorders.[9] Dissocial personality disorder criteria differ from those for antisocial and sociopathic personality disorders.[10]
It is a requirement of ICD-10 that a diagnosis of any specific personality disorder also satisfies a set of general personality disorder criteria.
[edit] Millon's subtypes
Theodore Millon identified five subtypes of antisocial.[11][12] Any individual antisocial may exhibit none, one or more than one of the following:
* covetous antisocial " variant of the pure pattern where individuals feel that life has not given them their due.
* reputation-defending antisocial " including narcissistic features
* risk-taking antisocial " including histrionic features
* nomadic antisocial " including schizoid, avoidant features
* malevolent antisocial " including sadistic, paranoid features.
------------------------
Note: The US Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition, DSM IV-TR = 301, has recently removed some of the criteria they had in previous versions of the manual. Don't know if that was justified or not but the previous DSM manuals would have fit the symptoms better to some politicians and world leaders.
Also note that in a free market society, there are feedback mechanisms that minimize the influence of that type of behavior (except in abusive relationships) but if these individuals attain positions where these feedback mechanisms don't exist ... well you get the idea.
--------------------------
There are further characteristics, from abusive and controlling relationships, that apply to politicians and world leaders:
When a crisis occurs, real or manufactured, it's possible that something called the "Stockholm Syndrome" develops where the those who feel threatened emotionally bond with their abuser under the following conditions:
It has been found that four situations or conditions are present that serve as a foundation for the development of Stockholm Syndrome. These four situations can be found in hostage, severe abuse, and abusive relationships:
* The presence of a perceived threat to one's physical or psychological survival and the belief that the abuser would carry out the threat.
* The presence of a perceived small kindness from the abuser to the victim
* Isolation from perspectives other than those of the abuser
* The perceived inability to escape the situation
\And the syndrome has the following symptoms:
* Positive feelings by the victim toward the abuser/controller
* Negative feelings by the victim toward family, friends, or authorities trying to rescue/support them or win their release
* Support of the abuser's reasons and behaviors
* Positive feelings by the abuser toward the victim
* Supportive behaviors by the victim, at times helping the abuser
* Inability to engage in behaviors that may assist in their release or detachment
You can find more information, in 2 parts, at Click to view link
The second part deals with "Cognitive Dissonance".
Posted by Daniel Haggerty on 10/01/10 10:53 AM
One of the consequences of abandoning the religious concept of an inviolable personhood and replacing it with the value neutral concept of "consumer" is that the right to exist and own property is made unsupportable and easily discarded. Under the Darwinist worldview imposed on the West, citizens become chattel, subject to the needs of the elite. As mere animals, what rights do we possess other than those granted us by our captors, the governing elites?
Posted by Mark Humphrey on 09/26/10 01:41 AM
I often wonder about the mind set of politicans and their ardent supporters. Apparently, these people share a common psychological outlook, namely that it is justifiable to use other people as a means to whatever one wants, at the moment. Such behavior, of course, is wrong and destructive. "Using" other people includes taking their property; herding, restricting, propagandizing them; even killing them in non-defensive military adventures--foreign AND domestic-- that are justified by lies and treachery.
Even some who may not care much about politics seem to share this outlook. They won't rape or murder, but they will lie, cheat and steal. They lie and cheat to get what they want without having to pay the costs of voluntary consent. Such sad behavior extends into every aspect of their personal and commercial relationships--not always, certainly; only when they feel like it. Perhaps when they are disappointed, because they made a bad deal; or made bad choices for which they want to blame someone else.
![]() |
Posted by William3 on 09/25/10 06:51 PM
Crime is simply an unethical form of exchange. People who take to criminal activity do so because it is an easier path than doing ethical work. Politicians are just a more sophisticated type of criminal, in my view.
On a higher plane, politicians are simply paid puppets of the true unethical wizards -- the power elite. On this level, politicians are merely complicit participants -- often ignorant -- who enable the wizards to carry out their strategies and schemes.
