By John Hunt, MD
All who read Lovefraud.com 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.
- They don’t initiate force or fraud against their fellow man. They are principled.
- They are tolerant people. Tolerant of anything other than force or fraud.
- They don’t use government power to commit force or fraud to benefit themselves or others.
- They don’t use propaganda or gaslighting to manipulate the people.
- 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.
- Libertarians favor a strong defense, but don’t attack unless threatened.
- 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.
- Libertarians are thoughtful people who above all respect the dignity and freedom of the individual to live as each individual chooses.
- 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.
Imara, I am really appreciating your comments!
Philomela
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you for writing and publishing this, John Hunt and Donna Anderson.
I am a Libertarian. I was at the first Tea Party march in DC before the Tea Party was vilified and taken over by the radical religious right. Oh, yes there is psychopathy on The Hill. Be it Liberal or Conservative, be it Republican or Democrat, be in administrative, executive or legislative psychopathy abounds. We, the people are being targeted by a band of power hungry psychopaths. They all have the same goal and that is to remain in power and as the obama said, “substantially change America.” They want to destroy our freedom and created a superior class for themselves. Being psychopaths, they have no concept other than acquiring more power, more money, more votes, more anything regardless of the cost to others. Psychopaths enjoy hurting others so these guys have a win win situation going. They have almost won with the divide and conquer ploys to divide by race, religion or whatever so the people argue over non-issues while they pocket the spoils. They have lied and manipulated to the point of confusing people about not only what they represent but what is right and wrong. People no longer even know these are our representatives, not our Kings and Queens. We are at the point that many do not know who or what to vote for and votes can be purchased with a free cell phone. Treasonous crimes are being committed and lied away in the name of “transparency” which is 180 degrees from what it is supposed to mean.
If patriots and Americans of all races, creeds and political ideology do not join together against this political conspiracy to destroy our Constitutional Democratic Republic soon, we will lose it all. There will be no more freedom, no more freebies, no more choices. We will be told what to do and when and how to do it or else. There will be no need to argue about abortion rights, gay rights, religious rights, civil rights, they will all be gone. We must open the eyes of the blind who cannot see that both Republicans and Democrats are corrupt. Many are psychopaths, others perhaps just minions but we, the people must save our freedoms now or they will be gone from the earth forever.
i think this same article could have been written very well and much more effectively in getting people to think about the problems of sociopaths in government, and would not be so alienating and contentious if it did not include the touting of one political party or ideology over another. i find this very devisive and i feel that the way this article promotes libertarianism is to insult the knowledge, intelligence and, integrity of those who may believe that liberterianism (as its policies are in our political system and economy) may be the worst of all solutions, or may simply disagree. i agree that there are many sociopaths in our government in all the political parties. what i am objecting to is the the writing of this as a libertarian political platform, and the not s8 subtle implications through oyt the post, that those who may disagree are somehow, sociopaths. i believe that such things on this site, negatively affect the credibility of the site as an education tool or reference on sociopathy.
i have recommended this site to many people in order to help educate them about sociopathy and have generally found the articles and posts thoughtful, insightful and measured and even those posts more focused on christianity or spirituality, in general do not insult or accuse those whose beliefs or path may be different. i cannot say the same about this article.I feel strongly s inclusion on LF will make me think twice about referring people to this site as a reputable, first and primary resource on sociopathy education. I think it is unfortunate to have such a valuable site discredit itself. i have been on this site for more thanb5 years and have never felt such a string negative reaction to anything posted here. it makes me very sad.
please excuse my typos in my comments. i am typing on a tiny phone and find it hard to correct them on here.
