Тег: Psychopaths

Who strives for political power and how to solve the problem of pathocracies

Voluntarist, Bitarch

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.

How violent personalities evaluate themselves and what to do about it

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Understanding the pathology of violent behavior may face the problem that a person who, due to a dysfunctional violence inhibitor, is capable of easily committing it, is unlikely to evaluate themselves as an unhealthy personality. Many disorders lead to negative symptoms clearly felt by the person, such as anxiety, mood deterioration, depression, suicidal thoughts, and others. But the matter is more complex when the disorder itself does not cause suffering. The ability to commit violence as a result of a person’s lack of a reaction of rejection and resistance to causing harm to other people belongs precisely to such disorders. Let’s examine this problem in more detail and find out what it is important for us to understand about violent personalities in view of this.

A good option would be to look at people with psychopathic predispositions, since psychopathy is a direct result of the impairment of the violence inhibitor’s function. As Robert Hare, who developed the well-known PCL checklist for assessing psychopathic traits, writes, psychopaths have a narcissistic and extremely inflated view of their self-esteem and importance, a truly astounding egocentrism and sense of self-worth; they consider themselves the center of the universe, superior beings who have the right to live by their own rules. He also considered the issue of treating psychopaths. According to him, the term “treatment” implies that there is something to treat: a disease, subjective distress, inadequate behavior, etc. But, as far as we can determine, psychopaths are quite satisfied with themselves and see no need for treatment, at least in the traditional sense of the word.

Certainly, psychopaths have an inflated view of themselves. They consider themselves important and worthy. They often feel entitled to live by their own rules and think that laws do not apply to them. They tend to have grandiose ideas about their potential. They believe they deserve to be the CEO of a company, or are convinced that they are the best in all matters.

Such personality characteristics of violent individuals are not surprising. From early childhood, they experience no negative feelings when causing harm to others and, accordingly, consider this normal. Manifestations of empathy, compassion, and the inability to commit violent attacks, which are inherent in the average and healthy individual, are perceived by them as weakness. Perhaps this is precisely what predisposes them to place themselves above others.

All this, of course, hinders the eradication of violence from society, since the perpetrators themselves often do not consider themselves abnormal or sick. They should always be reminded of this, referring to the theory of the violence inhibition mechanism and the pathology of their condition according to medical definitions. In particular, one can recall Wakefield’s criteria for disorder, which a condition meets if it arises as a result of the inability of some internal mechanism to perform its biological function (in our case, this concerns the violence inhibitor) and leads to the causing of harm.

But the most effective method would be to exert strong social pressure on them. A person with a dysfunction of the violence inhibitor must understand that no one will risk having any dealings with them until they agree to therapy that restores inhibitory control. Such people are more dangerous even than those suffering from infectious diseases, whom hardly anyone would now take for study, work, or risk starting a family with without undergoing treatment. If a significant part of society understands this, and if an effective therapy against violence is developed, then violent people will seek treatment based on rational considerations. Of course, there will be those who will not do so even under social pressure. They must be monitored closely, and one must be ready for self-defense, which may also include the use of therapeutic drugs on the attacker.