Madmen in Authority

Over at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Cato's Will Wilkinson (an unabashed Gouvernor Morris Groupie, as are all who know of the dancing Founder with the wooden leg) channels John Maynard Keynes to help explain away the "paradox" that we seem to get more depressed as we get richer. His conclusion:

The incentives in favor of continued diagnostic inaccuracy ensure that the real incidence of depression will continue to be overestimated; our real success as a society in pursuit of happiness will continue to get short shrift.

As John Maynard Keynes famously remarked, asserting the relative power of ideas over vested interests, "madmen in authority … distill … their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back."

So middlebrow best-sellers about the misery of market-based prosperity matter, too. It would be tragically depressing -- paradoxical even -- if madmen in authority undermined the institutions that have made us wealthy and happy on the false pretext that we are suffering an epidemic of misery.

The whole thing, especially worth reading on a blue Monday, is here.

Former Reason Editor Virginia Postrel took on some of market depressives in a great essay for us titled "Consumer Vertigo."

And I reviewed a couple of happiness books for the NY Sun here.

Comments

[E-Rock]

In case anyone was interested in the quote without the ... (for once they don't really change the meaning).

Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.

And again in context:
The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.
The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1935) Ch. 24 "Concluding Notes"

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes

[Dan]

So it appears that the two camps are ?People are more depressed than ever? versus ?People only think they?re more depressed than ever.?

In my opinion, and I?m in the first camp, depression is due to the fact that we?ve gotten too good at providing for our basic survival and thus have way too much free time to ponder that our lives are meaningless.

In other words, the farmer in 1700 who worked 18 hours a day simply to put food on the table was spared the burden of having to worry about how ?satisfied? he was with his career or whether or not his children will get into a better college than his neighbor?s, etc.

[Ira Weatheral]

Dan,

Having worked in an anxeity clinic for 8 years, I can attest that at least half the cases are due to people with too much time on their hands overthinking their little daily problems.

[thoreau]

I went to a great talk once by a neuroscientist who not only studies depression, he's also a patient.

His description of real, clinical depression is when a person drops into a funk that is way disproportionate to the situation. He also said that a depressed patient is more than just sad, his or her perception of people and events is also distorted. Everything is interpreted through a dark lens that has little connection to reality.

This is very different from the drug company ads: "Have you ever felt a little sad? Ask your doctor about our pill."

The most liberating thing about his talk was when he said that the people who suffer most from depression are not the patients, but rather their relatives. As somebody who has suffered greatly from the depression of certain relatives, it felt great to have an expert tell me that I don't need to feel guilty about their problems.

I don't know if he'll ever find a cure for their depression, but he sure made me feel better.

[Ruthless]

What Dan and Ira said.
Plus, gaius marius, was Sisyphus depressed? Were the Vestal Virgins depressed?
We need to know.

[Eye Doc]

I think the diagnostic criteria for diagnosing major depression have become a bit lax and that and drug advertising are causing some people to be treated for depression that probably should not be.

But, the comaparison between now and a hundred years ago may also be (in large part) to depression being more recognized as a disease now than it was then. It's very possible that depressed people were just less likely to be diagnosed then as they now.

[clarityiniowa]

I fall into the "prosperity breeds ennui" camp. Those without a lot of self-motivation or an intrinsic sense of self-worth and self meaning have a hard time once their daily bread is taken care of. On the other hand, that kind of person rarely prospers beyond a certain point.

Or, as Robert Heinlein put it (roughly) "A man who doesn't know where his next meal is coming from is never bored."

[thoreau]

clarity-

We need to distinguish between real depression and the people who are a little sad and/or lazy and just want a respectable label to put on it. Real depression is characterized by severity as well as a glaring disconnect between the patient's perceptions and reality. (Me: "Did you mail that thing?" Relative: "You don't trust me, do you? You think I'm stupid, don't you?")

