Statism is a mental disorder?

Miscellaneous General
1

…

“In psychology, Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors that appear irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, essentially mistaking a lack of abuse from their captors as an act of kindness.”

“Hostages who develop Stockholm syndrome often view the perpetrator as giving life by simply not taking it. In this sense, the captor becomes the person in control of the captive’s basic needs for survival and the victim’s life itself.[1]”

“The hostage endures isolation from other people and has only the captor’s perspective available. Perpetrators routinely keep information about the outside world’s response to their actions from captives to keep them totally dependent.[1]”

“The hostage taker threatens to kill the victim and gives the perception of having the capability to do so. The captive judges it safer to align with the perpetrator, endure the hardship of captivity, and comply with the captor than to resist and face murder.[1]”

“The captive sees the perpetrator as showing some degree of kindness. Kindness serves as the cornerstone of Stockholm syndrome; the condition will not develop unless the captor exhibits it in some form toward the hostage. However, captives often misinterpret a lack of abuse as kindness and may develop feelings of appreciation for this perceived benevolence. If the captor is purely evil and abusive, the hostage will respond with hatred. But, if perpetrators show some kindness, victims will submerge the anger they feel in response to the terror and concentrate on the captors’ “good side” to protect themselves.[1]”

“In cases where Stockholm syndrome has occurred, the captive is in a situation where the captor has stripped nearly all forms of independence and gained control of the victim’s life, as well as basic needs for survival. Some experts say that the hostage regresses to, perhaps, a state of infancy; the captive must cry for food, remain silent, and exist in an extreme state of dependence”

“The captive is subjected to isolation and so sees even a small act, such as providing amenities, as a great favour. Such captives may side with their captors while believing their captors have conferred on them great importance and love”

2

The captives call it Election Day.

Sieben, interesting insight here. I’ve never thought of it in these terms. But the Stockholm Syndrome may in fact explain how government retains its legitimacy and it may explain the behavior of voters on election day.

It may also explain why ideas of liberty are not accepted by the voters. The captive may actually defend the captors if they (the captives) are in the state of this syndrome. When libertarians try to point out the reality of government, the libertarians are ignored or attacked by the captives (the voters).

The Stockholm syndrome may if fact explain the rise of statism more than traditional notions (provision of defense, law, etc). It is eerily reminiscent of they way “citizens” are treated.

Have any libertarian writers incorporated this into their thinking?

3

I’m trying to think of a way to use this in an argument… what immediately comes to mind is “prove that you do not have stockholm syndrome”.

4

Here’s a thought.

Suppose you were a hostage negotiator, and you were allowed to speak to a captive over the phone. What approach would you take to prove to the captive that he is under the influence of the Syndrome?

It’s not an argument, but perhaps it’s an approach or strategy.

Please link the debate if it occurs. Should be a good one!

5

Is there a syndrome that makes you feel obliged to own slaves? That would be the analogy for the abolished institution of slavery. Because if someone does not believe in the connection of stockholm syndrome and statism, they would have to acknowledge the connection between that syndrome and slavery. Besides, there are many similarities between slavery and statism.

6

“Prove you’re not a dirty criminal who just doesn’t want to have to play by any rules but their own.”

7

No. That would be libertarianism.

8

I reject this notion just like I reject that religiosity, a belief in deity (even thoug statism is a religion too) is mental disorder. It isn’t that simple, when there are other factors at play. Culture, upbringing, schooling and of course, to some extent - genes.

9

This is very interesting, but how are those here free of the syndrome?

10

we are special.

11

I see no merit to psychological arguments. The opposition can just as easily say libertarians have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppositional_defiant_disorder.

Psychology is such a BS science at any rate, currently at least.

12

^Touche

13

Temper tantrums, stealing,bullying, and vandalism are some of key symptoms of oppositional defiant disorder.

hey…, we don’t do this

14

some of anarcho-left seem to have these symptoms though

15

I also think that Learned Helpnessness has a lot to do with statism, as well. Just look at the oft-repeated, pessimistic saying that “The only certain things in life are death and taxes.” “There’s no escape from institutionalized theft,” the world says, “surrender and accept the inevitable.”

grumblemumble Why on earth do you say that?

16

What qualifies this as a “syndrome”? The captive’s judgment seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Z.

17

It’s not that it couldn’t be reasonable to side with your captor, its that reasons for doing so are primarily emotional rather than rational. A rational minarchist does not have “stockholm” or “stateholm” syndrome.

18

It’s an empirical social science. 'Nuff said.

19

No, it’s a primitive mental process. A kidnapper is a person, and individual. A state is a concept, a thing. The difference between statism and stockholme syndrome is that the welfare recipient doesn’t support the cop that’s beating him to a pulp, even if he may support police systems in general.

20

No, it’s a primitive mental process. A kidnapper is a person, and individual. A state is a concept, a thing. The difference between statism and stockholme syndrome is that the welfare recipient doesn’t support the cop that’s beating him to a pulp, even if he may support police systems in general.

There is that, and the limits to what psychology can and can not diagnose clinicaly. It is defined by cultural norms, no way stolkholm syndrom falls within that realm. That, and lets face it, it is a bit of a dubious science at points.