On A Scale Of Life

 Texas state senator, Republican, Bryan Hughes is "pro-life" and in explanation of that stance, he says that in support of "pro-life" the Texas legislature hasus allocated $100 million to the support of all pregnant mothers (all?) and subsequent care of the resulting children.  The most efficient way to implement this would be to have no means-test.  In other words, the more children a woman has, the more support she can get from the state.  Thus leading an entrepreneurial woman to herself have as many babies as she can, or perhaps (what's the diffefrence) take under her care additional children -- perhaps from refugees?

Let's do some back-of-the-envalope calculations:

Some assumptions:

Assumption 01: The "cost" or the amount of benefit and support given to a child will not vary by child.  Each child will get the same.  [We love your all equally, but in different ways.]  [To each according to their need, from each according to their ability.]  [If you felt exploited, as a child, maybe you were; or maybe you were being trained to be the person you now are.]

The Republican said that people are leaving California to go to Texas in order that they might have the privilege of being free from a California or Liberal culture that in which, quoting Yeats:  "The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

 The other side of that being that these same people were wanting to migrate to Texas so that their status of being pregnant would be determined by a small group, whose members had a particular or ideosyncratic interpretation of their guiding religion, and that this interpretation of behavior was to be the law of the state.  In other words, a behavior that was 3

When one group commands the behavior of another group based on that group's charaistic is not freedom.  They are proclaiming that women have a different status than men because of physical charactarstics that define them as women; and therefore that men or "society" controls their pregnancy behavior.  The law does not control their mind -- they can say or think what they want -- it controls, or puts consequences on, their behavior:  They can write as many letters to the editor they want, but it they get an abortion or even help someone to get an abortion, they will be fined or imprisoned.

In California, however, if you need an abortion, you can get one, and the best medical and support services you can afford (this is America, after all).  But there is also help.  If you do not need or want an abortion, then you can do others things, without pressure to get an abortion (except from your personal life).

Basically, it's down to their wanting to control everything.

Which -- big leap -- is why the climate is spiraling out of control... the more we progress, the more our resources are depleted.  Malthusian relation between number of people, their economic condition, and the amount of heat and pollution is generated, which factors in global warming; possibly diminished by technological developments that provide more value per joule than previous, and the spread of those advances.

Are we doomed?

 

Liberals are weaker because  they have something to lose if conservatives win; whereas conservatives are stronger because they have nothing to lose if liberals win.  If conservatives win, liberals lose their freedom.  Abortions are only allowed with state approval.  People of certain genders are enjoined from using certain public restrooms.  Two people are allowed to marry only if they are of opposite sexes and of the same race.  With conservatives, it is not their issues that they have their beliefs, they believe that all others share in beliefs also, and that failure to share in these beliefs should be punished.  Would liberals go so far as to allow family members the privilege to torture and kill one of their own members ... let's be serious  .Is this inconsistent?  Yes it is, but everyone is inconsistent.  The point is to have a serious discussion. In most cases, once the sound and fury is removed, the differences are not wide.

Trump is like everyone else, just richer

 Dr. Lance Dodes:

I have been frustrated for so many years now, really since 2016. I've said this so many times in various settings, but people don't quite get it. Donald Trump is not like other human beings, and you can't treat him as if he is. The news media refused to accept that. He is a severe sociopath, and his willingness to see others suffer and die pushes him into the realm of a psychopath. He lacks the core of normal empathy, and the ability to appreciate that other people have rights. He is a very sick man. Yet the media and others treated him like an ordinary person.

 

"Donald Trump is not like other human beings".  

Trump is like other human beings.  He is motivated by the same things and expresses these motivations in the ways that he can.  We are all motivated by fear.  Some people try to escape what they fear, others are paralyzed by fear, some try to overcome their fear and deal with it rationally, and some, like Trump lash out or try to destroy what they fear.

