The Opposite of the Sociopath is the Libertarian

By John Hunt, MD

All who read know that sociopaths lie, cheat and steal, manipulate, control, defraud. Sociopaths seek out positions of power over others. The low functioning sociopath does this on a small scale—just ruining the life of an unsuspecting spouse, perhaps. The high functioning sociopath does this on a much grander scale, perhaps through the political system—ruining a country.

Sociopaths seek power. What better way to accomplish this than through politics? Think how much politicians have to lie to get elected. It is hard for a good person to get elected, in part because they don’t lie well. Sociopaths lie with practiced ease and no guilt. They concentrate themselves in government, quite naturally.

Ever wonder why government messes up so much? Why Congress is despised? Why presidents so often lie and mislead, strive for control over others, and somehow get away with it? Ever wonder why the government is so internally contradictory, so confusing, so incomprehensible, and yet somehow retains its total power over the people? Ever wonder why the largest debtor in the history of the world—the US government—which is an utterly bankrupt entity, somehow convinces people to loan it large sums of money, and the people accept loan repayment in the form of counterfeit currency printed out of thin air by the Federal Reserve? Do you see how sociopathic the government has become? A walking lie, a talking contradiction?

It is because the government is filled to the brims with sociopaths.

Force against fellow man

Politicians and bureaucrats have reserved for themselves the legal right to initiate force against their fellow man. Think about that for a moment. Anyone else who initiates force commits a crime, but not government! They are special! Moral law doesn’t apply to them! Sound familiar?

It doesn’t matter which party is in charge. Most recently they have compelled us to purchase really crappy and expensive financial products from their large corporate buddies (e.g., health insurance). But consider also the bipartisan support for forcible military conscription in the past, unconstitutional/illegal taxation and fees, the protection racket of the IRS, the spying and monitoring by the NSA, mandates for prescriptions for medications sold over-the-counter everywhere else in the world (the effect of which is to keep prices high for the profit of big pharma).

And fraud too. Consider the largest fraud in human history—the Federal Reserve—which creates money without work and doles it out to its morally bankrupt friends. Consider the ponzi schemes of Social Security and Medicare; and the totally illegal accounting methods of the federal government which artificially lower the government’s debt from $90 trillion to “only” $18 trillion, the justifications for which are so willingly accepted by a population in denial of obvious truths. The government is a giant con artist. A giant sociopathic monster. It’s all about control and manipulation. And they systematically gaslight us like crazy starting from kindergarten, to try to make us accept all this blatant criminality as appropriate!

No one knows what percentage of politicians and bureaucrats are sociopaths, but there is assuredly a high concentration of them in that realm. There are two reasons for this: 1) the sociopath’s skill set is perfect for politics and bureaucracy; 2) a position of legal unrestrained power over other humans is simply too intriguing for a high-functioning sociopath to let pass by.

The opposite: Libertarian

The political opposite, and social opposite, of the sociopath is the libertarian. A libertarian ascribes avidly, completely and thoroughly to the Nonaggression Principle. The Nonaggression Principle states that never, NEVER is it acceptable to initiate force or fraud against another human being. Wow. To a libertarian, no end ever justifies the use of an immoral means.

Now, this doesn’t make a libertarian a wimp. If someone attacks a libertarian without provocation, the libertarian wouldn’t hesitate to pop the dude in the face. But the libertarian wouldn’t attack, unless attacked first. The libertarian won’t lie, cheat, steal or defraud, excepting to take back something stolen. The libertarian will not initiate. But the libertarian will defend.

In a world in which cronyism is so dominant, it is easier to be successful by lying, cheating and stealing, or by rent seeking (convincing a politician to give you someone else’s money or property). Libertarians cannot do these things. They are incapable of doing them. How refreshing is that? Libertarians strive for a political system which allows their honesty to be rewarded instead of punished. We are a long way from that society.

Each of us has suffered from the actions of the sociopaths in our lives. Yet we are also the confused and willing victims of the sociopaths in government. We remain in denial about these controllers, manipulators, liars and cheaters. We give them unearned authority and unearned credibility because we are taught to believe that they have the right to tell us what to do. We stick their names on our bumper stickers. We send them money. We vote for them. What are we thinking?

My recommendation? If you want the opposite of the sociopath to be your partner, seek out a libertarian. If you want the opposite of a sociopath to be your representative in congress, to be your senator, or to be your president, seek out a libertarian.

