I referred to this in an earlier post.
There is something in the psyche of those who either willingly inflict, or allow others to inflict, suffering on others.
They enjoy it. What other possible explanation can there be? The people who demand that what little still remains of the “safety net” be shredded and burned simply have to enjoy the misery of others.
We see more of this with the apologists for torture. Here it is complicated by the apparent willingness to enjoy it at a distance, though I suspect most who champion the practice would never stoop to dirtying their own hands with the blood of others, never assault their own eardrums with the pained screams of their victims, never want to bear the memories of having done any of it themselves, they merely want the feeling of superiority that arises from being able to inflict the carefully metered doses of suffering, rationalizing it all the while in the name of their shibboleth of the moment.
As an aside, one of the more horrifying moments I’ve experienced came one morning on the road, acting as a location guide for a feature film. We were in a small city in Middle America, having breakfast after getting our sunrise beauty shots, and as we awaited our eggs we were treated to the revolting sounds of someone at a nearby table going into a sociopathic level of detail about the physical damage he’d like to inflict on the children of suspects, in their presence.
There was little if any point to commenting, nothing was going to change the mind of this character – a typical Midwestern nobody, of course, who would never get close enough to the situation to do any such thing, and knew it all along. Most likely it was something said to build up his status in the minds of his companions.
As we left, I asked the rest of our small crew about their reactions. We were all dumbfounded. Nothing in any of our minds could have brought any of us to the point where we’d consider anything of the sort.
Now, to return to the original point…
It’s a common enough thing to read, in the comments section of a news story on any social program, posts left by the self-styled “fiscally responsible” sorts who are willing to do just about anything to anyone (short of themselves, of course!) to shave a few bucks off any relevant budget. Most of them fulminate about “handouts” and “layabouts” while going into mind-numbing detail about the imagined transgressions of those who, in most cases, are simply less fortunate, and genuinely in need of some sorts of assistance.
It’s all nonsense.
The true nature of the supposed Libertarian is that of the sociopath. No one else matters. So it’s easy, even enjoyable, to deprive others, in order to accrue more wealth.
The part I genuinely don’t get is the people who will never achieve anything remotely resembling wealth in their own lives taking similar positions, even as they themselves get skinned by those they support.
That’s why all I’m left with at the end of it is the feeling that it’s pure sadism.
I agree Alan, I do find libertarians themselves sociopathic also slow, in that they do not recognize their so called system, doesn’t work, they believe ultimately in some utopia that will never exist, but in the Rand/Libertarian mythology they believe that people in charge will always do what is in the best interest of those around them, but have failed to notice that doesn’t happen. Hence our reliance on regulation and other social controls, my question is are they dumb or just naive… or both.
Sorry, “el fantasma” – you’re not getting in here.
No one who espouses Ayn Rand’s positions will be seen on this page, at least not until you can form coherent sentences around something resembling original thoughts.
You can sit there in limbo until the end of days.
Oh, and Nathaniel Foote, your comment was marked as spam.