Personality Disorders And Social Rules

There are many people who are of the opinion that the people who make trouble are “sociopaths” and “narcissists,” and that if we were to get rid of such people then the troubles will go away. There is a problem with that stance. The people who can be accused of such things do not only include criminals and dictators, but very many other things, including:

• The ancestors of most people in America, Canada and Australia, who did not like the social covenants of which they were a part and moved halfway across the world to start a better life elsewhere;
• The founders of America and its greatest industrialists, scientists, authors and stars;
• The founders of psychology itself;

and of course

• The feminists, who have been most aggressive in pushing this view.

If it is narcissistic to seek great success or to have original ideas, then the world owes vastly to its narcissists. It it is narcissistic or sociopathic to dislike authority, then the bulk of the contemporary world, which formed in reaction to the monarchic order of the time, was founded by narcissists and sociopaths. If it is narcissistic or sociopathic to have views that differ from those around you, then just about anyone who came up with anything original was a narcissist or a sociopath; which means once again that we owe greatly to people with these disorders.

As for the claim that it is narcissistic or sociopathic to dislike social rules, in fact there is a much more valid reason to do so. Unspoken rules – or unofficial rules – are an attempt at hidden totalitarianism. Nobody has voted for these rules. Nobody has signed them into law. Which means that on such rules there is no accountability, check or balance, and that they constitute an attempt to sneak in hidden totalitarianism into nations that are intended to be free.

Should societies have rules? I would expect that any society will have rules. However if people are to be legitimately demanded to follow these rules, then they have to be made official. Sign them into law. Have the Congress vote on them. Make it official what life people can lead, what relationships they can practice, what personality they can have. Only at no point begin to claim that what you are offering is liberty.

Now there are certainly rules that should very well be there. However once again, they need to be made official. They need to be signed into law. They need to be subjected to accountability, check and balance. They need to be consistent with institutions of liberty and to not violate these institutions by pushing on people unofficial tyranny.

As for the people who violate rules, some have wrong reasons and some have right reasons. If your society's rules tell you that you should worship Kim Jong Un, then a conscientious person will not follow such a rule. Once again, some rules are valid and some are not valid. But for a rule to be rightfully binding in a democracy, it has to be signed into law. Otherwise, once again, we see an attempt at hidden tyranny – tyranny that is not even honest enough to be made official and that as such is in many respects worse than actual totalitarianism.

Not everyone who violates or dislikes rules of the place in which he lives is a bad person. The ancestors of most Americans did not like the rules of the places in which they lived, and they moved elsewhere. According to the definitions of these disorders, these people were all narcissists or sociopaths. The same category, once again, includes America's founders and most of its industrialists, scientists, authors and stars. As well as the founders of psychology, who militated against the ideas of the time. As well as feminists, who likewise militate against an order that has existed for many centuries.

So it is time that hypocrisy on this issue be overcome. Maybe Hitler and Genghis Khan had these disorders; but according to their definitions so did Rockefeller, Gates, Trump, Clinton, Chaplin and Jefferson. As well as Freud, as well as Catherine McKinnon, as well as many, many others.

Are people who violate social rules sociopaths or nacissists? Some are and some are not. Same is the case with people who follow social rules. A person who is totally self-oriented will not care about what social climate he finds himself in and will go with whoever he thinks to be the winner. If he thinks that rebels are ahead he will go with the rebels, and if he thinks that conformists are ahead he will go with the conformists. I see no reason at all to see a greater presence of such people among rebels than I would among anyone else.

Are people who dislike rules better or worse than people who do not? Depends on the person, depends on the rule. Some rules are there for a good reason. Others are there for a bad reason. Once again, if societies want to have rules then they should make them official and sign them into law. This will give these rules a legitimacy. And then people who do not like them can work to change them, and those who do like them can protect them visibly. This is how democracy is meant to work, and if this is done then democratic intent will be made real.