These two videos provide a good description of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). Remember that not all nine criteria need to be present to warrant a psychiatrist's diagnosis of BPD.
I have a few comments to add. When the vlogger discusses impulsive and self-sabotaging behavior, she mentions the usual suspects, like reckless promiscuity and gambling. Another behavior that is seldom cited, but could also equally qualify, is self-described "video-game addiction." This could involve playing an online video game like World of Warcraft for hours and hours on end (e.g., 18 consecutive hours) at the expense of necessary life activities.
Also, when the vlogger discusses anger, what is mentioned is the extreme exhibition of aggression. That has been documented in diagnosed cases of BPD, but it is not the only form of intense anger that can be felt by someone with BPD. What is also possible is that the person with BPD holds everything inward and refrains from expressing the aggression, but nevertheless feels it on the inside. Anger toward another person can manifest in an extreme withdrawal of affection from that person. This phenomenon still fits the "intense, inappropriate anger" criterion for BPD. It comes with what is called "the quiet version of BPD."
Anyhow, I find these videos helpful and recommend them.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Sunday, July 17, 2011
An Announcement About the Posts on BPD
I originally didn't want my postings about Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) to appear on this blog. Later I might take these postings and put them in "draft" mode, effectively removing them from public viewing on this blog. However, those same postings will remain visible at my other blog, "Letters to Derna," over here. That is where I plan on keeping them.
Additional Comments on Borderline Personality Disorder
This blog post won't be the usual integrated essay that I normally write. It is just a series of comments pertaining to BPD.
Body Dysmorphic Disorder
Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD, or "body dysmorphia") is a condition in which the sufferer frequently feels a very painful or disorientating sense of alienation from one's own natural-born physical features. One can look in the mirror and think, "Who is that? This is wrong. This is all wrong." One can even see oneself as ugly, no matter how much others assure one that one is the opposite of ugly.
When 70 patients diagnosed with BPD were surveyed, 54.3 percent of them reported also having Body Dysmorphic Disorder.
Gender Identity Confusion
Moreover, this other survey was given to both patients diagnosed with BPD and psychotherapy patients not diagnosed with any personality disorder.
The applicability of various categories of identity confusion to their own lives was rated on a scale of 1-7, 1 meaning hardly applicable.
Gender identity confusion refers to frequent and distressing uncertainty over which gender one wants to be. This does not refer to someone being born one sex and always or even consistently desiring to be the opposite sex. Rather, gender identity confusion refers to persistent indecision on the matter.
When it comes to the prevalence of gender identity confusion, the average of the answers for the BPD patients was 2.42, while the average of the answers for the psychotherapy-patients-not-diagnosed-with-any-personality-disorder was 1.66. That means that the prevalence of gender identity confusion is low for both groups. However, note that this suggests that those with BPD are 45 percent likelier to experience gender identity confusion than the general population.
Indecision on Sexual Orientation (Same Survey)
Moreover, the presence of uncertainty about one's own sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual) is low for both those with BPD and those who do not have it. However, the survey suggests that those with BPD are about 31 percent likelier to have this uncertainty than those without BPD.
YouTube Cartoon About BPD Symptoms
Here is an eccentric cartoon on YouTube that describes some of the symptoms.
Concluding Remarks
Naturally, there is nothing inherently wrong -- in either the psychological or moral sense -- about experiencing uncertainty about one's gender identity or sexual orientation. Nor should one feel ashamed about having body dysmorphia.
To the degree that one is distressed by having any of these conditions, a return to psychiatric care can be very beneficial. It's worth it. :'-)
An Announcement About This and Other Posts About BPD on This Blog
I originally didn't want my postings about BPD to appear on this blog. Later I might take these postings and put them in "draft" mode, effectively removing them from public viewing on this blog. However, those same postings will remain visible at my other blog, "Letters to Derna," over here. That is where I plan on keeping them.
UPDATE from Wednesday, October 19, 2011: On my Facebook page about BPD, I had a helpful exchange with someone back on March 16, 2011, on the subjects of Borderline Personality Disorder, gender identity confusion, and confusion on sexual orientation. That specific exchange is over here. Of course, it is important to bear in mind that someone confused over gender identity is not necessarily undecided on sexual orientation, and someone undecided on sexual orientation is not necessarily confused about gender identity. Moreover, someone can have BPD and not be confused in either area.