At any level, their motives are far less than noble, and mostly destructive.
Posted by Bill Ross on 09/25/10 08:40 AM
"I do not believe ALL politicians are criminals but..."
This groupthink (gross generalizations) is a mental disease (collective stupidity) created by elites (subversion of education / media), which prevents us from considering reality (action leading to consequence) exactly as it is, on an individual action / consequence basis.
Recommend replacing "ALL members of group X are criminals" with "some individuals are criminals" where criminal is defined not by "rule of man" (opinion: those who disobey), but by "rule of law" (reality). In particular:
Criminal EQUALS those (individuals, groups defined by common actions) whose actions disturb the peace by initiating aggression. In particular, criminals are predators who initiate force and / or fraud in seeking their goals.
Posted by Bill Ross on 09/25/10 08:15 AM
"if ALL people payed."
Surely you jest? It is inequality of treatment under law (progressive taxation, different rules for different classifications of people, Nazi philosophy...) that actually enables / feeds the political process (pretending to arbitrate the legislatively created conflict over resources between various legislatively defined groups) and "rule by divide and conquer". Politicians and lawyers would slit their own throats and survival income source if measurable equality under law was again demanded by and granted to "we, the people". We would again have justice and civilization.
Justice Defined: We are all free to profit or suffer and learn (adapt to excellence) by facing the consequences of our OWN choices. Injustice is to be forced to suffer the consequences of choices of unaccountable (irresponsible) others..
"The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern. The law of liberty tends to abolish the reign of race over race, of faith over faith, of class over class." ~ Lord Acton
The elephant in the room for elites and the goal that "we, the people" must seek as a non-negotiable demand is restoration of / respect for the "rule of law":
Click to view link
Without this, we cannot survive as a species and civilization, as proved by Charles Darwin and Evolution:
Survival EQUALS ability to adapt to environment EQUALS ability to choose correctly EQUALS freedom:
Click to view link
Elites KNOW this, which is why they attempt to enslave us and micromanage every aspect of our existence with regulatory democracy using the false pretext of "greater good" which is really to ensure the survival of those who have created / defined a forceful monopoly (using our guns, paid for by us) to force us to "rent our right to exist" by paying tribute (to them) for everything we do in the realm of engaging in civilization (peaceful trade, with others) or, merely existing and having something they want.
Posted by Rrust on 09/25/10 04:57 AM
and
@ JQ
I am not the brightest spark, and am getting far along in years... but it strikes me with considerable force that your two contributions to DB constitute a spark that desperately needs to be not only kept alive, but fanned into a raging fire. Any thoughts, either of you, as to how this might be kept alive? --Perhaps on a scale above and beyond this site... as meritorious as it may be?
Posted by JQ on 09/25/10 01:32 AM
I think that the only way that we can shut down this pack of thieves is to stop paying taxes. Six months of no taxes and the whole charade would fold and they'd be on their knees begging us. But funnier yet, would be to see what kind of job they could get, once removed from the political trough from whence the pigs feed. We have had enough of ANIMAL FARM already where some animals feel more equal than the other animals.
LetMeBe, you are the second person I have known that actually did stand up for your rights resulting in gov't leaving you alone. The only other person I've personally known that did that, is the man in my life who has sued and won over the IRS, sued an Attorney General in MA and won, and has put beacoup crooked cops in federal pens. My man, former CIA refuses to put up with nonsense nor take any from the govt who has made attempts on his life for speaking up. To say I am proud of him is an understatenent. He would not only agree with all you've said above, but has many more chapters to add along the lines of just how slimy many politicians are, and to what ends they will go to extort your hard earned paychecks.
The means to which these sociopaths will go to extract your money is unreal...my friend was once called into a DA's office and told he would not go to jail if he ponied up 25G to the DA for his offense. When asked what offense, the DA simply said, 'it wasn't necessary to explain what offense'. Then laughing to my friend, he said, "You don't actually think that I can't put an innocent man behind bars....so what is your choice....fork over 25g to me, or 25 years in prison. Don't you think that 25G for 25 yrs is good?"
