Libertarians are the worst

I chose that title specifically because I have seen so many people (especially members), say "Actually I lean more libertarian." 

In context, they are saying it because they know that Trump is frothingly hateful, selfish, and in no way moral; of course they are embarrassed to support that, but they can't quite support liberals either. The emphasis on "liberty" and "choice" sounds good, though oddly most libertarians manage to remain against that choice if it relates to a woman and pregnancy. They also tend to be against civil rights legislation, which from the point of view of people who want to do racist things makes sense, but ignores how allowing racial discrimination impairs the liberty of those discriminated against.

I understand the appeal of getting to verbally distance from the sexism and the racism while still keeping it close to one's heart, but I scorn it.

I assure you I could describe many other groups as the worst - I'm pretty sure I'm going to write a poem about that soon - but because this one is so popular now, I want to spend some time focused on it.

If you haven't read it, James Fallon's The Psychopath Inside: A Neuroscientist's Personal Journey into the Dark Side of the Brain, is really fascinating, both for what the author says on purpose and for what he may not know he is saying.

Fallon was doing two studies at the same time where he was looking at brain scans. One study was of criminal brains, and the other was for heredity, so he had collected scans of family members. One scan that showed the psychopath characteristics was in the family pile. At first it seemed like a mistake, but it turned out to be Fallon's own brain. The journey was personal indeed.

To be fair, a lot of people who knew him weren't surprised, like that was the missing link that explained everything.

Fallon is a libertarian, and starts talking about that on page 161. This quote is from page 162:

(I) would prefer many situations where some people die. I don't feel responsible for individuals dying as part of a broader cause and don't think we should spend every dime we have to save one child. Such coddling will end up destroying the human race. And who adjudicates who gets coddled? I look at the distant horizon, how things will play out in a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand years. If one person croaks tomorrow for the sake of society, it's too bad, but I don't care. I wouldn't let a kid starve right in front of me – I'm not a monster – but if I ran the government I would cut out all welfare.... I don't want to encourage unproductive or irresponsible behavior because I think it will kill society. I'm more sympathetic to the species than I am to that one person or group of people.

As far as the economic policy goes, his philosophy is disputed by many people who have studied it more (Piketty, and Wilkinson and Pickett come to mind). Fallon is confident in his understanding, but a lot of people are now very confident and still very wrong about things. I think there are two other points that matter more.

First of all, the big difference between the diagnosed psychopaths in jail and the esteemed neuroscientist was a loving, nurturing home with opportunities to harness his energy productively. While Fallon has done things that are arguably antisocial (like encouraging people to behavior they later regret, and putting one cousin in a potentially fatal situation without warning him), it was all on the correct side of the law. As someone financially privileged the odds of him ending up in prison go way down. I think that makes for an argument that some "coddling" might be beneficial for society.

Also, that "not a monster" line... he will intervene when the suffering is right in front of him. Okay, it would be more monstrous to look at suffering and ignore it (or enjoy it), but here is the part for members of the church, and for people who believe in God and that we are all connected as His children: it should not be enough for us that suffering happens out of sight.

We know the penalty for not doing unto the least of these when we see them, and the reward for seeing and serving. I believe that goes with a responsibility to look and to care, beyond our line of sight.

Modern technology makes it easier to ignore and to be aware, and we all have choices to make there.

I am happy to acknowledge that there was a time when you could be a Republican in good conscience. There may well have been a time when you good be a conservative (because Republicans were not always conservative, and it's questionable whether they are now) in good conscience as well. However, when that group is essentially working on concentrating wealth into an ever smaller group and using racism to support it, there should be many things pricking your conscience constantly. If you keep ignoring those cries, it is going to be hard to re-engage with your conscience.

Fallon is agnostic; that argument is unlikely to mean anything to him. If you are religious, and if you are Christian, you need to think about what that means.

Because the other thing is that while you can be born more likely to become a psychopath, it is nonetheless something you become. It happens via greed a lot, but that is not the only path.