Body Dysmorphic Disorder
Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD, or "body dysmorphia") is a condition in which the sufferer frequently feels a very painful or disorientating sense of alienation from one's own natural-born physical features. One can look in the mirror and think, "Who is that? This is wrong. This is all wrong." One can even see oneself as ugly, no matter how much others assure one that one is the opposite of ugly.
When 70 patients diagnosed with BPD were surveyed, 54.3 percent of them reported also having Body Dysmorphic Disorder.
Gender Identity Confusion
Moreover, this other survey was given to both patients diagnosed with BPD and psychotherapy patients not diagnosed with any personality disorder.
The applicability of various categories of identity confusion to their own lives was rated on a scale of 1-7, 1 meaning hardly applicable.
Gender identity confusion refers to frequent and distressing uncertainty over which gender one wants to be. This does not refer to someone being born one sex and always or even consistently desiring to be the opposite sex. Rather, gender identity confusion refers to persistent indecision on the matter.
When it comes to the prevalence of gender identity confusion, the average of the answers for the BPD patients was 2.42, while the average of the answers for the psychotherapy-patients-not-diagnosed-with-any-personality-disorder was 1.66. That means that the prevalence of gender identity confusion is low for both groups. However, note that this suggests that those with BPD are 45 percent likelier to experience gender identity confusion than the general population.
Indecision on Sexual Orientation (Same Survey)
Moreover, the presence of uncertainty about one's own sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual) is low for both those with BPD and those who do not have it. However, the survey suggests that those with BPD are about 31 percent likelier to have this uncertainty than those without BPD.
YouTube Cartoon About BPD Symptoms
Here is an eccentric cartoon on YouTube that describes some of the symptoms.
Concluding Remarks
Naturally, there is nothing inherently wrong -- in either the psychological or moral sense -- about experiencing uncertainty about one's gender identity or sexual orientation. Nor should one feel ashamed about having body dysmorphia.
To the degree that one is distressed by having any of these conditions, a return to psychiatric care can be very beneficial. It's worth it. :'-)
An Announcement About This and Other Posts About BPD on This Blog
I originally didn't want my postings about BPD to appear on this blog. Later I might take these postings and put them in "draft" mode, effectively removing them from public viewing on this blog. However, those same postings will remain visible at my other blog, "Letters to Derna," over here. That is where I plan on keeping them.
UPDATE from Wednesday, October 19, 2011: On my Facebook page about BPD, I had a helpful exchange with someone back on March 16, 2011, on the subjects of Borderline Personality Disorder, gender identity confusion, and confusion on sexual orientation. That specific exchange is over here. Of course, it is important to bear in mind that someone confused over gender identity is not necessarily undecided on sexual orientation, and someone undecided on sexual orientation is not necessarily confused about gender identity. Moreover, someone can have BPD and not be confused in either area.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
The Groundhog Day Curse Can Be Broken
Stuart K. Hayashi
In 1994, Bill Murray starred in the excellent comedic fantasy Groundhog Day. In the movie, Murray's character is cursed to keep re-living the same day, February 2, over and over again. When he wakes up every day, it's February 2 and everyone acts exactly the same. Only Murray is aware that the same disastrous events are repeating.
Murray's character is not a bad person (though some people, who do not understand him, tell him that he is bitchy); he doesn't seek to hurt anyone. However, he is caught in a dysfunctional behavioral pattern that is emotionally damaging to both himself and others. Fortunately, he finally comes to understand that he does have control over his own choices. Rather than be changed by external factors impinging upon him, Murray makes a long-term commitment to changing for the better -- choosing to celebrate life and sunny happiness. By making better choices, he is able to break the curse and end the time loop.
A similar pattern sometimes occurs with those experiencing undiagnosed, currently-untreated Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). One with this condition can continue a pattern of anxious attachment and self-sabotage, particularly in matters of love and relationships. It starts off so happy, but then one allows one's insecurities and emotional instability to sabotage it. One can then feel so vulnerable to heartbreak that one becomes too debilitated for the relationship to progress to the next stage. Then one can emotionally withdraw from the current partner while turning a lot of attention to some other object of fixation. The process can repeat itself.
The pattern of self-sabotage can change subsequent to someone strongly choosing to change it. This does not happen overnight, of course; it is a progression of baby steps to which one maintains commitment. In the case of someone with undiagnosed, currently-untreated BPD, I do not think this can be done by sheer will alone; it also requires guidance from an expert -- a psychiatric professional. It involves training in gaining a stable sense of identity. One promising sort of treatment is Jeffrey Young's Schema Therapy.