I had to go back and re-read Dr. Hunt’s article since there are some different impressions of it in the comments. Upon re-reading it, I continue to think it is a very important and very well written article. It delves more deeply than is typically done, into the commonalities between interpersonal relationships with spaths, and what we as a society experience, with a sociopathic government system. The article does a great job of distinguishing between political viewpoints and philosophical viewpoints, although this is difficult to do, because unfortunately our society has a taboo against speaking about political ideas. I find that very interesting. I’m not saying that we Americans don’t talk politics, but I am saying that it isn’t usually considered polite, so a lot of people shy away from it or take offense. Well, I have a thought about that. Perhaps we have been trained to think that way, and if more of us would be less afraid to speak up and say that the emperor has no clothes, we might be further along at this point in understanding that we (the people) are very much in a sociopathic situation, where we are being lied to and controlled (though deception). It may be rude to point that out, but it is the truth.
I am drawing parallels in my mind between how hard it is to speak up and speak out against tyranny — and how hard it is to articulate to others about our relationships with spaths. So many of us have had the experience of not being believed, because they believed the spath’s lies instead, that we were the crazy ones, and the spaths seemed so calm and together.
So… couldn’t it be also true, that we are in this situation, where no, our government actually is overrun and controlled by spaths, but no one says much of anything about it. Afraid to believe it. Afraid to say it. Not knowing if we would be criticized or ostracized for speaking up. If we would “offend” people by speaking up. Being told we are being too “political” and therefore we should keep these views to ourselves, or go find a different forum.
Think about it.
i think we are all agreeing that the government is full of Spaths. we are disagreeing on the solution..
i would say that i am a socialist economically, who is also a firm believer in the democratic process. i understand the history id=f libertarianism quite well. But i think it is often forgotten that the founders of this country were not against taxation. they were against taxation without representation. we also forget that in the good old many of the great fortunes made were predicated on great crimes an inhumanities, and how recent many of the laws are that give even some of the most basic economic rights to women. i think labor laws, laws against polluting, regulation of banks, laws against child labor, laws against beating one’s wife, etc …. are good things. i think medical care, child care, food and housing, in a first world country, should be a human right. I believe that our view of what constitutes economic contribution tis skewed to a white male power elite view.I believe that history has shown that we cannot simply relt on hoping for good will and conscience to ensure the well being of others. all contribute to the ability of the whole e to create wealth and stability, we just have a habit of having a very narrow view . hese are all beliefs OPPOSITE to a Libertarian view…..so under your definition I guess i would be a sociopath. however, i do not meet any of the criteria on t he sociopath checklist. the opposite of a sociopath IS NoT a libertarian, the opposite of a sociopath is an Empath. Just a note: i also believe that any decision about one’s own sexuality, body, religion, etc . is not the purpose of government unless your actions do harm to others. I also believe in free speech short of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. Just because i am opposed to the platform of the Libertarian party, and in fact consider my views to be almost the polar opposite of the libertarian political platform, i do not believe that makes me a spath, nor would i ever say or imply that (despite my passionate disagreement with what your views seem to be), would i ever imply that this on its face makes you spath. i simply disagree with you. what does bother me is your implication that anyone who doesn’t believe as you do is misinformed, uneducated, not thoughtful And/or a spath. i find that aspect of your article highly offensive and highly suspect. i guess i will stop here since ibthunk i have explained my perspective as well as i can, and already given this more attention than it deserves, and if i am speaking to someone who has no real interest in hearing or considering my point of view, i am wasting my time.
Philomela,
You have made a good comment in saying the opposite of a sociopath is an empath. From an emotional and interpersonal point of view, on first thought it seems you are very right. My article was limited to a moral philosophy, although I certainly failed to make that clear in my title for which I again apologize. I do not consider that libertarians have any sort of monopoly or special talent in regards to empathy.
In regard to the moral philosophy, however, there is a large spectrum, no doubt, between textbook sociopath on the one side and libertarian on the opposite side. There is plenty of room for moral differences of degree without fitting criteria for sociopathy. So there is no suggestion that if one is not a libertarian, one must be a sociopath. Not at all. However, if one seeks to distance oneself from the disease of the all-too-sneaky sociopaths, education in libertarianism is a very strong medicine.