What we fear is a matter of how we were brought up and who we think we are.  If we are poor and have no prospects in sight, then poverty does not scare us, for we have nothing to lose.  If, on the other hand, we were born into wealth and raised to believe we are entitled to our wealth, then poverty scares us because we have everything to lose.  Trump is terrified at poverty because he is so bad at being wealthy -- contrary to what he says, he is not a good businessman.

People seek a better life for themselves.  Some people work hard to advance themselves through education or acquiring a marketable skill or to learn something that will personally fulfill them.  Other find fulfillment in acquiring money and in the social power that wealth enables.  

But wealth enables on to insulate oneself from interacting cooperatively with other human beings.  A wealthy person does not need to interact with other human beings as other human beings -- he simply has to buy their services, compliance, loyalty.  And the social power conferred by wealth often means that other human beings will abase themselves for their perceived privilege in sharing in that power.

Human beings are influenced by power.  We are a species greatly embedded in social hierarchies.  America my not be an explicitly class society, but it is certainly a hierarchical one.  Some people are more desirous of attaining the top of the hierarchy than others, making it a reason for living.  Trump is one of them.

The better angels of our natures are not necessarily universal; rather they tend to apply to those whom we consider belonging to our group or tribe.  In the Bible, God may command his people not to kill, but gives Joshua a pass when he commits genocide on the people of Jericho -- killing every man, woman and child, and their livestock and salting the earth.  Humanity is a status conferred on members of a tribe, those outside the tribe are not a matter of human concern.  Thus it is with Trump.  His tribe is himself, and perhaps when they are of use to him, a few others.

Trump, "his willingness to see others suffer and die pushes him into the realm of a psychopath."

Perhaps, but isn't this the behavior of every powerful person?  Social power is not localized in one person.  It is a matter of other people willing to bend their wills to accommodate or serve the will of their "leader".  Social psychologists have found that acting in a certain way, following rules, will cause the person to express belief in those behaviors or rules.  What is power for other than to achieve on end.  And if achieving those ends means "see others suffer and die", then that is acceptable if those others are not members of the tribe.

"He lacks the core of normal empathy, and the ability to appreciate that other people have rights."

Again, if those people are not part of his tribe, then they are, for him and the other members of his tribe, not people.  If they are not "his people", then they are not worthy of empathy and have not rights.

"Yet the media and others treated him like an ordinary person."

Because he is an ordinary person.  Many of his followers have said so.  His followers identify with him because he does what they do in their minds, and wish they could do in public.  We laugh at disparaging jokes because we agree.

As a country of near libertarians (even "liberals"), it can be argued that given the values or symptoms above, we are a psychopath country.  We will not cooperate with other nations unless our interests receive priority, our military is not allowed to be under the command of another country in NATO or UN operations, our generosity comes with strings.  The "greater good" is only meaningful to us if our good come first.  And this is possible because we have so much power.  We acknowledge without embarrassment that we are the richest country in the world with the most powerful military; and struggle to maintain this status, even if it means that our own citizens suffer and die.

Trump is like us.  He may not like many of us in his financial and social power, but as Americans, we hold that having such power is cultural ideal for everyone; we are told that we should all want to be such "winners".  Much of the production of the "media" is reporting on these "winners", and by reporting on them, we elevate their status in the hierarchy.  Trump may not be a "good" or "moral" person, but he is what many of us want to be in its basics.  As an exemplar, we overlook the details in order to aspire to the ideal.

Trump is a child of wealth and privilege.  He has been brought up to put his personal interests before all others.  Because he is protected by privilege, he is protected from the social consequences of putting himself first, because others do not have the wealth or privilege to push back on his willfulness.  When they do push back or fail to comply, he gets angry and lashes out with vulgarity and threats; and because he has privilege, his followers may carry out those threats.

Trump may be a psychopath, but in that sense, so are we all.  The difference is that Trumps desires and goals are supported by millions of voters, thousands of "conservatives", and hundreds of congressmen.

How the Weak Exploit the Strong

 Opportunists or sociopaths will exploit idealists by pretending they share their idealist's ideals.