To enter -- or return to -- psychiatric care is not easy. Nor is it easy to look for a proper diagnosis. All this takes a lot of time, energy, and work. The therapy sessions can stir up a lot of unpleasant emotions and memories. It may initially seem easier to try to repress and evade those feelings and memories. Such an evasion is untenable in the long run; one can only vanquish those haunters-of-the-mind by confronting them with the guidance of a mental health expert. In the end, truly lasting happiness can result; loving and trusting relationships can be maintained. In the end, it is worth it. What is at stake is whether one will continue living the rest of one's life in insecurity and self-image instability, or find peace with oneself and others. It is a life-saving decision. Such happiness is the single most important project or enterprise one can work on. :'-) <3
In 1994, Bill Murray starred in the excellent comedic fantasy Groundhog Day. In the movie, Murray's character is cursed to keep re-living the same day, February 2, over and over again. When he wakes up every day, it's February 2 and everyone acts exactly the same. Only Murray is aware that the same disastrous events are repeating.
Murray's character is not a bad person (though some people, who do not understand him, tell him that he is bitchy); he doesn't seek to hurt anyone. However, he is caught in a dysfunctional behavioral pattern that is emotionally damaging to both himself and others. Fortunately, he finally comes to understand that he does have control over his own choices. Rather than be changed by external factors impinging upon him, Murray makes a long-term commitment to changing for the better -- choosing to celebrate life and sunny happiness. By making better choices, he is able to break the curse and end the time loop.
A similar pattern sometimes occurs with those experiencing undiagnosed, currently-untreated Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). One with this condition can continue a pattern of anxious attachment and self-sabotage, particularly in matters of love and relationships. It starts off so happy, but then one allows one's insecurities and emotional instability to sabotage it. One can then feel so vulnerable to heartbreak that one becomes too debilitated for the relationship to progress to the next stage. Then one can emotionally withdraw from the current partner while turning a lot of attention to some other object of fixation. The process can repeat itself.
The pattern of self-sabotage can change subsequent to someone strongly choosing to change it. This does not happen overnight, of course; it is a progression of baby steps to which one maintains commitment. In the case of someone with undiagnosed, currently-untreated BPD, I do not think this can be done by sheer will alone; it also requires guidance from an expert -- a psychiatric professional. It involves training in gaining a stable sense of identity. One promising sort of treatment is Jeffrey Young's Schema Therapy.
To enter -- or return to -- psychiatric care is not easy. Nor is it easy to look for a proper diagnosis. All this takes a lot of time, energy, and work. The therapy sessions can stir up a lot of unpleasant emotions and memories. It may initially seem easier to try to repress and evade those feelings and memories. Such an evasion is untenable in the long run; one can only vanquish those haunters-of-the-mind by confronting them with the guidance of a mental health expert. In the end, truly lasting happiness can result; loving and trusting relationships can be maintained. In the end, it is worth it. What is at stake is whether one will continue living the rest of one's life in insecurity and self-image instability, or find peace with oneself and others. It is a life-saving decision. Such happiness is the single most important project or enterprise one can work on. :'-) <3
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
BPD Treatments on Oahu
Stuart K. Hayashi
Psychology Today has a website that helps readers search for therapists in their region who are specialized in treating their particular condition. I ran such a search for Oahu. To my chagrin, there is only one psychotherapist in Honolulu who lists herself as being able to treat BPD (see here). I wish there was a whole lot of psychotherapists competing to treat BPD patients. The one therapist listed also treats issues relating to gender identity.
Psychology Today has a website that helps readers search for therapists in their region who are specialized in treating their particular condition. I ran such a search for Oahu. To my chagrin, there is only one psychotherapist in Honolulu who lists herself as being able to treat BPD (see here). I wish there was a whole lot of psychotherapists competing to treat BPD patients. The one therapist listed also treats issues relating to gender identity.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
BPD and Object Constancy
Stuart K. Hayashi
There is an issue found in some people with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) that can be called an issue of Object Constancy. Though I am not a psychologist, I have read enough about this subject for me to feel relatively confident in discussing it in a more public venue. What I am about to explain is my interpretation of the writings on psychology that I have read.
I should state that not all people with BPD necessarily have this objection-relations issue. Many psychotherapists anecdotally relate, however, that this issue often arises when treating patients with BPD.