[Rich Ard]

"The most liberating thing about his talk was when he said that the people who suffer most from depression are not the patients, but rather their relatives."

I've heard this before, and have spent time on both sides of a padded steel door - and my answer then, as it is now, is "What arrogant bullshit."

It's certainly hard to watch a friend or family member go nuts, but there's just no comparison with something like an inability to think about anything but suicide from waking to sleepytime. You can take a five minute break from a relative being screwed up - but if you're the one with crossed wires, there's often no respite.

[thoreau]

Rich-

Keep in mind that he also spent time on both sides of the door. And he was being at least partly facetious. The message I took away was not "Oh, those depressed people, they're just whiny." Rather it was "Look, don't go beating yourself up over the fact that you can't solve their problems."

[Viking Moose the Blue]

"they're heading for the prison level. if you hurry, you can catch them!"

Thoreau - it's tough dealing with depressive episodes. It's a painful condition. Many people, asa you have noted, equate "depression" with "not getting that new kate bush cd as quick as they want". or some such. Or the difference between a maigraine and a headache. Or herniated discs and minor back pain.

Depression is terrible, but the attention desiring trixies have distorted what the disease is. This is like listening to the people who were at the top of the food chain in high school talking about "bullying" or "how tough it was in high school" or the "i think everybody felt that way" bullshit.

I hope your relatives have it managed okay. That's terrible. They are in my thoughts.

"It was such a depressing day, even eeoyre lost his blue"

[Rich Ard]

And I agree that you shouldn't - you (I assume 🙂 are not responsible for their problems, and it sucks to stand by without being able to do anything.

I guess I'm just being pedantic - it's not, in my experience, harder or even just as hard to watch a downward sprial as it is to get jammed in the drain.

Don't be sad -

[thoreau]

Rich-

The downward spiral becomes somewhat harder to watch when the depressed relative still has just enough motivation to lay on massive guilt trips.

I don't literally equate my suffering with that of certain relatives, but some of them certainly know how to spread the misery around.

[Viking Moose]

" relative still has just enough motivation to lay on massive guilt trips."

that's a toughie. then finding out the balance between being an enabler and being supportive is tougher.

sorry, there, Dr. that is sad.

[gaius marius]

The incentives in favor of continued diagnostic inaccuracy ensure that the real incidence of depression will continue to be overestimated

lol -- in other words, you're not sad -- and i should know! pardon me if i disdain such denial dressed as sociology.

Plus, gaius marius, was Sisyphus depressed? Were the Vestal Virgins depressed?

i can only speculate about sisyphus -- but then, he was in hell, wasn't he?

We need to distinguish between real depression and the people who are a little sad and/or lazy and just want a respectable label to put on it.

agreed, mr thoreau -- the chemical problem of depression is one thing. the pervasive malaise of western society is another.

it's the malaise that we're talking about. and i disagree with the party line here -- that success is responsible -- which is a sort of marketeer's conceit, imo.

i know very materially successful people who are extraordinarily happy and positive; i know relative "failures" who are the same. what they have in common is a life rich in family, society and civility.

i also know people, successful and not, who are miserable. and what they have in common is a life replete with an unhealthy obsession with the self, along with the manifold symptoms of same (overpowering fantasies, escapism, egotism, etc).

the economic condition of these people is almost immaterial, it seems to me, to their mental health. the sick successful are usually consumed by some aspect of their economic existence, as it provides a fantasy life of different measures that allows them to deny their basic misery. but the most successful people i know are just the opposite of that -- consciously putting aside wealth and status to make room for social and familial normalcy.

[Viking Moose]

Gaius:

"i also know people, successful and not, who are miserable"

yeah - they're called "Cubs Fans". 🙂

[thoreau]

VM-

To be fair, the problem is not nearly as bad as it once was. This person has always had the energy to work, but there were periods where this person, when not working or performing essential tasks, was "in bed sick."