Libertarians and sociopaths

Libertarians are likely to trust any individual who claims to be a libertarian or is a Ron Paul supporter. This is because libertarians abide by a personal code that makes them, by definition, principled and honorable people. However, libertarians are human. They have no greater education about sociopaths than anyone else. They can be faked out by sociopaths too, although usually not for long. Because sociopaths are such effective liars, you of course need to beware that they can put on the act of being a libertarian, the same way that sociopaths often pretend to be Christian—to take advantage of people’s desires to trust others. Indeed, sociopaths can infiltrate any philosophy. But the libertarian doctrine stands so adamantly in contrast to the sociopath’s hardwired and distorted brain, that the sociopath cannot hold to a fake libertarian act for long. Sociopathy used to be called “moral insanity”, and maybe it should be called that again. True libertarians are the opposite: they are morally rational.

To a libertarian, there is nothing more dangerous than lying to oneself. Sociopaths absolutely rely on the ability of their victims to lie to themselves. Libertarianism therefore is a vaccination against the infection and the cancer of the sociopath.

Just in case you have some false impression of libertarians, they are not on the fringe of society, although they are on the fringe of politics! They can be found in the Democratic or the Republican party (always as reformers), or as members of other political parties, or most commonly not as part of any political party. Libertarians are most aptly described as Americans of the style we usually consider the country’s founding fathers to be, except that they are also exceedingly tolerant.

Characteristics of a Libertarian

As a quick introduction to your study of what a libertarian is, here is my list of characteristics. Libertarians are above all individuals, but most all ascribe to these concepts.

  1. They don’t initiate force or fraud against their fellow man. They are principled.
  2. They are tolerant people. Tolerant of anything other than force or fraud.
  3. They don’t use government power to commit force or fraud to benefit themselves or others.
  4. They don’t use propaganda or gaslighting to manipulate the people.
  5. They don’t vote for politicians who want to use government power to commit force or fraud, or to compel people to behave a certain way, or to compel people to buy certain products. They only support politicians who recognize the only job of government is to protect people from the force and fraud of others. To a libertarian, neither democracy nor the voting booth should be considered or used as means of compulsion.
  6. Libertarians favor a strong defense, but don’t attack unless threatened.
  7. Libertarians are commonly described as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal”. Libertarians do not oppose gay marriage. The don’t believe that victimless crimes are crimes. They think marijuana should be legal. They do not think that anyone’s money should be stolen from them and given to another through the tax code. They don’t believe that forced giving is either charitable or moral, but rather “forced giving” is just a form of theft. They never support bailing out Wall Street, nor giving power to one group over another. They don’t ever lend government power to special interests (Special interests are the opposite of the “general welfare” of the Constitution). Libertarians think that government is supposed to work for the people, not people work for government. They are opposed to the NSA spying on American citizens. Libertarians like immigrants. They think that America is not a geographically imprisoned nation-state, but rather a philosophy that can be found all over the world. Libertarians want to put a wall around the welfare state, not a wall around the country. Many libertarians are highly charitable. Many libertarians righteously fight against anyone who uses force against them or defrauds them.
  8. Libertarians are thoughtful people who above all respect the dignity and freedom of the individual to live as each individual chooses.
  9. Because of the moral principles to which libertarians ascribe—which are consistent and predictable based on the Nonaggression Principle—they can, better than most, recognize the fraud that permeates society.

If you want a world in which the sociopaths are not messing with your life and wreaking their havoc on society right and left, learn about libertarianism. If you want a partner that is the entire opposite of a manipulative sociopath, find yourself a libertarian.

The trend in society toward libertarianism is a wonderful thing for those who recognize that sociopaths are the embodiment of evil in the world. The central defining characteristic of a libertarians is moral sanity. Sociopaths, in absolute contrast, are morally insane.

John Hunt, MD is a pediatric lung physician and author of the novel Assume the Physician, which teaches about the medical system through constant humor, as well as Higher Cause, and a soon to be released guide for childhood asthma management.

Posted in: Uncategorized

Comment on this article

Please Login to comment
Notify of

they wouldn’t have to take it or use it. but most who don’t want it and want to be left alone feel that way because of the price in dignity and privacy they must pay in order to receive that help in our society. if everyone just got a base level without having to prove Anything, wIthout hving there privacy invaded, Without giving up 5heir right to choose how to live 5heir lives or spend their money, it would not be charity the way we model it. even those who just want to be left alone need money And healthcare And fooD And Shelter, but they don’t want to give up their liberty and dignity and free will to get it. being poor is very expensive.