When a mother physically walks out of her baby's line of sight, that causes distress for the baby. In the interim where the mother is gone, it's not just a matter of the baby missing his mother in the way that an adult will strongly miss someone. An adult has an understanding of the context in a way the baby does not. The baby cannot actually be sure, based on his limited knowledge, that the mother will ever return. He can easily feel betrayed and abandoned. It's as if the mother has ceased to exist, leaving him all alone.
There comes a point in a child's development, though, where this separation anxiety gradually begins to mitigate itself. There comes a point where the following happens. The parent tells her child that she will leave him alone for a certain amount of time, and promises to return. There comes a point where the child comes to understand, on both an intellectual and emotional level, that the parent will indeed return. At that point, the child has achieved a much more mature level of "object constancy" in relation to his parent.
When an adult has object constancy with respect to other people -- a human-relationship constancy -- it works like this. Jim and Angela become very close. They share many beautiful experiences together. But for business reasons, they have to be separated and go to different continents for a few months. Even for someone who is strong in object/relationship constancy, some affection might fade over time as he remains physically separated from the other person. For the most part, though, the feeling lingers. When Jim remembers experiences he shared with Angela, he is able, then, to re-experience, all over again, much of the same emotions he had during those moments with Angela. The emotional bond remains strong. Not only does Jim have conscious memories of what happened with Angela. He also retains an emotional familiarity with Angela.
The situation is different for someone who has not developed a strong object/human-relationship constancy. Let's pretend now that Jim doesn't have relationship constancy. Let's also pretend that Angela is completely unaware of the psychologists' Object Relations theory, and unaware that it pertains to Jim. This would mean that when Jim is separated from Angela for even a short while, he feels as if he cannot be certain that they will ever be reunited -- that feeling arises even if, on an intellectual level, Jim knows that they are supposed to see each other again. If Jim and Angela are separated for a longer period, Jim might go through these two stages:
1. Intensely missing Angela; it's as if a whole part of himself is gone. He begins to wonder if Angela has chosen to abandon him.
2. If Jim an Angela are separated for too long (maybe a few weeks?), this happens: even if this is contradicted by facts he understands on an intellectual level, Jim emotionally feels abandoned by Angela. Regardless of his intellectual understanding, Jim emotionally feels that Angela has vanished from his life. In order to cope and survive, Jim then emotionally detaches from Angela to an extreme degree. It's as if she doesn't exist for him anymore. He can still have conscious memories about her, but the emotional familiarity has vanished.
If this case is severe enough, then when Angela and Jim are finally reunited, Jim might behave "politely" but in an impersonal manner that Angela finds jarring. Jim might be "polite" to her in a way that a flight attendant is expected to be courteous toward his customers -- pleasant and smiley but also still impersonal. Angela will have a difficult time comprehending -- both intellectually and emotionally -- why the emotional familiarity has disappeared. That will especially be confusing for her if she is someone who has a strong sense of object/human-relationship constancy.
As one website on the topic explains it,
Some people try to avoid this problem simply by avoiding making any deep attachments to anyone. Such a person can be very friendly, smiling, and laughing in public, while still remaining impersonal and detached -- largely keeping one's deepest feelings hidden from everyone in cheerful-but-superficial conversation. But this position is untenable in the long run. Much more long-term fulfillment can be achieved when, with the help of trained professionals, one becomes self-aware about the Object Constancy issue and learns to constructively manage it with the love and support of those who care.
There is an issue found in some people with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) that can be called an issue of Object Constancy. Though I am not a psychologist, I have read enough about this subject for me to feel relatively confident in discussing it in a more public venue. What I am about to explain is my interpretation of the writings on psychology that I have read.
I should state that not all people with BPD necessarily have this objection-relations issue. Many psychotherapists anecdotally relate, however, that this issue often arises when treating patients with BPD.
When a mother physically walks out of her baby's line of sight, that causes distress for the baby. In the interim where the mother is gone, it's not just a matter of the baby missing his mother in the way that an adult will strongly miss someone. An adult has an understanding of the context in a way the baby does not. The baby cannot actually be sure, based on his limited knowledge, that the mother will ever return. He can easily feel betrayed and abandoned. It's as if the mother has ceased to exist, leaving him all alone.
There comes a point in a child's development, though, where this separation anxiety gradually begins to mitigate itself. There comes a point where the following happens. The parent tells her child that she will leave him alone for a certain amount of time, and promises to return. There comes a point where the child comes to understand, on both an intellectual and emotional level, that the parent will indeed return. At that point, the child has achieved a much more mature level of "object constancy" in relation to his parent.