Nowadays this person seems more normal, but a few times per year there's a meltdown and massive guilt trip. Sometimes the person realizes what's going on and asks the doctor to adjust the meds. Then things improve for a while.

gaius-

What color is Western Civilization's mood ring right now? 🙂

[fyodor]

What color is Western Civilization's mood ring right now? 🙂

Must you encourage him? I can tell you for him, he thinks things are very very very bad.

[clarityiniowa]

thoreau - "We need to distinguish..."

True enough, and I'm not at all convinced the article or the commentary does this. Clinical depression is a medical condition. Depression, by and of itself, is not.

What I get from the piece is that the dear old garden variety blues increases with affluence. This is understandable in light of my previous post. It think any study or survey that would lik increases in CLINICAL depression to affluence has a lot of validation issues to get past before any credence could or would be given to it.

[clarityiniowa]

Ugh, make the last sentence in my last post"

"I think any study or survey that would link increases in CLINICAL depression to affluence has a lot of validation issues to get past before any credence could or would be given to it."

I have lost control of my fingers. Is this a sign of depression, or am I just a lousy typist?

[WSDave]

Dan,
"In my opinion, and I?m in the first camp, depression is due to the fact that we?ve gotten too good at providing for our basic survival and thus have way too much free time to ponder that our lives are meaningless."

Perish the thought that these people might spend that time FINDING meaning in thier lives. Money might not buy happiness, but it sure buys a nice Mercades to be depressed in...

[R C Dean]

Clinical depression is a medical condition.

Paging Thomas Szasz!

[clarityiniowa]

RC D - Paging Thomas Szasz!

Meaning?

[Stretch]

I'm fairly confident that I could go to almost any doctor and get depression meds prescribed. I've always had a general feeling of depression (malaise, ennui, whatever) of varying degrees throughout my life. Perharps everyone does. I would in no way equate that to the few I have known with severe, clinical, can't-possibly-do-anything Depression.

The same forces that have defined depression as a medical condition and have brought it into the mainstream also contribute to the "increase" in depression throughout society. After all, being depressed is no different than having the flu now, so people are much more likely to classify their general, human misery with clinical depression. It's very similar to the whole ADD/ritalin debacle in that respect.

[clarityiniowa]

Stretch It's very similar to the whole ADD/ritalin debacle in that respect.

Except it isn't, quite. Close family experience has taught me that there are fairly clear organic and chemical markers for clinical depression aside from the symptoms, which, by themselves, are not indicative of such a diagnosis. Severe irregularities in wake-sleep cycles, serotonin and acetylcholene levels and some fairly well defined CAT scan patterns are just some of the indicators responsible physicians look for. This differentiates clinical depression from most "syndromes" school nurses shove Ritalin down kids' throats for.

Just because many docs overdiagnose, overprescribe and overmedicate does not mean a legitimate condition does not exist for which medical treatment is appropriate.

[thoreau]

I think of docs who over-prescribe anti-depressants the same way that I think of docs who over-prescribe antibiotics: They're taking real drugs for real problems and giving them to people who don't need them. And in the process they may be making some problems worse.

[gaius marius]

yeah - they're called "Cubs Fans". 🙂

utterly. and a more self-obsessed lot of willing martyrs you'll rarely find (outside of boston, anyway). 🙂

[gaius marius]

black, mr thoreau. 🙂

[clarityiniowa]

thoreau - Agreed! I get a little passionate on this subject because my mom's family has a history of chronic, debilitating depression that rises higher than the normal level of Northern European gloominess. There seem to be genetic as well as behavioral components - as there are for susceptibility to many chronic illnesses - and so I am pretty diligent about my daily attitude checks, stay fit and healthy, eat well, exercise and generally do everything I can to prevent myself from succombing.

[Jason Ligon]

Not much malaise on the part of serfs and other folks who knew their place, like June Cleaver, I suppose. Ick.