NotWhatHeSaidOfMe, I would urge you to read a book by Peggy Mcintosh. The title is Unpacking The Invisible Backpack. It deals with a of issues regarding privilege and poverty.


Imara, This sounds like an interesting read. I will share that I lived in poverty for many years, once living from my car and twice living on food stamps. I was on welfare once for 3 months when I was in my early 20’s. The way out of poverty for me was when I was in my early 30’s. I became a stripper for a short time and banked all the money, buying a condo and a car, paying off my car and remodeling the condo before I quit. The job was soulless, and I hated it most of the time, but it helped me more than any group of people, more than any family member, more than any government program. The job was my mother and father. In Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, survival was my most basic need. It was worth the darkness I subjected myself to by taking off my clothes for strange men to finally have financial freedom. (Now that I’m 54, they pay me to put my clothes back ON! LOL)

I remember feeling that I wish the government could do more, but in the end I “picked myself up by my bootstraps” and recovered with relatively little help other than my own internal resources. Most people I know would never do what I did, but I was thinking outside the box. It was my innovative thinking that saved my life. I was living with a narcissistic man (whom I later found out was a child molester). I was financially dependent on him. Doing the dangerous and sometimes degrading job that kept me on the outer fringes of mental health saved my life. Having battled with mental health issues most of my life, I felt like I had fallen through the cracks in society for many years. What little help I ever received from the government was not nearly enough. I was very angry about it for many years.

I have a different take on it now. Looking back to those times – some 22 years ago, I realize how isolated I was. Having come from an abusive family, I had no familial help and didn’t know how to form healthy bonds with those who might become a family and who might have helped me. Now I do.

We live in a culture that is very isolationist, where things are valued more than relationships. If we look to other cultures such as Latin American culture, they have no stuff, but they are much happier. Their relationships are everything to them. They are part of a family first before they are even individuals. In a different culture, I would have been taken in by a loving family or group of friends and cared for until I could find my own way.

It’s not just the government that needs to change. We need an entire paradigm shift where people start to understand that we cannot truly find peace and happiness while there are others who are suffering, because we are all connected. A government cannot force us to see this. We need to come to this conclusion on our own. I am seeing the tides of change occur in small ways. I bring this philosophy to work with me every day and everywhere I go. I care deeply for my friends and my co-workers and even a few people who would rather have nothing to do with me. I have observed positive changes in the work environment, as my co-workers start to look forward to going to work to connect with some loving people who care about them. Love changes people.


Why would you make such a book recommendation to me? It’s a book about white privilege. That’s kinda hostile towards me and seems to make assumptions that are totally offbase. Really not nice and doesn’t add to the topic of this discussion.


In my search to discover truths about some of these things (privilege, poverty, oppression) I have done a lot of reading and discussing with people. I have one point to make which is very difficult to make and be understood, but I will try 🙂

That is, that I have discovered that whenever I have a response of “hostility” towards an idea, that means there is something there for me to learn. My “hostility” is my resistance to having my paradigm challenged. I have further discovered that if I can acknowledge this dynamic (within myself) and nonetheless delve into the topic despite the resistance and discomfort, I will be confronted with the (oftentimes uncomfortable) lesson. My “discomfort” does me NO HARM WHATSOEVER, so long as I acknowledge it and choose to look anyway. And be open to whatever messages may come.

That does not mean I necessarily go away afterwards “embracing” the idea or even agreeing with any of it, but always I find my worldview has expanded, my understanding has increased. And sometimes it turns my world upside down.

So this is what I alluded to in an earlier post, which is, whenever we feel “offended,” that is a clue to us that there may be a defense mechanism going on within us, if we can but only consider that possibility and be willing to look more closely at the thing which caused that response in us, there is much wisdom there to be found (not necessarily what we think it is, or even what others hope we will see — the lesson is personal and individual).

Again, that is a clue, it is a difficult concept to get across. What I mean is that a response of “hostility” is a defense mechanism that keeps us stuck. (this is similar to what people sometimes call “hating on” something)

This (realization of what use we can make of a recognition of a “hostility” response within us) is also something that happens at a certain phase in one’s development, so I mean no judgement by it whatsoever. I only uncovered this myself, after a lot of time spent spinning my wheels.

I found that, the more I pay attention to the clues my emotions give me, the more I understand the big picture. And the more peace I experience.


Please know that I am okay with direct questions and insights. But I do find nuances hard, they make me wonder what the person really means. I do read A LOT. Because I grew up extremely poor, I looked to books, they were my window upon the world.

