Source: Facebook

Q&A: WHAT DOES PROPERTARIANISM SAY ABOUT PEDOPHILIA?

(example of contrasting propertarian analysis with psychological analysis)

At the risk of entering into a field of landmines:

As far as I know, pedophilia is a developmental disorder, that like homosexuality, psychopathy, and hoarding, is incurable.

It has a high comorbidity with other (serious) mental illnesses. I suspect that the researchers will determine that it is caused by the excitement of the dominance response in those who have mental disorders that prevent experience of the dominance response.

In other words, pedophiles can only get excited by something they can feel dominant over, and they are basically unable to feel dominance (sexual excitement) otherwise – at least as intensely.

While it is understandable to be aroused by beautiful teenagers(fertility). It is not however, understandable to be aroused by children(non-fertile). Even if we say that the taboo is a learned response, obsession sufficient to prevent disassociation by experience of a constant normative taboo, requires mental illness to prevent that association.

I have only known one pedophile tangentially (someone fairly senior ex-Microsoft), and there is something ‘not right’ about these people. This individual is highly passive aggressive, with the jewish paranoia that is common in that tribe, and has various other obsessive disorders – that just happen to be useful in writing software.

They invoke my disgust and purity responses severely enough that I intuit the desperate need to kill them. (I am a a conservative libertarian after all, with heightened responses to such things.). I have the same reaction to child abuses, and wife-beaters.

In my work I tend to rely on the ternary set of emotions: Dominance-submission, excitement-calm, pleasure-pain.

And on the desire to acquire in all things without an cancelling loss. So I must be able to explain a behavior using these limited ‘operations’.

So in my view pedophilia must be a defect since the ‘behavioral economy’ produces such incentives against it, since the interests are against it, and there is no acquisitive value in the behavior whatsoever.

In other words, using the rough math of propertarianism, I can’t find a way for this to result in an acquisition. This is the value of propertarianism over empathic psychologism: one cannot so easily be fooled by cognitive biases.

If this sounds like a diagnosis lacking in empathy, it is. But the universe is pretty mechanical. We feel things because they correspond with the demands of the universe. We humans are expressions of physical laws. We aren’t all that special. We just have memories that we can use to predict and therefore outwit the universe’s ‘slower’ and deterministic method of progress through time. (and we are victim of faster processes).

Curt

( PS: I had not included a chapter on negatives in my book. This question suggest that I should include a few such examples. So John Black thank you for giving me one to work with. )