[Viking Moose]

"self-obsessed lot of willing martyrs you'll rarely find (outside of boston, anyway). :)"

yeah - but i'd call boston fans greater mock martyrs, tho. living in the ne was a terrible experience, but it did underscore what the term "MASSHOLE" means 🙂

"Just because many docs overdiagnose, overprescribe and overmedicate does not mean a legitimate condition does not exist for which medical treatment is appropriate."

Clarity: i respect your passion. What a lot of people who want to pop the paxil so their self deluded faux malaise and ennui will disappear don't wanna do the other things, like talking therapy and other proactive measures.

this is akin to the flat slobs who turn to fad diets etc. instead of the only thing that works: eat less and exercise.

[thoreau]

gaius-

If you'd feel better by "knowing your place", you can come and clean my apartment. I'll give you table scraps and let you sleep in a corner of our storage room.

Anything to help my fellow man rise above his malaise.

[Will Wilkinson]

I strongly recommend that anyone interested in this issue read the Horwitz/Wakefield article in the Public Interest that I mention in the op ed. It's called "The Age of Depression." They're working on a book on the topic, which I am eagerly awaiting. You can find the article here: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_158/ai_n8680970/print

Let me emphasize that authentic depression is very real, and very awful. Arguing that one should not include sore backs and spine injuries in a single diagnostic category is not a denial of spine injuries. On the contrary, it is an insistence that one refuse to trivialize the one by conflating it with the other.

[Eric the .5b]

Thoreau - kinky.

[poco]

Armchair diagnostician for a mo'. Thoreau, the manipulativeness sounds like an Axis II disorder on top of the depression. And "a general feeling of depression (malaise, ennui, whatever)" = dysthymia.

[Brian Courts]

I think of docs who over-prescribe anti-depressants the same way that I think of docs who over-prescribe antibiotics: They're taking real drugs for real problems and giving them to people who don't need them. And in the process they may be making some problems worse.

I think there's a fundamental difference with antibiotics which become less effective for people who really need them by overuse and anti-depressants which do not. A person should be able to decide for himself if he wants to take antidepressants, even if it's just for a mild sensation of "feeling down" or for no reason at all; just to try them out, as it were. I might agree that it's unnecessary or unwise but it shouldn't be doctors who make decisions for patients. Doctors should use their expertise to make the patients aware of the risks and potential benefits of all treatment options so the patient can make his own choice.

[Eric the .5b]

black, mr thoreau. 🙂

Black as night, black as coal? 😉

[anxiety is bringing me down]

Dan, I'm with you. Having spent a fair amount of my time and income on therapy and legal (I think) mood drugs, I've found that I almost never feel better than when I am doing physical labor on fixer-upper house and yard. Not even shopping is as good a distraction.

[thoreau]

Brian-

You make good points. I certainly don't think it should be illegal to take antidepressants if you want to, while I have fewer qualms (at least in principle) about having legal gatekeepers for antibiotics.

The harm I was alluding to from overprescription of antibiotics is a more indirect one: If the disease is grossly overdiagnosed then people take it less seriously, including the family and friends of legitimately sick people. I'm not saying "there should be a law", I'm just criticizing people who irresponsibly over-diagnose.

[Eric the .5b]

I've found any activity that involves focused, uninterrupted work is good. Even programming, if you can keep from being dragged away from the current project, and specially when you can finish something. I think the real problem with workplace stress, at least is that a lot of jobs involve a lot of interruption, which prevent you from having the sense of finishing, which makes you worry at some level that you're not taking care of things even when you're doing everything you can for every open project.

Hence my habit of keeping my email client closed except when I check every hour (or when things are light, every half-hour) to see whether there's anything worth jumping off the current job for...

[Brian Courts]

If the disease is grossly overdiagnosed then people take it less seriously, including the family and friends of legitimately sick people.

thoreau, I absolutely agree with that. And I think that problem is made worse by forcing doctors to make an official diagnosis of depression to give people Prozac, which might be helpful even for non-clinically depressed people. It does "cheapen" the the diagnosis, if you will, for those who have a serious medical condition.

