Pathocracy

[MystifyingVol]

I was doing some research on another subject and ran across a term that I had never heard before and quite frankly had never given any thought. That word is Pathocracy, which is defined as tyranny at the hand of psychopaths.

The first article that introduced me to the concept is located at Activist Post: Pathocracy: Tyranny at the Hand of Psychopaths.

Today, LewRockwell.com had a similar article entitled The Ascendence of Sociopaths in US Governance.

I think the first article is a bit over the top, but the one by Doug Casey really got me thinking... are the vast majority of the politicians at the top, irregardless of party affiliation, sociopaths?

I'm not going to summarize both articles, if you are interested in the topic, go and read them. I will pull out one section in Doug's article though:

Conditions for them in the US are becoming quite favorable. Have you ever wondered where the 50,000 people employed by the TSA to inspect and degrade you came from? Most of them are middle-aged. Did they have jobs before they started doing something that any normal person would consider demeaning? Most did, but they were attracted to – not repelled by – a job where they wear a costume and abuse their fellow citizens all day.

Few of them can imagine that they're shepherding in a police state as they play their roles in security theater. (A reinforced door on the pilots' cabin is probably all that's actually needed, although the most effective solution would be to hold each airline responsible for its own security and for the harm done if it fails to protect passengers and third parties.) But the 50,000 newly employed are exactly the same type of people who joined the Gestapo – eager to help in the project of controlling everyone. Nobody was drafted into the Gestapo.

What's going on here is an instance of Pareto's Law. That's the 80-20 rule that tells us, for example, that 80% of your sales come from 20% of your salesmen or that 20% of the population are responsible for 80% of the crime.

As I see it, 80% of people are basically decent; their basic instincts are to live by the Boy Scout virtues. 20% of people, however, are what you might call potential trouble sources, inclined toward doing the wrong thing when the opportunity presents itself. They might now be shoe clerks, mailmen or waitresses – they seem perfectly benign in normal times. They play baseball on weekends and pet the family dog. However, given the chance, they will sign up for the Gestapo, the Stasi, the KGB, the TSA, Homeland Security or whatever. Many are well intentioned but likely to favor force as the solution to any problem.

But it doesn't end there, because 20% of that 20% are really bad actors. They are drawn to government and other positions where they can work their will on other people and, because they're enthusiastic about government, they rise to leadership positions. They remake the culture of the organizations they run in their own image. Gradually, non-sociopaths can no longer stand being there. They leave. Soon the whole barrel is full of bad apples. That's what's happening today in the US.

 

[PKT_VOL]

A bit of a stretch. There is a kernel of truth though. I am just not sure how big the kernel is.

 

[MG1968]

listening to Obama speak about domestic energy production should be enough to convince anyone that he's a pathological liar

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

listening to Obama speak about domestic energy production should be enough to convince anyone that he's a pathological liar

So he's a politician then?

 

[RespectTradition]

A little dated, but...

Classically Liberal: Anyone who wants the office is unfit to have it.

Now the powers of the presidency are so far beyond anything imagined by the Constitution that it acts like a magnet attracting every power-hungry, second rate politician to the job. One reason it is so difficult to find decent candidates is that the office itself is now inherently indecent -- it is a major engine of destruction and suffering, both for the United States and the world as a whole.

The nature of the office today is such that it attracts people emotionally suited to the powers offered. That means individuals who are ego maniacs, thirsty for power, authoritarian and welling to stoop to the lowest levels possible in order to grab the things they want. When the presidency offers almost unlimited powers it attracts only the most immoral of candidates. The reason the candidates are so disgusting is that the office they are seeking can only attract the worst. Power attracts the lowest common denominator.

Any man or woman of basic decency wouldn’t want to have the sort of powers that George Bush relishes. Bush is like a pig in a mud bath. He loves the powers. In fact, he loves them so much that he keeps inventing new powers for himself. Lord Acton said that “power corrupts” and he is certainly right. But power does more than that. Power also attracts the corrupt. It appeals to those individuals who lack the sort of moral restraints that allow societies to work. The accumulation of power appeals to the ruthless and the more power that is accumulated the more ruthless the politicians attracted to the job.
...
There is an inverse relationship between state power and the individual character of people operating the state. As state power increases the moral character of the individuals seeking the levers of power decreases. We have reached the stage where the unconstitutional powers acquired by the presidency are so vast that I seriously doubt any moral individual would seriously seek the office. The mere desire to be president today ought to be a warning that the candidate is not fit to hold the office. The more desperate they are for the position the lower their moral character.

 

[lawgator1]

Doubtless, it takes a certain type of personality to want to be, and to run for, POTUS. I'd say:

1) Huge ego and sense of confidence. Able to withstand criticism from literally millions and not screw you up.

2) Greed for power. 'nuff said.

3) Commitment. To something, some ideal, some core set of beliefs.

4) Able to justify anything to oneself. I mean, to get that far in politics you have to be beholden to so many people, so many interests, that I can see no way you haven't compromised yourself, and maybe even those commitments mentioned above, to get there.

5) Sacrifice. I don't care how much of a high it gives you to run and win, look at what it does to these men, physically. Just to run, much less actually deal with being POTUS for 4-8 years.

 

[MystifyingVol]

#4 is so much easier if you're a sociopath.

 

[MG1968]

So he's a politician then?

Bill Clinton is a politician, Obama is the doofus fry cook suddenly elevated to McDonald's district manager.