Regarding the question of who typically holds political power, there is a vast difference between a healthy average individual, who feels aversion to harming others, empathy, and other social feelings, and a minority of “degenerates” who do not care about the well-being of others and are ready to realize their ambitions even at the cost of numerous victims. Obviously, individuals belonging to the first category simply do not strive for political power, preferring to build social connections based on voluntary agreements. And this clearly demonstrates the very essence of the institution of statehood, proving once again that states are simply stationary bandits.
I think everyone agrees that power is very often held by psychopathic personalities. This state of affairs could be explained by their high manipulative abilities. But that is not the only essence—in the struggle for power, such individuals simply face no serious competition. Healthy people do not need power supported by coercive force, nor are they likely to be able to utilize it to its full extent, even if they occupy a high political post. At the same time, a psychopath craves power and is always capable of using all its tools, including those for destroying potential competitors. Furthermore, upon taking power, they attract other similar personalities who also crave a high position. And fair and empathetic people are left with nothing but to step aside, otherwise state repression may be applied to them.
We can discuss for a long time the problems that the abuse of power leads to. But it would be better to see that such abuse is simply unavoidable. For the reasons already mentioned, a psychopath, or at least an individual who, while not completely ill, is nonetheless more insensitive, will always have an advantage in obtaining political power. Any “monopoly on violence” over time becomes a pathocracy—a regime where power belongs to people with mental disorders. And here it would be appropriate to ask the etatists—do you really want to live in a social system that will, at some point, guaranteedly hand your life over to the disposal of mentally ill individuals?
People studying the problem of pathocracies usually propose mandatory psychological evaluation for all potential candidates for political posts as a solution. Of course, if we analyze such an approach in more detail, we will realize that it is unlikely to avoid the problem of corruption. But if it worked, we would quickly obtain a government that is at least incapable of effectively resorting to repressive and violent tools. And this would make it easier to achieve a free, non-violent society.
Therefore, it is still important to develop methods of social pressure that would not allow psychopaths to achieve any success. Any individual who demonstrates signs of psychopathy, and even more so one who has committed violence in the past, should be subject to serious ostracism (especially in the sphere of electoral rights) and pushed toward therapeutic procedures aimed at treating their mental disorder. After all, to guaranteedly dismantle “monopolies on violence” and “stationary bandits,” we must first make the emergence of pathocracies absolutely impossible, i.e., solve the problem of the presence of violent psychopathic individuals in society. If there are none, no one will need any political power.