[Stevo Darkly]

"What color is Western Civilization's mood ring right now? :)"

"black, mr thoreau. :)"

"Black as night, black as coal? ;)"

I just turn my head until my darkness goes.

[anxiety is bringing me down]

"I think any study or survey that would link increases in CLINICAL depression to affluence has a lot of validation issues to get past before any credence could or would be given to it."

Well put, excellent point.

I have noticed that while my close friends and I have more than a passing experience of malaise or ennui (with some clinical depression thrown in for good measure), most of the people around me (co-workers, etc.) seem to be fairly well-balanced people who know how to enjoy their lives. So, I have reason to think that my perspective is skewed with regard to perceptions of malaise in modern life.

[Brian Courts]

I just turn my head until my darkness goes.

Stevo,

Sure, but at least we get to see the girls go by dressed in their summer clothes. 😉

[mk]

Eric,

So what you are hinting at is that I am depressed because I am not getting my programming projects done and the main reason I am not getting my programming projects done is that I am too busy reading H&R posts on why one becomes depressed.

Makes sense actually.

[anxiety is bringing me down]

Eric:

"I've found any activity that involves focused, uninterrupted work is good. Even programming, if you can keep from being dragged away from the current project, and specially when you can finish something. I think the real problem with workplace stress, at least is that a lot of jobs involve a lot of interruption, which prevent you from having the sense of finishing, which makes you worry at some level that you're not taking care of things even when you're doing everything you can for every open project."

Yeah. My boss doesn't like me to work at home because I don't have e-mail or internet there so he says I'm not really working when I'm there. I don't want to say it, but in fact I work better at home without the distractions.

[R C Dean]

Clinical depression is a medical condition.

Paging Thomas Szasz, because he is a frequent Reason contributor who argues that mental "illnesses" are not medical conditions at all.

From Wikipedia:

The myth of mental illness: Schizophrenia and other mental disorders are simply semantic artifacts and do not really exist. While people behave and think in ways that are very disturbing, this does not mean they have a disease. To Szasz, people with mental illness have a "fake disease," which is simply "the sacred symbol of psychiatry." To be a true disease, "it must somehow be capable of being approached, measured, or tested in scientific fashion."

[mk]

Stevo,

I think of that song every time I pass by a Elizabeth Arden spa.

[Stevo Darkly]

mk: Really?

I could not foresee this thing happening to you.

[gaius marius]

re: szasz -- it does beg the question -- can the mind think itself into genuine quantifiable illness? i think it's quite likely that it can.

[gaius marius]

If you'd feel better by "knowing your place", you can come and clean my apartment. I'll give you table scraps and let you sleep in a corner of our storage room.

lol -- why is it, mr thoreau, that you work from such an angry recharacterization of my views? have i threatened you with them somehow? do you see a shadow of yourself in this revision? 🙂

[Jason Ligon]

gaius:

I think it is probably a fair characterization of your views to say that you pine for a heirarchy that was significantly restrictive for a great number of people, and to say that you view the liberty enhancing aspects of shedding such hierarchy as insignificant when compared to the peace and harmony provided by the willful consent of many to be lesser people.

[mk]

can the mind think itself into genuine quantifiable illness? i think it's quite likely that it can.

I guess I could ask around here at work Gaius (once again, I work in a Mental Health Center). I think it is quite possible as well, but I would probably be threwn out on my butt if I actually vocalized that belief.

[mk]

ahem, "thrown"

Although "threwn" does have a certain olde english quality to it.

[Jason Ligon]

My utterly uninformed $.02:

I agree with everyone saying that we just aren't constructed to be satisfied. We are evolved to provide. When providing gets to be relatively easy, our mental structures are out of their element.