A discussion about “socialism” (what I might call compulsory obedience to whatever the politically powerful decide might be the “greater good”), or about what you might mean by “democracy” (and what I might call tyranny of the majority), and what define “rights” and the difference between natural laws of humanity vs. civil laws of politicians, all are far beyond our scope tonight, yet can occasionally be fruitful conversations to have.
I hope you take solace knowing that the libertarian will not ever force his or her manner of living on you.
Anyhow, please live however you wish (as long as you harm no one), and I do hope you prosper!
Thank You for voicing a lot of my opinions Philomela!!
John I do believe that most people of conscience do understand the concept of what constitutes greater good.
Imara, people of conscience might well understand their personal concept of greater good, although “greater good” is greatly dependent on what values one holds dear, and it varies from person to person. Some people value liberty, some value security, some value production, some value jobs, some value vacation, some value respect for authority, some value equality of opportunity, some value equality of outcome. That’s a lot of opportunity to provide radically different greater goods depending on how one prioritizes the various goods.
The question is, are the people who seek and obtain political power, and therefore are in the position to enact their particular versions of the greater good, more likely to be people of conscience? Or more likely to be sociopaths?
John, I really do wish that I could really participate in this discussion with more time and energy….I’m a volunteer for the Red Cross and have been putting in long hours with the floods in Texas.
That said I agree that the ‘greater good’ is dependent on value systems. However these value systems are not dictated by individuals but by the collective societal mores and norms. Sociopathic infiltration is inevitable in any group dynamic where there is the possibility to operate in order to gain control, power and positions of influence. These disordered people disrupt the harmonious societal operation. This seems to exist no matter which form of governance is in use.
My belief is that public education on the benefits of cooperative governance starting at grass root level may be one way to combat political predation.
I do also believe that we need a come back of good old fashioned shame. To answer your last question I do believe in the capacity for altruism. So there are some (fewer and rarer now due to many many reasons)who seek political platforms to enhance quality of life for fellow citizens. I find them more in smaller community elections than on state or national platforms.
ASPD label itself tells us that no matter what ideology we subscribe to disordered anti societal predators will lurk. Our best defense may be to circle the wagons and learn to distance our societal communal selves from people who break moral and ethical laws.
John,
i do not think you understand, socialism, perhaps you are confusing it with communism and fascism (socialism being an economic system rather than as capitalusm is an economic system). one can have a democracy, or to guard against “tyranny of the majority” , a republic as the us is and as our constitution provides in order to guard against the “tyranny” of the majority.” i personnally find any tyranny to be a problem, at 5hat includes the tyranny of the strong over the weak, the priveleged over the less priveleged,
I agree, tyranny is bad in all its forms. You may have some libertarianism in you. Please don’t take that as a taunt or insult.
I may not understand socialism in precisely the same way as you do, philomela. In socialism, government controls the means of production and distribution, right? That’s the textbook definition. Of course the next question becomes: who controls the government? And do you trust them with such awesome power? We have had a long run of politicians who do not seem to me to be worthy of transferring our rights to.
What is the fix to keep sociopaths out of political power?
You keep them out by requiring candidates take the Hare Index, administered by a trained professional. The candidate has to agree to have the results published. They have a tantrum but they generally go away.
Libertarianism as a philosophy sounds entirely reasonable and if practiced at the local level can work well because when people know and care about each other normal people can see how it works. But psychopaths are attracted to power and any organization of any kind will become infected by them if you do not have a structure which allows people to know each other well and prove themselves BEFORE they are trusted with valuable assets of any kind. The same is true for the Elks, which handles this issue by only advancing people at the National level who have decades of time invested and are well known to many, many members.
The LP barely extracted themselves by an almost immediate takeover by the Kochs in 1979 at the National Convention in Los Angeles. It never recovered.
Only the most localized governance works. – Melinda
Philomela and John, these are difficult concepts to talk about. Some of us have been exposed to them in school and some have studied on our own, and some have little exposure. What I’m saying is, the terms used by us may stand for different things, so arguments can arise.