My friend replied, "yes, that is a good deal..the only problem is that everyday for the rest of my life I have to look in the mirror and I wouldn't like what I see if I lied about something I never did just to avoid extortion by you...so you can take your false claim and shove it". He never did hear from that DA again! Please do not think that all DA's are like that for they are not, but this one, knowing my friend had a sizeable income, decided to redistribute another's wealth into his wallet. Crook of the highest order to be sure. His job as a DA was short lived.
Posted by Weeble on 09/24/10 10:37 PM
I guess the government types rationalize that they have a symbiotic relationship with the masses, rather than the actual parasitic relationship.
Well done. A good read.
Posted by Rrust on 09/24/10 09:35 PM
--Your contribution distinctly got my attention. I suspect many other DB readers would also value more from you whenever you feel so-inclined. Thank you.
Posted by Rolland Carpenter on 09/24/10 06:01 PM
Posted by Roberto on 09/24/10 05:12 PM
Daniel Webster
Posted by Leave Me Be on 09/24/10 03:23 PM
About 10 years ago I realized that I was basically a modern serf. This was after I had joined the USMC, worked for the Feds and a state government and then went into the private sector. Thankfully, in my time as a "government" "employee" I did not have to participate in any direct violence. I admit to being a slow learner but now that I see how government at all levels works, it is clear that it is not much more then an extortion racket.
After much study and upon great reflection, I concluded that the only practical course was to stand up for my rights since as an individual I am responsible for my life. Another way to look at this is that you can't expect anyone to free you, you must break your own chains.
My first target was my right to property. With out property rights, you have no rights at all. The most precious of my property is my time since I exchange it to earn a living and I cannot create any more time. I read the US tax laws and put that together with what I know about "federal jurisdiction" " since I used to work for that crowd. Most of what I learned is captured very well by the work of Pete Hendrickson in his book, Cracking the Code. You can also learn much from how the government treated Mr. Hendrickson. His court case is a study in corrupt practices by the Courts and the DOJ. You can also learn a lot from Dave Champion at Click to view link and Click to view link You must educate yourself, trust no one, come to your own conclusions and act as you see fit for your INDIVIDUAL situation.
Now, as a routine matter I approach each interaction with any government agent from the position that I am the superior. I do ask careful questions of them and I clearly identify which of my rights they wish to infringe upon. If they want my time or property or to infringe on my right to self-defense, or privacy, or any other right I can identify under the 9th Amendment, I shift the burden of proof to them, where it belongs and force them to PROVE that I have such an obligation to them. After about 5 years of this I can say that so far they have been leaving me alone to live my life and be as productive as I can be.
Most Americans have to much fear in their lives. This is not America as it was intended to be. I fear for my children in a world gone insane with power drunk sociopaths at the helm of large organizations prone to violence, but I love liberty and don't mind standing my ground.
Posted by Sovereignjim on 09/24/10 02:15 PM
Posted by Bill on 09/24/10 11:26 AM
Posted by Bionic Mosquito on 09/24/10 11:14 AM
You have been making this exact same post ever since you began writing in this community. We get it. Enough of abusing the free advertising, already. For someone who regularly reminds us that you have created your own freedom (congratulations) and you don't care a wit for the environment around you (a perfectly acceptable position), you sure spend an awful lot of time trying to convince others about coming around to your view.
Posted by Michael S on 09/24/10 10:44 AM
Our founding fathers recognized that the threat of force is a powerful deterent to tyrrants and not knowing what you will be confronted with will promote caution by all but the most Blazen. The lack of resolve to exercise necessary force leaves you vulnerable also.
I agree with the 10% flat tax. Churches like LDS have proven the value of the tithe and the tithe has survive longer than any other governing monetary system on earth. It leaves plenty to go around and everybody is vested. Someone said " the power to (over)tax is the power to distroy." Look what unfair taxes are doing to our country.