To compensate, we can go to basic physical exertion in the form of working out, we can create competition in the form of sports or games, and we can put ourselves into stressful environments at work so we can thrive on the constant (if artificial) purpose provided when we suppose we are constantly needed right now.

[Jason Ligon]

... or, we can throw ourselves into the role of parents to create immediate purpose for ourselves.

[Eric the .5b]

can the mind think itself into genuine quantifiable illness?

That would be a psychosomatic illness, and they do exist. They can even be severe. It's been suggested, for instance that a strong belief in the efficiacy of maledictions can lead to a person suffering serious physical distress and even, supposedly, death. I'm not sure how well either has been substantiated, but we're basically talking about the flip side of the placebo effect.

[Eric the .5b]

why is it, mr thoreau, that you work from such an angry recharacterization of my views? have i threatened you with them somehow?

To preface this, you seem like a nice enough guy and I wouldn't paint you with the same brush as some of your ideas (just as I think very highly of a friend of mine who's an academic Communist). However, but you do make arguments in support of hierarchy and against liberty that I would call at best "misguided" and at worst "evil".

[Eric the .5b]

"However, you do make", rather.

[vabs]

>we just aren't constructed to be satisfied.

Here's an interesting, trippy site that gives one layman's lowdown on just about every psychoactive drug there is (provides links to scientific abstracts to).

http://www.hedweb.com/confile.htm

This guy argues, basically, that negative mental states in humans are a product of evolution, and now that we have mechanisms in place to easily provide for our basic survival needs they aren't really necessary anymore. Through bioengineering we will produce better psychoactives than those we have currently, and so on...

There's a lot of stuff on the site, probably much more than I'd ever want to read. It was very useful in helping me decide which antidepressant to ask for though.

[clarityiniowa]

RC Dean - Paging Thomas Szasz, because he is a frequent Reason contributor who argues that mental "illnesses" are not medical conditions at all.

Hmmm, have to look the fellow up. Sounds like the type who'd coach a suicide to take the short way down from a tall building or offer a drowning man a glass of water.

[gaius marius]

However, but you do make arguments in support of hierarchy and against liberty that I would call at best "misguided" and at worst "evil".

this si way o/t, but i think it's important to establish nuance in my view, and i realize that this place is a web board and necessarily almost devoid of nuance. however:

i am not against liberty -- for example, i think the abuse of institutions by our bankrupt elites to cling to a power over society that they clearly don't deserve is reprehensible. liberty -- free will -- is paramount to moral humanity.

what i am against, mr .5b, mr ligon, is the general abdication of responsibility that many postmodern militants of freedom seem to think is the only desirable manner of liberty (or indeed, the only "true" liberty).

this woeful conclusion, it seems to me, is a product of wishfully misreading the basis of actual liberty to be something other than the society that ensures it.

there are a lot of paranoid escapists out there who think society can only exist to trample them and not protect them -- and given the cycle of abuse that has been at work between dominant few and the proletariat in the last several centuries, that has become a self-reinforcing delusion.

but a healthy society exists outside that paradigm -- in a working partnership between a creative leadership and a supportive led. clearly, we in the west forfeited this partnership long ago. but when it existed, it was essentially an act of free will, reinforced by tradition and experience. and it was broken of free will as well.

also, i am in favor of strong institutions, law and continuity as proof against rapid change at the untested whim of ideas. but that is not rotely hierarchical. institutions like the medieval church were largely republican and meritocratic until the church's failures of the 12th c and forward (though that certainly an unpopular truth here) and did certainly change over time (for better and worse). again, free will was and remains central to catholic doctrine -- christianity didn't forfeit that notion immediately, and its moral authority commanded the fealty that held the christian world together.

[gaius marius]

you view the liberty enhancing aspects of shedding such hierarchy as insignificant when compared to the peace and harmony provided by the willful consent of many to be lesser people.

is shredding a lawful society really liberty enhancing?

and how do people measure as "lesser" if they choose to live lives of peace and harmony? because they aren't nobly striving to make themselves martyrs in a fit of narcissism?

these are pat assumptions of the irresponsible postmodernist, mr ligon, and they make no sense to me at all. can you explain them to me where many others haven't?