All I hope to throw into this mix is the website I have found very helpful in elevating my awareness of political ideology and moral philosophy — that is the website The Political Compass (I mentioned this in another comment). It came to my mind when I read your article, because your contention that Libertarianism is the opposite of Sociopathy did align with the “y” axis (or social dimension) on the Political Compass site, whereby one end of the axis is “Authoritarianism” (or total power/control over people; fascism) and the other end of the axis is “Libertarianism” (or, anarchism). The “x” axis (or economic dimension) is the more familiar “left” or “right”). And so, socialism would fall into the upper left quadrant of power/control over people, and on the far right, is less concern with humanity as a whole.
If this sounds complicated, it is. I am more in favor of reaching a common language about it and having discussions for the purpose of our growth in understanding, rather than criticizing or offending or being offended. This is just one way of looking at it, a way that was helpful to me.
To see the “y” axis as having to do with power/control OVER people (the sociopathy axis) and at the other end of that axis, the individual retains control over his/her life. And the “x” axis has to do with groups of people, rather than individual people (for instance, do we help “the poor” through social programs and taxation of others, or do we leave them alone and trickle down some benefits because the free market works to our advantage too).
Of interest to me in this discussion is that the word “Libertarian” is used in two places on the Political Compass — it is used at the bottom of the “y” axis (opposite of Authoritarian) and at the far right of the “x” axis (Libertarianism as being opposite of Communism).
There is a wide spectrum of where a “Libertarian” could fall, either left or right, and closer to the “x” axis, or closer to “anarchy.”
So I do not view “Libertarians” as anything other than being against power and control over other people in their philosophy. Some are in favor of social programs and devote their lives to helping the less fortunate. And some are more individualistic and have a “live and let live” philosophy.
YES!!!
Many people would find they align themselves with libertarianism primarily, if they were willing to overcome false propaganda, and examine it themselves along with the various other philosophies.
One comment to 20years– Thanks for the information on the Political Compass website. Note that the words are often changed, rather intentionally and subversively. Words are a means of control and manipulation, of course.
For example, the world “liberal” initially developed from the French and Scottish Enlightenment liberals–a philosophy focused on individual freedom and limited government, what is now called “libertarian”. The word “libertarian” was invented because the word “liberal” had been intentionally hijacked in the United States and became a statist term economically, meaning the opposite of free (economically–although it maintains much of its originally meaning socially). Strangely, “liberal” when referring to former soviet blocks countries meant “more free” and “conservative” meant “more socialism”, while “liberal” in the US means “more socialism” and conservative means–well I don’t know what that means anymore. Conservative use to mean “slow to change”. Now the conservatives generally want radical economic change (back to more economic liberty), while not wanting social change like gay marriage. The term conservative is in flux. The term “neoconservative” was another successful attempt at word hijacking, accomplished very intentionally by the Fabian socialists, from which neoconservatism developed.
Then what about “anarchy”? We are taught in school that anarchy means the absence of law, or the absence of rules. Of course that is not correct. Anarchy does not mean the absence of rules, it means the absence of RULERS. Monarchy= one ruler. Oligarchy = several rulers. Anarchy= no rulers.
When considering sociopaths and their drives for power, government is a huge feast for them. Especially governments unrestrained by strict constitutions. Yet anarchy may not sustain long because sociopaths would try to become rulers. If there were no sociopaths to maneuver their way into control, anarchy might be more sustainable, or if those sociopaths who maneuvered themselves into power were immediately refused by an educated populace fully aware of sociopathy and self-empowered to defend themselves against them, then anarchy might be sustainable. But that situation is a long way off.
Government’s role should be to prevent and punish the committers of force and fraud whether they be outright sociopaths, or just behaving with sociopathic characteristics. Sociopaths should FEAR government. Unfortunately, government is the now the primary committer of force and fraud, and a perfectly comfortable and nourishing home for sociopaths. Rarely does government punish sociopaths, and commonly it rewards them.