When an adult has object constancy with respect to other people -- a human-relationship constancy -- it works like this. Jim and Angela become very close. They share many beautiful experiences together. But for business reasons, they have to be separated and go to different continents for a few months. Even for someone who is strong in object/relationship constancy, some affection might fade over time as he remains physically separated from the other person. For the most part, though, the feeling lingers. When Jim remembers experiences he shared with Angela, he is able, then, to re-experience, all over again, much of the same emotions he had during those moments with Angela. The emotional bond remains strong. Not only does Jim have conscious memories of what happened with Angela. He also retains an emotional familiarity with Angela.
The situation is different for someone who has not developed a strong object/human-relationship constancy. Let's pretend now that Jim doesn't have relationship constancy. Let's also pretend that Angela is completely unaware of the psychologists' Object Relations theory, and unaware that it pertains to Jim. This would mean that when Jim is separated from Angela for even a short while, he feels as if he cannot be certain that they will ever be reunited -- that feeling arises even if, on an intellectual level, Jim knows that they are supposed to see each other again. If Jim and Angela are separated for a longer period, Jim might go through these two stages:
1. Intensely missing Angela; it's as if a whole part of himself is gone. He begins to wonder if Angela has chosen to abandon him.
2. If Jim an Angela are separated for too long (maybe a few weeks?), this happens: even if this is contradicted by facts he understands on an intellectual level, Jim emotionally feels abandoned by Angela. Regardless of his intellectual understanding, Jim emotionally feels that Angela has vanished from his life. In order to cope and survive, Jim then emotionally detaches from Angela to an extreme degree. It's as if she doesn't exist for him anymore. He can still have conscious memories about her, but the emotional familiarity has vanished.
If this case is severe enough, then when Angela and Jim are finally reunited, Jim might behave "politely" but in an impersonal manner that Angela finds jarring. Jim might be "polite" to her in a way that a flight attendant is expected to be courteous toward his customers -- pleasant and smiley but also still impersonal. Angela will have a difficult time comprehending -- both intellectually and emotionally -- why the emotional familiarity has disappeared. That will especially be confusing for her if she is someone who has a strong sense of object/human-relationship constancy.
As one website on the topic explains it,
...borderlines have problems with object constancy in people -- they read each action of people in their lives as if there were no prior context; they don't have a sense of continuity and consistency about people and things in their lives. They have a hard time experiencing an absent loved one as a loving presence in their minds. They also have difficulty seeing all of the actions taken by a person over a period of time as part of an integrated whole, and tend instead to analyze individual actions in an attempt to divine their individual meanings. People are defined by how they last interacted with the borderline.Here is how one BPD patient describes the phenomenon.
When a person leaves (even temporarily), they [people with BPD] may have a problem recreating or remembering feelings of love that were present between themselves and the other. Often, BPD patients want to keep something belonging to the loved one around during separations. . . . I have an extraordinarily hard time holding onto the thought that people remember me, hold me dear or care for me when I am not in their physical presence. Out of sight, no longer connected. I'm sure to most people this is not how they perceive relationships (be it friendship, dating, familial). I think it should be a consistent progression of emotions and experiences that build together to form a deep bond. I also have a hard time holding onto the strong emotions I feel for those I care about, and when I do manage to I also manage to convince myself that I am the only one that feels this way and no one else could possibly share my depth of emotion though I desperately hope they do. This creates a feeling of panic and loss for something that may actually be there and I need to find a way to reaffirm these feelings in myself and others every time I am back in contact with them. It’s a maddening cycle of doubt, loss, connection and disconnection.A good explanation (complete with Venn Diagrams) of difficulties in relationships of those with BPD is found here.
Some people try to avoid this problem simply by avoiding making any deep attachments to anyone. Such a person can be very friendly, smiling, and laughing in public, while still remaining impersonal and detached -- largely keeping one's deepest feelings hidden from everyone in cheerful-but-superficial conversation. But this position is untenable in the long run. Much more long-term fulfillment can be achieved when, with the help of trained professionals, one becomes self-aware about the Object Constancy issue and learns to constructively manage it with the love and support of those who care.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
A Distinction Between Freedom and 'Due Process'
Stuart K. Hayashi
The following is a slighlty revised version of an article of mine that originally appeared in the Tuesday, April 18, 2006 edition of Hawaii Reporter. This also appears on my real, better blog -- The Fiftieth Star. So check it out right now!
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. Government is force ... "
--Apocryphally attributed to George Washington
Political freedom is security against spoliation. Dictionary.Com defines spoliation as "the act of...plundering."