[Eric the .5b]

general abdication of responsibility

The problem, of course, is that when you start talking about "responsibility", you aren't referring to personal and accepted responsibilities, but simple conformity to the wishes of others.

[Eric the .5b]

is shredding a lawful society really liberty enhancing?

A lot of people found it to be an improvement when the Third Reich fell.

[Eric the .5b]

Really, Gaius, one of the few irritating things I find about you is your propensity to use very specific (often to the point of peculiarity) definitions for terms that are treated as general by others, often leading to unsatisfying discussions upon points. Just from your post above, you use "liberty", "responsibility" and "lawful" (hence the point of my bringing up the Third Reich) to mean very specific and variant things from what most anyone else is saying.

Additionally, while the liberty of free will is very meaningful on a personal level, to define liberty as simply human free will in a political context is to dismiss any form of liberty.

[clarityiniowa]

A failing of *precision*? That's a new one. Okay, from now on I, for one, pledge not to define my terms other than in any broad sense that would allow my opponent to frame the debate any way he or she would like.

[Jason Ligon]

"is shredding a lawful society really liberty enhancing?"

If the only form of lawful society you can find that you like is feudal, well, yes.

"but when it existed, it was essentially an act of free will, reinforced by tradition and experience."

It was not essentially an act of free will. At least, we would have no way of knowing that because expressions of free will on the part of the 'supportive led' were not admitted.

"the basis of actual liberty to be something other than the society that ensures it"

Which drives us to the inescapable conclusion that an illiberal society can't be the basis of an actually free individual. Rule of law is great, but the details of those laws matter quite a bit. You would sacrifice much on the altar of consistency. Life can be consistently shitty under established law that is oppressive, and it takes an appeal to principle (woe and dread!) to modify law into a shape that permits liberty to flourish. It is not an act of postmodern ego to realize one's potential. It is an act of medieval barbarism to keep people in chains. To the extent that the rule of law demands chains, the rule of law is barbaric.

[poco]

Hedweb I know as biopsychiatry.com. Agreed, too much interesting info.

Clarity: Szasz in Reason.

Cog-sci boyf and I were theorizing about this thread over lunch. Akin to people thinking they're depressed, do some think they have ADD because they're not self-starters? When in fact most people are wired to be followers and reacters and have their day planned for them by a big mammoth or lion, whereas modern life involves more premeditation and choice and figuring things out for yourself. Just a very tentative theory, of course.

[poco]

PS. Speaking of Szasz, I suspect he'd dig the irony in this fun product that came up as a Google ad.

[paul]

I've found any activity that involves focused, uninterrupted work is good. Even programming, if you can keep from being dragged away from the current project, and specially when you can finish something. I think the real problem with workplace stress, at least is that a lot of jobs involve a lot of interruption, which prevent you from having the sense of finishing,

Eric... this is creepy- were you and I separated at birth... or something? Maybe you and I were co-workers at some point. Hmm... You ever work for a small medical software company?

But seriously... while I agree wholeheartedly with your general point, I feel that what you're saying may be something that say, people in your or my line of work feel, but I'd be loathe to extrapolate that to every other line of work. Mainly because I just don't know.

[gaius marius]

The Third Reich had mechanisms for creating, announcing, and enforcing laws in a relatively consistent manner. That's the broad definition of "lawful" for a society

mr .5b, there is an immense gulf between law and order. conflating the two may be the source of some confusion for you.