The question then becomes, how do we disempower sociopaths? Education, such as emerges from this site, is essential. But to me, it also means disempowering the governments and those within the governments when they behave sociopathically. And the politicians least likely to be sociopaths are, by my reasoning, the true, well tested, long time proven libertarians from whatever party they happen to align themselves with.
Testing all politicians to determine if they are sociopaths is an intriguing idea. Someone need to test the testers of course, and the testers of the testers, for the sociopaths will find their way to mess with that system, label the testing a “witch hunt” and other verbal methods to try to prevent such testing. But I like the idea. Perhaps I should never support anyone who runs for political office unless he /she has undertaken an acceptable test for sociopathy and shown us the results. Their political opponents and the media however would manipulate that headline. I can see the NY Times or MSNBC reporting “Rand Paul tested for sociopathy!” without bothering to emphasize any results (that I think would be normal). And the population would to a great extent not read past the headline. So I can see why politicians might refuse to be tested, even if they are not sociopaths.
Gosh we live in a tough world. It would be so much better if sociopaths simply disappeared altogether. There needs to be a book about that!
I am solution-oriented, too. I keep zooming in for a closer look, then zooming out for a big picture view. In so doing, I am trying to hold many ideas in mind at once, but the goal is to move towards a solution of this problem of the sociopath (or, another way to put it as I sometimes do, the problem of human evil).
So I am trying to take what I have learned so far about sociopaths through my personal interactions with them, and how I went about solving some of the persistent difficulties I was having in dealing with them.
One of the difficulties I had was their strong motivation to have power over me and control me. But before I could deal with that, I needed to develop an accurate awareness of the dynamics, which can be so confusing due to the deception. As you say, “force and fraud.” That is hard to grasp at first. I had to learn the part I played in the dynamic. That too was very painful and hard to grasp.
So definitely I agree with you that education is going to be one of the very important first steps — building awareness in the general population about sociopathy, how it operates (in secret and through deception), and giving people the tools to recognize it, and the courage to speak up about and against it.
As you also point out so well, language is one of the tools that sociopaths use against us — defining terms for us, changing the meanings of terms. What can so easily happen is that people then misunderstand one another (sowing seeds of confusion), or get offended and are pitted against one another (sowing seeds of hatred). In the meantime, that is all a big distraction ploy, and the sociopath just sits back and WE DO THEIR WORK FOR THEM! So this is another area that really needs building awareness in. The well known book “1984” by George Orwell is a wonderful primer for how the sociopaths operate in government. Recommended reading and RE-reading for everyone! Then we will have a common language to discuss what is happening to us: “thought police,” “memory hole,” “newspeak,” “big brother,” “ignorance is strength,” etc.
I think that many of us who have had the intimate experience of betrayal by a sociopath (at the hands of a spouse, for example) are well positioned to grasp what is happening in the wider world, and we have been battle-hardened (given courage and strength) through having lived the experience and gaining wisdom from it…. we are some of those who can handle the horror of the dawning realization that “1984” is not just a piece of fiction.
But back to solutions. Education and awareness, first. Then, here is where I think what you are calling a Libertarian philosophy comes in, and why I think it is so very important. To me, you are talking about freedom vs. slavery. This is both individual freedom and group freedom. It is about living lives of integrity and love without subjugation. There are more of us, than there are of them, and we must never forget that. So, once we have the education/knowledge, as well as the understanding of the power of the individual and how that power works (this is subtle so you have to discover it for yourself), then we can solve this.
Remember, the sociopath plays to win. Their game is “I win, and you lose. That’s how I win.” The only way for us to win that game, is NOT TO PLAY.
That is a huge hint, and the reason I’m leaving it just as a hint, is because this (in my opinion) will not be solved by an organized group effort, but by the individual efforts of many (individual) people who have discovered for themselves and taken back their own power that the sociopath only convinced them (through deception) that they did not have. This power was never lost — it was just hidden from us.
There is currently an information war. If we recognize this, we can do our part to spread awareness and truth.