More precisely, "spoliation" means the initiation -- that is, the starting -- of physical force against non-consenting parties' person or property. That includes larceny, kidnapping, and unintended property damage.
If you survived a stickup because you handed the muggers your wallet, the robbery still counts as violence, as you would've been killed if you didn't cooperate.
Contract violation (such as fraud) is also spoliation, as it's theft for me to contractually promise to pay you for something, and then take it without paying.
To secure our liberty from the rule of cutthroats, we entrust government to exercise retaliatory violence. The more someone resists our laws, the more violence the State responds with.
Suppose Murray never pays the compounding fines for his jaywalking offense. The city eventually sends armed men to apprehend him. Murray runs from them, so they mace him. If he fights back ferociously, he may need to be roughed up . . . or even shot.
Laws are ultimately enforced at gunpoint.
Cops are right to employ such force against spoliators -- pickpockets, rapists, swindlers, murderers, and abductors, all of whom start violence. But when it passes laws forbidding peaceful behaviors, the government itself spoliates innocent individuals.
Here critics scoff, replying that citizens implicitly consent to anything democratically-elected legislators decree. I disagree, for Ancient Athens was doubtlessly wrong to democratically vote on executing Socrates for his rhetoric.
Of course, U.S. authorities cannot detain or bludgeon civilians arbitrarily. America, unlike Third-World dictatorships, has "due process of law," which places numerous procedural barriers in front of officials before they can kill a lawbreaker without being penalized for it.
However, just because America's Founders set up "due process" to rein in frivolous prosecution, that doesn't mean that "due process" equals freedom. That confuses means with ends. If you lock jewels inside a chest, you wouldn't say the chest is itself a jewel; the chest's purpose is to protect jewels.
Now imagine some democratically-elected lawmakers enacting legislation to incarcerate someone for three years if she houses a cat. Angela illegally keeps one anyway, harming nobody. Neighbors see the pet and snap pictures of her with it.
Eventually, detectives grow suspicious. After they show "probable cause," a jurist awards them a warrant to search her residence, where they find the animal. They read Angela her "Miranda rights" and book her. She gets her phone call in custody. Because she cannot afford an attorney, the state provides her one.
Angela only gets convicted after prosecutors demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt to impartial jurors that she kept a cat, calling her neighbors as witnesses, displaying their photographs, and exhibiting the evidence taken from her premises. Angela appeals her sentence, but it's consistently upheld since judges find it obvious that she in fact did the crime.
Throughout this entire scenario, Angela received "due process." Investigators could only search her estate because they secured a warrant after establishing "probable cause." Angela got her requisite phone call, reading of "Miranda rights," jury trial, counsel, and appeals, and the onus was upon the prosecution to irrefutably prove her lawbreaking.
Yet the State still violated Angela's rights, because it threatened violence upon her for actions that didn't hurt anyone else's body or private belongings. Her guards would've manhandled her if she tried to flee the courtroom.
Though the above case is imaginary, real-life democratic governments with "due process" really can -- and often do -- promise to imprison people as punishment for peaceful-but-illegal behaviors, with even greater force reserved for those who attempt to escape their captivity. Such measures amount to government-enforced kidnapping.
Government kidnaps those who privately smoke recreational marijuana in their own homes, for example.
Likewise, you cannot legally hire a willing adult who offers to work for you for hourly compensation below the mandated minimum wage. If you're caught doing that and don't pay the fines for it, you can expect government to abduct you over it.
"Due process" won't save you from the slammer if you openly disobey a wicked law that never should've existed. America had long-established "due process" in the 1940s, but that wouldn't have prevented police from locking you up if you, in fact, flouted racial segregation laws back then.
True freedom requires that laws only prohibit spoliation -- not peaceful, mutually consensual activities among legally-competent adults, whether they are personal or commercial in nature.
