Antisocial
A largely misunderstood concept. Literally meaning "against society," it can be used negatively, as to indicate misanthropic personalities, or positively, in the sense that under certain circumstances, standing against the popular consensus of one's society is favourable.In this second context, the concept can take on the proportions of nobility, provided that the interests one's antisocial stand advance are not primarily personal. In classic literature and philosophy, attitudes which primarily benefit oneself first, either at the expense of others, or at the secondary benefit of others, come together to form the generally-accepted concept of evil. Virtue, in its most basic expression, is usually the result of a selfish person denying their personal desires, and serving the interests of another. This basic balance of evil/good generally determines which type of antisocial behaviour is acceptable, even commendable.
Notable antisocial heroes include: George Washington--include most American Founding Fathers (government, society); Marquis de Sade (freedom of expression); Lenin (economics); Queen Victoria (government, society); Martin Luther (government, religion); Matt Groening (freedom of expression); Mike Judge (freedom of expression).
Abolitionists, though commendable, are antisocial by nature of their being known as abolitionists. This means, because laws preserving the right of some people to own other people existed, conscientious people who opposed the laws opposed the government which enforced and protected the laws. Where there is no need to resist, there is no resistance, and there cannot therefore be antisocial intent (as opposed to antisocial personality).
Modern-day abolitionists, perhaps most prominently those who seek to legalise marijuana, are also antisocial, although they would have society in general believe that their position is in the interest of the public good (positive). Thus, glamourous celebrities make pro-legalisation statements while respectable, intelligent people read off projected decreases in public spending, due to a reduced need to pursue justice for marijuana offenses. Simultaneously, the potential medical benefits of marijuana receive steady, credible attention. While this information certainly improves the image of marijuana in the mind of the public, that it is presented as part of an overall campaign to abolish laws which control the drug's production, sale and distribution, it undermines the authority of government to govern. Since government asserts itself as the only legitimate body to decide what is to be considered the public good, such information, and those who propogate it, are antisocial.
Those who do not want marijuana to become legal try to convince society that those who strive to abolish drug laws are misanthropic. Traditionally, their propaganda focussed on marijuana as the exact opposite of what abolitionists claim it to be. Overexaggerated side-effects, contrived stories of individuals driven to madness by marijuana use, and dubious medical evidence "proving" how bad marijuana is, has been a large part of anti-drug campaigns. In light of wide acceptance of marijuana's medicinal benefits, the focus of "why" marijuana is evil, and should therefore remain illegal, has been heavier placed against the individuals who produce, distribute, defend, or refuse to excoriate the drug. We are pressed to see users of marijuana not as upper-middle-class managers and Presidents of the United States, but rather as dirty, poor, smelly, criminals, people devoid of morals who cannot be trusted. They want people to believe abolitionists' antisocial behaviour is negative.
If the drug issue were as simple as evil-vs-good, this opinion could not be considered antisocial, since the government would, ethically, be operating to protect people from what it believes to be evil. However, under any other circumstances, government interference in this matter could be seen as operating from a different standpoint, one outside its authority. In such a case, the government could be antisocial in its actions.
In actual fact, issues other than evil/good are what prevent governments from decriminalising marijuana. The most likely issue is probably because governments are often among the chief benefactors and beneficiaries of the drug trade. In certain cases, governments covertly control either the production, sale, and/or distribution of drugs, and as is often the case, they operate the narcotics apparati.
If such a situation exists then the government retaining the benefits of the drug trade could be considered to be operating against the interests of the polity, and thus be antisocial. Certainly, control of, and benefit from the drug trade as a profit-making venture cannot be considered to be pursued in the interests of the public good, as governmental propaganda consistently characterises drugs, and especially those who use and distribute them, as being inherently evil.
Thus, antisocial abolitionists could be matched against a morally equal, antisocial government, and in practise this is a more realistic picture of society. Therefore, who is negatively antisocial, and who is positively antisocial becomes a subjective matter, which depends on how one's antisocial behaviour benefits oneself, or others. Under these conditions, it is possible to observe neighbourhoods where crime figures are trusted heroes, and authority figures are security threats.
The average citizen in such a situation is, then, forced to choose between antisocial forces on the basis of what is most beneficial to themselves. As explained above, this is evil in the classical sense, and one who remains in such a situation is therefore forced to choose the lesser of evils in order to survive.
More baffling than the moral criss-cross created by the drug trade is the ability of the extremes of antisocial intent to stabilise societies. For nearly fifty years, the major powers of the civilised Western world managed to not war with each other directly, or to war against Eastern Europe. Proxy wars occurred in distant countries, rather than in the shores, harbours, and fields of Europe and North America. The reason for this was the ultimate development in antisocial behaviour, the invention of the atomic bomb. With nuclear proliferation and the Cold War, an uneasy calm resulted from the surety that using nuclear weapons would absolutely kill everyone involved. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, and subsequent nuclear disarmament, the return of local warfare, where only most of the people will die, not everyone involved, demonstrates that antisocial and misanthropic behaviour had been held back by the fear of annihilation.
Whether playing with millions of lives with nuclear bombs, or by trafficking heroin and cocaine, when a government is in a position of moral turpitude, it is often left to individuals who exercise "positive" antisocial behaviour to impose their will upon the ruling power, in order to serve the best interests of the public at large.
Revolution is a decreasingly common method to prevent those who have lost their moral ability to rule from exploiting and causing harm to the public. Unfortunately, few revolutions occur which effectively replace tyranny with genuine freedom, and in those rare cases where liberty prevails, a century or so is about all it takes for imperialism to reorganise.
The use of force to oust the ruling power is, of course, decreasing in use, and has proven inadviseable for lasting change. Regardless of how lukewarm modern democracy may be, shifting public opinion against tyranny remains the most favourable method of eliminating from power those who do not deserve to rule. Here is where antisocial heroes may put away their arms, and find alternative methods to fighting oppression.
Satire and sarcasm are excellent examples of antisocial behaviour which possess morally redemptive attributes. Variously described as perverse, twisted, backward, and bent, inter alia, they are age-old methods of illustrating what is wrong with society. Executed correctly, one can clearly point out the shortcomings of one's leadership without directly coming out and making statements worthy of punishment, or a listing on any type of homeland security bureau listing one's free, liberally democratic nation may have decided it should install over you.
Without getting into "hypothetical" situations which would probably bear more truth than mainstream news sources, we abbreviate ourselves to finally stating that, as it is inadviseable to take up arms against one's government, if one's conscience requires one to take an antisocial stance, finding non-violent means by which to stand and act can be very effective.
If one desires to express virtue in their antisocial behaviour, they should keep the interests of others ahead of their own. If one desires to express evil, then they should be aware that expressing their antisocial tendencies will benefit themselves alone, and either not help others, or actually do harm to them. This is not adviseable, although evil people may choose to read the truth about the drug trade above for a working example of evil in action.
(See also Cynicism).