Another huge hint I will leave with everyone is to delve into and thoroughly understand codependency (boundaries). Many clues to be had there, in how to remove sociopaths from power.
20years—wow. that was perfectly stated and I for one picked up on those important hints! Don’t play!
Your question, “how do we disempower sociopaths (particularly the ones in government)?”
In my opinion, the solution lies in empowering the individual. There are MANY reasons for this.
One reason is that, as several others have pointed out, sociopaths will ALWAYS try to infiltrate and disrupt “groups.” However, they cannot control a population of empowered and aware individuals, acting on their own, yet towards a common goal.
The internet has proved to be an unexpectedly important tool in this individual empowerment. The sociopaths in charge realize this and are trying hard to subvert it, through the recent FCC action as well as other forms of censorship. They have long controlled the mainstream media, and it is such a joke now that people are turning away from it in droves, finding reliable alternatives (which sociopaths also work hard to infiltrate). It takes discernment. The good news is, anyone is possible of achieving discernment, with effort and determination. That is one aspect of the empowerment of the individual.
How do I know that individual empowerment is key? Because it is the process I moved through in my disentanglement from my own personal spath experience. It was a long process, a lot of determination and self education about the nature of spath motivation. And a lot of trial and error. I give “clues” because it is an individual journey and your mileage may vary. For me, learning about taking personal responsibility, learning about Bowen Theory (differentiation of self), learning about boundaries, were all very important. Another essential learning path for me was spiritual. So, over the ensuing years I’ve woven all of this together and have a pretty good (though still work in progress) understanding of how the world works, who and what the spaths are, and how to maintain focus and clarity, keeping self strong and intact, and lending assistance to others when asked for. My love and compassion for humanity has only increased, through living this at times very challenging life.
Blessings to all of you.
john,
there are many different types of socialism as the are many different kinds of libertarianism. here is a lust of some of thwm:
Democratic Socialism advocates Socialism as an economic principle (the means of production should be in the hands of ordinary working people), and democracy as a governing principle (political power should be in the hands of the people democratically through a co-operative commonwealth or republic). It attempts to bring about Socialism through peaceful democratic means as opposed to violent insurrection, and represents the reformist tradition of Socialism.
It is similar, but not necessarily identical (although the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably), to Social Democracy. This refers to an ideology that is more centrist and supports a broadly Capitalist system, with some social reforms (such as the welfare state), intended to make it more equitable and humane. Democratic Socialism, by contrast, implies an ideology that is more left-wing and supportive of a fully socialist system, established either by gradually reforming Capitalism from within, or by some form of revolutionary transformation.
Revolutionary Socialism advocates the need for fundamental social change through revolution or insurrection (rather than gradual refom) as a strategy to achieve a socialist society. The Third International, which was founded following the Russian Revolution of 1917, defined itself in terms of Revolutionary Socialism but also became widely identified with Communism. Trotskyism is the theory of Revolutionary Socialism as advocated by Leon Trotsky (1879 – 1940), declaring the need for an international proletarian revolution (rather than Stalin’s “socialism in one country”) and unwavering support for a true dictatorship of the proletariat based on democratic principles. Luxemburgism is another Revolutionary Socialist tradition, based on the writings of Rosa Luxemburg (1970 – 1919). It is similar to Trotskyism in its opposition to the Totalitarianism of Stalin, while simultaneously avoiding the reformist politics of modern Social Democracy.
Utopian Socialism is a term used to define the first currents of modern socialist thought in the first quarter of the 19th Century. In general, it was used by later socialist thinkers to describe early socialist, or quasi-socialist, intellectuals who created hypothetical visions of perfect egalitarian and communalist societies without actually concerning themselves with the manner in which these societies could be created or sustained. They rejected all political (and especially all revolutionary) action, and wished to attain their ends by peaceful means and small experiments, which more practical socialists like Karl Marx saw as necessarily doomed to failure. But the early theoretical work of people like Robert Owen (1771-1858), Charles Fourier (1772-1837) and Étienne Cabet (1788”“1856) gave much of the impetus to later socialist movements.