![]() |
Posted by Onebornfree on 09/24/10 10:02 AM
"Until this attitude about people and their wealth ' reminiscent of the days of serfdom and involuntary servitude ' seriously abates, the dream of a genuine free country will remain, well, but a dream."
Who needs a free country or society? Not I. A nice idea maybe, but surely as you say, a dream, or even a pipe-dream.
In the end, the lack of such a free country[any country] at this time in no way prevents a freedom lover from becoming more free " right now.
It seems to me that it is a completely false assumption [one of two which many regular posters at the DB make], for an individual to imply, in effect, that: "in order for me to be free , first of all I need to free society/ the country etc." .....or words to that effect.
For myself, the essential key to personal freedom for each of us is to entirely forget about world- changing,"restoring the constitution", electing "the right" politicians, cutting government spending,"limiting government",abolishing the Fed., restoring a gold standard, "waking people up" to Austrian [or whatever] economic theory etc. etc., or whatever else it is that concerns them, and to instead intensely focus their own limited time and resources [after all, each of us only has so much time left on the planet],on productive, simple ways to free themselves, _now_ , to their own standards [not mine or someone else's]; from whatever it is they see right now as oppressing them and inhibiting their own freedom .
I claim that personal freedom to ones own standards _can_ be achieved, provided an individual is prepared to concentrate solely on freeing themselves to their own values/ standards, and to completely forget about trying to "free" anyone or everyone else to those same exact standards [or close facsimiles ].
In the end, it is a simple matter of choice :
[1] the person can choose to free only themself, to _their_ standards, or:
[2] they can choose [perhaps unwittingly] to give up ,or severely limit, any chance for their own personal freedom by instead choosing to try to remake the world and "free" almost everyone else[i.e. "society"] to their own standards, simply because they wrongly assume that :
[i] "I can never be truly free until I first free almost everyone else",
[ii] "everybody can share {or "should" share} the almost exact same morals/ethics/politics/religion/economic theory and other beliefs as myself, therefor freeing almost everyone else to my standards/ethics/morality/politics/religion/economic theory etc. and creating "a better world", although perhaps not easy,is possible.
In my view, these two assumptions will prevent any self-styled "freedom lover" from achieving their own freedom, inevitably leading to further unhappiness because the world refuses to go along with own their personal agenda to remake it.
"Not that there's anything wrong with that". :-)
Regards,onebornfree
[It is easy for me to miss replies here.If you need to "chat"
you can instead email me at : onebornfree at yahoo dot com ]
Posted by Bionic Mosquito on 09/24/10 09:59 AM
Yes, the law of averages says a few decent people will be attracted, however the rules of the game make it a rather valuable career choice for those who would enjoy criminal behavior without the consequences.
And, thank you for the reminder about the Robin Hood story. Interesting how many have been convinced that Robin Hood stands for the act of government (using force to achieve supposedly noble ends), as opposed to standing firmly against government (give us our money back, you thief).
Posted by Ol' Grey Ghost on 09/24/10 09:29 AM
This where any arguments about the nature of "Rights" and "Authorities" become a simple struggle to assign the label of "Evil" to the motives of others and justify one's actions that involve violence. Natural Law adherents, of which I am one, believe we have the Right retain our property and use force if necessary to keep others from taking it. Statists and Authoritarians believe they have the right take our property or regulate our use so much of it that they have stolen the privileges of ownership. Politics then is truly the struggle of all against all and comes down to the fact of who has the bigger "barrel of a gun" and the most ammunition.
We only have peace when everyone takes a moment to consider the Economics of the application of Force – do we gain more by taking or fighting to keep what we have or do we gain more by giving in a little to keep enough with which to survive? If you decide to use a knife to rob your neighbor or to stop him from robbing you, you can come away from the incident all sliced up...
|
|

l 