Related articles by Stuart K. Hayashi
* "The Invisible Gun" (FreelyThinking.Com Version, Mad Prophet Version, Jacques Tucker's Website Version)
* "The Grown-Up Bullies of Democracy"
* "What Capitalism Is and Is Not"
* "Freedom Before Democracy"
* "The Properness of Property" (Pt. 1, Pt. 2)
* "The Myth of the Social Contract" (link goes to the first of several installments)
* "Conservative Author Michelle Malkin Defends FDR's Policy of Mass Kidnapping"
* The Costs and Benefits of the Corporation"
* " 'Animal Rights' Are Human Wrongs"
* "Positive Reform Through Good Philosophy"
* " 'Death With Dignity' Must Live Again"
* Campaign Finance Follies"
Recommended links:
* "Escalating Crimes" by Ken Schoolland (shorter audio version here)
* News articles about a corrections officer shooting an inmate trying to escape. I don't believe the corrections officer in any way acted improperly by shooting; I post these links in case there are those who are still skeptical of my point that laws are ultimately enforced at gunpoint: Honolulu Star-Bulletin Version, Honolulu Advertiser Version
* Read about John Singer of Utah, who was shot dead by the government for not sending his kids to government school or private school
* Information on Californian millionaire Donald Scott being shot dead by federal agents even after obeying their orders: One, Two, Three
* Thomas Jefferson stressed that, even if jurors knew that a defendant had in fact broken a law, the jurors would have a right to acquit the defendant if they believed that the law itself was wrong. In recent decades, however, U.S. judges have betrayed Jefferson's legacy by telling jurors that they have no legal authority to use their position to nullify laws they disapprove of: One, Two, Three
* "Why Rent Control Is Immoral" by Michael S. Berliner, Ph.D.
* "What Trustbusters and Marxists Have in Common: Equating Economic and Political Power" by Richard M. Salsman, CFA
* "Production vs. Force" by Robert W. Tracinski
* Jeff Landauer and Joseph Rowlands on individual rights
* The late Kerry Pearson ("Lux Lucre") did this flash animation of Ken Schoolland's "The Philosophy of Liberty"
* "Campaign Finance Limits vs. Free Speech" by Andrew Lewis
* "The U.N.'s Distortion of Rights" by Robert W. Tracinski
* United Nations Declaration on Rights Destroys Individual Rights" by Glenn Woiceshyn
* John Locke's Second Treatise on Government (a very long book online)
* Online version of Frederic Bastiat's pamphlet, The Law (note: in the treatise's original French, Bastiat used the term "spoliation" just the way I do, but the English translator changed the word to "plunder")
*"State-Sponsored Terrorists" by Noel Malcolm
The following is a slighlty revised version of an article of mine that originally appeared in the Tuesday, April 18, 2006 edition of Hawaii Reporter. This also appears on my real, better blog -- The Fiftieth Star. So check it out right now!
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. Government is force ... "
--Apocryphally attributed to George Washington
Political freedom is security against spoliation. Dictionary.Com defines spoliation as "the act of...plundering."
More precisely, "spoliation" means the initiation -- that is, the starting -- of physical force against non-consenting parties' person or property. That includes larceny, kidnapping, and unintended property damage.
If you survived a stickup because you handed the muggers your wallet, the robbery still counts as violence, as you would've been killed if you didn't cooperate.
Contract violation (such as fraud) is also spoliation, as it's theft for me to contractually promise to pay you for something, and then take it without paying.
To secure our liberty from the rule of cutthroats, we entrust government to exercise retaliatory violence. The more someone resists our laws, the more violence the State responds with.
Suppose Murray never pays the compounding fines for his jaywalking offense. The city eventually sends armed men to apprehend him. Murray runs from them, so they mace him. If he fights back ferociously, he may need to be roughed up . . . or even shot.
Laws are ultimately enforced at gunpoint.
Cops are right to employ such force against spoliators -- pickpockets, rapists, swindlers, murderers, and abductors, all of whom start violence. But when it passes laws forbidding peaceful behaviors, the government itself spoliates innocent individuals.
Here critics scoff, replying that citizens implicitly consent to anything democratically-elected legislators decree. I disagree, for Ancient Athens was doubtlessly wrong to democratically vote on executing Socrates for his rhetoric.
Of course, U.S. authorities cannot detain or bludgeon civilians arbitrarily. America, unlike Third-World dictatorships, has "due process of law," which places numerous procedural barriers in front of officials before they can kill a lawbreaker without being penalized for it.
However, just because America's Founders set up "due process" to rein in frivolous prosecution, that doesn't mean that "due process" equals freedom. That confuses means with ends. If you lock jewels inside a chest, you wouldn't say the chest is itself a jewel; the chest's purpose is to protect jewels.
Now imagine some democratically-elected lawmakers enacting legislation to incarcerate someone for three years if she houses a cat. Angela illegally keeps one anyway, harming nobody. Neighbors see the pet and snap pictures of her with it.