Libertarian Socialism aims to create a society without political, economic or social hierarchies, in which every person would have free, equal access to tools of information and production. This would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions and private property, so that direct control of the means of production and resources will be gained by the working class and society as a whole. Most Libertarian Socialists advocate abolishing the state altogether, in much the same way as Utopian Socialists and many varieties of Anarchism (including Social Anarchism, Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Collectivism and Anarcho-Syndicalism).
Market Socialism is a term used to define an economic system in which there is a market economy directed and guided by socialist planners, and where prices would be set through trial and error (making adjustments as shortages and surpluses occur) rather than relying on a free price mechanism. By contrast, a Socialist Market Economy, such as that practiced in the People’s Republic of China, in one where major industries are owned by state entities, but compete with each other within a pricing system set by the market and the state does not routinely intervene in the setting of prices.
Eco-Socialism (or Green Socialism or Socialist Ecology) is an ideology merging aspects of Marxism, Socialism, Green politics, ecology and the anti-globalization movement. They advocate the non-violent dismantling of Capitalism and the State, focusing on collective ownership of the means of production, in order to mitigate the social exclusion, poverty and environmental degradation brought about (as they see it) by the capitalist system, globalization and imperialism.
Christian Socialism generally refers to those on the Christian left whose politics are both Christian and socialist, and who see these two things as being interconnected. Christian socialists draw parallels between what some have characterized as the egalitarian and anti-establishment message of Jesus, and the messages of modern Socialists.
General | By Branch/Doctrine | By Historical Period | By Movement/School | By Individual Philosopher
© 2008 Luke Mastin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
John,
the above is a link for libertarian socialism on wikipedia.
In my opinion, the many disagreements and misconceptions and misunderstandings about, and the cooptin of, the meaning of political, economic and philosophical terminology makes discussion using these terms in general set-up for misunderstanding and descension and devisiveness among people who may actually agree more than they disagree. this is exactly my objection to your article. i believe that you have some good points and observations about sociopaths in goverment and the misuse and abuse of power, however, your use of the political/philisophical term “libertarian” in this context, as political party elections and the primaries are heating up, is extremely offputting and misleading. one can use words to comunicate, one can also use words to obscure, limit, and control comunication. i do not know you, or know your intent. what i do know is my reading and understanding and perception of what you wrote, and i find the tone to be, coercive, controlling and dismissive of real discussion about this very serious problem of spaths in government and postions of power and the eroding freedoms and wellbeing of the larger society. you and i agree that this is a huge problem that is important to discuss and look at in sociopathy education, and in addressing tbhe horrors that exist in our world. i think that using a coopted term such as “libertarian” as being the opposite to sociopathy, is insulting to those of us who may feel that the common use of the term “libertarian” is the promotion of a dog eat dog, tyranny of the privileged, lack of any colective social responsibility, etc. whic i consider to be extremely sociopathic in aporoach to the world and to others.
i hame having real trouble trying to write on this tiny phone, so 7 may have to stop here. i do think that perhaps we have come at least a little closer to some understanding and that is a good thing.
Philomela
Libertarianism is based on the Non Aggression Principle, that no one has the right to initiate force against another. If you read about this you will understand why the author’s message is so important. Governments use force against people to achieve desired goals. Problem is sociopaths are master manipulators and deceivers and have people like you convinced that the “public good” is being served when force is used in the form of laws, regulations, and taxes. War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Terror all sound like such noble pursuits. All regulations have unintended consequences but many are deliberate scams against citizens in order to further the deviant interests of a powerful few sociopaths. Do you really think it is just greed and incompetence behind these endless wars and the Federal Reserve inflating our currency so that we are facing a collapse of the US dollar, destruction of the middle class here in the US and World War 3? These people aren’t stupid. They are sociopaths and when government can use FORCE against citizens sociopaths will seek out those positions of power to make life hell for the rest of us, the 99%!