To the extent that the rule of law demands chains, the rule of law is barbaric.

not barbaric so much as evil, mr ligon -- but then, we have to be careful to note the difference between legislation and law. the former is the product of whim and ideology; the latter is well beyond such vagaries.

use very specific (often to the point of peculiarity) definitions for terms

indeed, mr .5b, one of the reasons chatroom discussions are nearly pointless in the short term is that everyone is using different definitions. it takes years and volumes to convey ideas in their actual form. which is why i try to be charitable to people who think that i advocate enslavement when i don't simply because i'm more ready than most any postmodernist to point out our shortcomings vis-a-vis earlier periods in western history. 🙂

[Eric the .5b]

mr .5b, there is an immense gulf between law and order. conflating the two may be the source of some confusion for you.

Law is just a tool to maintain order. There are distinct terms for different sorts of order and types of laws.

everyone is using different definitions. it takes years and volumes to convey ideas in their actual form.

Which is why it's good to use terminology that actually reflects the meaning one wants to convey, instead of redefining or using extremely specific and narrow definitions of existing words and then being "charitable" when everyone else does not understand your ideas in the way you meant to present them.

people who think that i advocate enslavement

As best as we can tell, you advocate a system where everyone knows one's place, that place doesn't change much, and people are expected to behave, think, and act in an extremely conventional manner.

With all due respect, if that's not the meaning you want to present, then it behooves you to reconsider how you're presenting your ideas.

[gaius marius]

Law is just a tool to maintain order.

oh dear.

why it's good to use terminology that actually reflects the meaning one wants to convey

whatif the terms that you want to use don't fit the reality as i see it? what if you seem to have no terms for the concepts i'm forwarding? i'm afraid it isn't as simple as demanding i use your words your way, mr .5b.

With all due respect, if that's not the meaning you want to present, then it behooves you to reconsider how you're presenting your ideas.

perhaps, mr .5b -- but then, a lot of people here, once an idea they find unpleasant (that the pursuit of irresponsibility is both too common and quite detrimental, for example) is presented, quit listening entirely and arrange their prepackaged notions of "the middle ages" and assign their mental diorama to me. i can't help that. i'm not here to sell people on ideas they would probably rather die than possess. i'm just happy to get some interesting discussion out of presenting the ideas.

[Eric the .5b]

oh dear.

Laws are just the rules for the society provided and enforced by government. The spectrum of distinction is announced and understood law people can adapt to and live under versus arbitrary decision on matters by the government. To be prototypical or archetypical, Hammurabi versus the liege (or bureaucrat) who makes an on-the-spot decision on his own basis for every matter. Even if a government is lawful, law is only as good as that government. Trying to impose a meaning of virtue or justice upon the word is just doublespeak.

whatif the terms that you want to use don't fit the reality as i see it?

If this is because I'm using the wrong terms, I should change what terms I use. If not, your terminology may or may not be the problem.

what if you seem to have no terms for the concepts i'm forwarding?

While I doubt this, then you should try to explain the concepts, instead of relying on the "well, everybody refuses to believe me" dodge.

[gaius marius]

Trying to impose a meaning of virtue or justice upon the word is just doublespeak.

again, i think this is a confusion of terms, mr .5b. you would seem to say that the legislation handed down by congress yesterday is the same as the ten commandments or the sermon on the mount or dharma. i think not. legislation and law are different -- and i think you describe legislation very well above.

then you should try to explain the concepts,

i'm trying 🙂 but it may take many threads over a long time.

[Eric the .5b]

you would seem to say that the legislation handed down by congress yesterday is the same as the ten commandments or the sermon on the mount or dharma.

In that ancient Jews enforced religious laws, yes the ten commandments (and the other strictures of judaism) and legislation are essentially the same in the context of a society that enforces the ten commandments. The last two examples are, to my knowledge not "law" in any political sense.

Perhaps to make this clearer, I could say none of these things are "laws" if I chose to use "scientific generalization based on empirical observations" as my definition of "law". However, unless we're talking science, that's an absurd choice of definition. And terms exist for this meaning ("physical law", "law of nature") that is quite distinct from the question of whether a government is "lawful".