Eventually, detectives grow suspicious. After they show "probable cause," a jurist awards them a warrant to search her residence, where they find the animal. They read Angela her "Miranda rights" and book her. She gets her phone call in custody. Because she cannot afford an attorney, the state provides her one.
Angela only gets convicted after prosecutors demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt to impartial jurors that she kept a cat, calling her neighbors as witnesses, displaying their photographs, and exhibiting the evidence taken from her premises. Angela appeals her sentence, but it's consistently upheld since judges find it obvious that she in fact did the crime.
Throughout this entire scenario, Angela received "due process." Investigators could only search her estate because they secured a warrant after establishing "probable cause." Angela got her requisite phone call, reading of "Miranda rights," jury trial, counsel, and appeals, and the onus was upon the prosecution to irrefutably prove her lawbreaking.
Yet the State still violated Angela's rights, because it threatened violence upon her for actions that didn't hurt anyone else's body or private belongings. Her guards would've manhandled her if she tried to flee the courtroom.
Though the above case is imaginary, real-life democratic governments with "due process" really can -- and often do -- promise to imprison people as punishment for peaceful-but-illegal behaviors, with even greater force reserved for those who attempt to escape their captivity. Such measures amount to government-enforced kidnapping.
Government kidnaps those who privately smoke recreational marijuana in their own homes, for example.
Likewise, you cannot legally hire a willing adult who offers to work for you for hourly compensation below the mandated minimum wage. If you're caught doing that and don't pay the fines for it, you can expect government to abduct you over it.
"Due process" won't save you from the slammer if you openly disobey a wicked law that never should've existed. America had long-established "due process" in the 1940s, but that wouldn't have prevented police from locking you up if you, in fact, flouted racial segregation laws back then.
True freedom requires that laws only prohibit spoliation -- not peaceful, mutually consensual activities among legally-competent adults, whether they are personal or commercial in nature.
Related articles by Stuart K. Hayashi
* "The Invisible Gun" (FreelyThinking.Com Version, Mad Prophet Version, Jacques Tucker's Website Version)
* "The Grown-Up Bullies of Democracy"
* "What Capitalism Is and Is Not"
* "Freedom Before Democracy"
* "The Properness of Property" (Pt. 1, Pt. 2)
* "The Myth of the Social Contract" (link goes to the first of several installments)
* "Conservative Author Michelle Malkin Defends FDR's Policy of Mass Kidnapping"
* The Costs and Benefits of the Corporation"
* " 'Animal Rights' Are Human Wrongs"
* "Positive Reform Through Good Philosophy"
* " 'Death With Dignity' Must Live Again"
* Campaign Finance Follies"
Recommended links:
* "Escalating Crimes" by Ken Schoolland (shorter audio version here)
* News articles about a corrections officer shooting an inmate trying to escape. I don't believe the corrections officer in any way acted improperly by shooting; I post these links in case there are those who are still skeptical of my point that laws are ultimately enforced at gunpoint: Honolulu Star-Bulletin Version, Honolulu Advertiser Version
* Read about John Singer of Utah, who was shot dead by the government for not sending his kids to government school or private school
* Information on Californian millionaire Donald Scott being shot dead by federal agents even after obeying their orders: One, Two, Three
* Thomas Jefferson stressed that, even if jurors knew that a defendant had in fact broken a law, the jurors would have a right to acquit the defendant if they believed that the law itself was wrong. In recent decades, however, U.S. judges have betrayed Jefferson's legacy by telling jurors that they have no legal authority to use their position to nullify laws they disapprove of: One, Two, Three
* "Why Rent Control Is Immoral" by Michael S. Berliner, Ph.D.
* "What Trustbusters and Marxists Have in Common: Equating Economic and Political Power" by Richard M. Salsman, CFA
* "Production vs. Force" by Robert W. Tracinski
* Jeff Landauer and Joseph Rowlands on individual rights
* The late Kerry Pearson ("Lux Lucre") did this flash animation of Ken Schoolland's "The Philosophy of Liberty"
* "Campaign Finance Limits vs. Free Speech" by Andrew Lewis
* "The U.N.'s Distortion of Rights" by Robert W. Tracinski
* United Nations Declaration on Rights Destroys Individual Rights" by Glenn Woiceshyn
* John Locke's Second Treatise on Government (a very long book online)
* Online version of Frederic Bastiat's pamphlet, The Law (note: in the treatise's original French, Bastiat used the term "spoliation" just the way I do, but the English translator changed the word to "plunder")
*"State-Sponsored Terrorists" by Noel Malcolm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