If you are saying that I am feeling offended, well yes. The book that was recommended is about bigotry and racism, that only people of color experience bigotry and racism. And all the rest of us have “privilege”. Which is used to justify why it’s moral to take from us and give the fruits of our labor to those on welfare.

I can pay attention to the clues my emotions give me and know that I am feeling the same outrage that I felt when dealing with the logic of my sociopath husband. And believe me, no matter how sweet and soft his words, the meaning was hostile.



What I wrote above was not intended as personal towards you, but was a general observation about my own life lessons that I have worked hard on, and a statement about where I am in my own journey, what I have learned *so far* but I know I still have a lot to learn… I offered it not as criticism towards anyone here, but because I had such a hard time learning that lesson, I guess my “intended audience” for that posting was someone who is at approximately the same point I was, who was ready to take the next step…. or someone who has already learned this lesson too, a bit ahead of me, who can validate or corroborate what I was saying.

But I know very, very well that people who have not had a similar experience will disagree or be offended by what I said, or tell me I’m “wrong” or that they can’t understand at all. That is OK.

But with regard to you personally and with regard to this book specifically (which I have not read but I did go to amazon to see what it is about), I am familiar with this issue of white privilege and I have a similar reaction and conclusions about it — and I found that delving into this topic further is teaching me many deep lessons about myself and my own prejudices and judgments towards myself and others. I can challenge myself and my own beliefs by facing this topic (which I have hostility towards) and what I’m finding is that I still disagree with taking from one to give to another (government welfare) but I am also gaining a new perspective. And my hostility is lessening.

With regard to your experience with your husband, no I was not at all referring to HIS emotions (his hostility) — only to ours. And what our emotions tell us.

It is very hard to describe emotions with words because they may stand for different things to different people. I am differentiating between a feeling of hostility (resistance, abrupt rejection, anger, judgment due to our own perceptions or beliefs about something) and feelings of outrage (the anger/hurt of betrayal because of something outrageous done to us).

I hope this explanation helps — but basically I was talking about me and my experience, not anyone else specifically!


Also…. your husband’s “hostility” (if that is what it was — but it was surely NEGATIVE in nature) would be a clue or lesson to HIM if only he could think of it that way. But I know that sociopaths do not. So the palpable hostility being beamed out of him towards you in a very focused way, IS felt by you and very damaging to you. Of course no matter how sugar coated the words, you pick up on the underlying negative emotion. That IS outrageous behavior on the part of your husband — that is deceptive, and in a stranger you can walk away, but in your spouse we are taught to work through things. But he was not playing by “fair” rules. There is no way to win this game (nor do we wish to play games with our spouses anyhow! A very maddening situation…)


Could not edit the comment…sorry!! I meant to say it deals with a lot of issues regarding….


Not I agree with 20years. No offense was intended at all. The dynamics of race privilege poverty and intentional harm caused by people we trusted and loved are all Big life lessons we have to tackle.
It’s hard!!!
I too come from a poor family, but have been privileged to get a higher education in the U.S.. I came to this country with nothing but one bag of books and worked like mad for every privilege I have. My kids went to an exclusive private school where they had conferences on diversity and how to be inclusive. I always have said that diversity comes from socio economic differences and is not just a matter of race or color.
I’m very grateful we live in a country where we can aid people who need a hand up.
Is there going to be fraud?? Of course!!!
There are dishonorable people all over each segment of society.
However I’ve said this before…. When we give from those that have in fairness and dignity to those that don’t, we keep a better happier social fabric for all!!!
The book was an eye opener for me on issues I had never given too much credence to before I read it.
I’ll write more ( and certainly more coherently) after I get home.
Still in Wimberley TX but will get back on Sunday….


I am quite familiar with the idea. There’s a famous quote, “From each according to his to ability to each according to his need.”

You are not “giving from those that have”, you are advocating TAKING… changing the meaning of TAKING to giving is Very Telling.

My entire family, other than me, are welfare rats. They love that philosophy, that someone OWES them. Their whole social circle ascribes to that belief.

ps Am so grateful that my child did not need diversity training. She sees people as people, not as segmented victims and those who owe others.

Envy is not an emotionally healthy path in life. It leads to victimizing and dehumanizing others.

No matter how sweet and gentle the words, taking is still taking. I have found that if you LET people donate, they give far more because they derive a benefit. There is NO benefit felt when something is forcibly TAKEN, but it does feed the entitlement attitudes of people like my siblings (“mah cheekkk, people OWES me”… never “gee this is to help me get on my feet and be a part of society”.)

1 5 6 7

Send this to a friend