That’s very interesting data, thanks!

if the pickup-artist example qualifies, it’s hard for me to take Stockholm Syndrome seriously.

I guess I didn’t put that clearly enough: I don’t think pick-up artists’s “victims” qualify as victims victims of Stockholm syndrome. I just wanted to point out that the mechanisms at work with Stockholm syndrome can be found everywhere in society and thus there isn’t a clear cut boundary between the everyday life and such extreme situations as my locked-up child example.

By the way, could you point out to me where Hayek and Galbraith argue about the source of people’s preferences? That should be interesting.

I argued with Will Wilkinson over “false consciousness” here. Hayek and Galbraith argued about the source of people’s preferences long ago, so this is nothing new. The summary is that while it is true that our genes interact with our environment to produce our preferences, the end result is that VIRTUALLY NO PREFERENCES ARE SAFE FROM INVALIDATION. Let anyone with the desire to second-guess choices get their nose in the door and you will have completely abdicated your authority over yourself.

I took an extreme view of parent-child relations here.

Thank you!

This is why it’s so important that we get our heads out of the theoretical clouds once in a while. We can develop ideas that are so abstracted from reality that we forget how fragile and vulnerable the human actually is.

That’s a crucial point. I’ve gotten many fresh perspectives on certain points in libertarian theory simply by living life.

Because it is less likely to witness the concurrence of all relevant factors than just coercion in combination with a “small kindness”. The latter though would usually not be enough to induce Stockholm Syndrome.

Ok, got it. Well I think I focused on the “small kindness” thing because that’s what’s crucial, imho. You find the other three factors everywhere to some degree but “small kindness” is only (consciously or unconsciously) exploited by certain people.

Aren’t there many libertarians that denounce the concept of psychological pathology in general?

Yes, at least Thomas Szasz and his followers. But I’m not sure how convincing I find his arguments. It seems to me like it might be tautological or even question-begging (people have to be free thus there can’t be any psychological illnesses).

But since “society” is not a conscious actor, it cannot pose any legal demands to the individual. Therefore, in regard to a legal theory, I do not see an alternative to individualism.

Yes, of course. But part of the communitarian critique of individualism claims (put in economic-libertarian terminology) that people’s preferences aren’t formed in peoples heads but have their roots in “society”. While this, as you say, wouldn’t imply that “society” should have rights, it does pose a challenge to libertarian ethics, imho. But as I said, I need to think this through some more.

Because it is less likely to witness the concurrence of all relevant factors than just coercion in combination with a “small kindness”. The latter though would usually not be enough to induce Stockholm Syndrome.

“But it isn’t as clear that these people suffer from a condition which could be described as pathological as it is in my example of the locked up child.”

Aren’t there many libertarians that denounce the concept of psychological pathology in general? In the end, the notion of pathology is just socially constructed. So one could consider Communistes psychologically deficient as well…

“Do you think we don’t know enough about that yet or that we’ll never know enough about it?”

I really don’t know. If I remember correctly, Mises opted for “yet” in Human Action. I don’t see any dramatic scientific breakthroughs, though…

“I think there is something to the communitarian critique of liberal individualism”

Based on my constructivist views, I have to agree. In my opinion, the individual cannot be conceived without society – and vice versa. But since “society” is not a conscious actor, it cannot pose any legal demands to the individual. Therefore, in regard to a legal theory, I do not see an alternative to individualism.