Libertarianism is based on the Non Aggression Principle, that no one has the right to initiate force against another. If you read about this you will understand why the author’s message is so important. Governments use force against people to achieve desired goals. Problem is sociopaths are master manipulators and deceivers and have people like you convinced that the “public good” is being served when force is used in the form of laws, regulations, and taxes. War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Terror all sound like such noble pursuits. All regulations have unintended consequences but many are deliberate scams against citizens in order to further the deviant interests of a powerful few sociopaths. Do you really think it is just greed and incompetence behind these endless wars and the Federal Reserve inflating our currency so that we are facing a collapse of the US dollar, destruction of the middle class here in the US and World War 3? These people aren’t stupid. They are sociopaths and when government can use FORCE against citizens sociopaths will seek out those positions of power to make life hell for the rest of us, the 99%!
Thank you Philomela. I read the entire article that you posted the link to. It is long! There is so much complexity in the world of political and economic philosophy. The consistent component of libertarianism still remains the lack of coercion (via outright force, threats of force, or fraud). Libertarian socialism is accomplished through voluntarism, and although I do not agree that socialism is the way to defeat poverty or increase human dignity, I have no objection to people undertaking voluntary socialism. We do it in small ways all the time: cooperation, family, small companies, etc. But voluntariness is the key.
As for my tone being “coercive, controlling, and dismissive”, I find it hard to see anything in what I wrote to be either coercive or controlling. Dismissive? That I have to admit to a tendency toward. I tend to dismiss arguments and arguers that don’t bother to try to persuade, but instead immediately move to compulsion for the “greater good” or for any purpose at all, or who bypass rationality, or entirely ignore the dignity of any human. I am trying to work on that dismissiveness.
Coercion though? Controlling? No. Simply no. It’s not there in my words nor in my intent. That you see my words as coercive when there is no force involved or incorporated into them might supply cause to self-reflect, for both you and me. I will simply state that I fail to see any such thing in my words or intent.
How about manipulative? Am I trying to manipulate? Well, that is a way to describe what I write, although the term carries a negative tone that does not apply when examining the situation from a moral grounding. In my various writings, I do try to find ways to get past, through, or around the walls of denial and defensiveness that prevent truths from being seen by victims of sociopaths, for the defensiveness, denials and self-lies are the traits within the victim that sociopaths use for control. Sociopaths seek those traits as they choose their victims. Those traits are traitors to the person who has them. It is interesting that the same traitorous traits are also used by (other) non-human actors, such as alcoholism, where denial and defensiveness are central to the disease, and profoundly self-destructive. Right now in our world, we have an abundance of self-deceit, inculcated into us by propaganda and schooling and systemic gas-lighting, and other strange forces, and these self-lies are used against us by those who control the government, many of whom, you and I agree, are sociopaths. So do I try to find a way through the denial and defensiveness in order to expose the emperor wearing no clothes? Yes. Do I do so for my own self interest? Partly, yes. Because when the self-lies inside of others end up supporting atrocities committed against me and my family, I want to prevent such atrocities if I can by exposing those self-lies. Is this effort often successful? Not at all. I have no delusions about how difficult it is to help a person, or myself, to overcome powerful ego-defenses in order to recognize the traitorous self-lies for what they are. Perhaps I am quixotic in my efforts to keep dueling those windmills, but the destruction caused by self-lies are so potent, that it still seems to me worth the effort, as challenging as it may be. It seems worthwhile to help pull victims away from their self-lies so that they can see the sociopath for what he, she or it is.
This all ties in so well to the way the sociopath controls the primary victim, through the primary victim’s own ability to lie to herself. It is a strong analogy to the manner in which the government controls the people, through our willingness to defend, adamantly and irrationally, against any threat to our self-delusion.
It takes YEARS AND YEARS of deprogramming to work through, just like alcoholism or drug abuse takes so long to recover from, for the same sort of self-deception and defensiveness is dominant there. You can watch for evidence of defensiveness in others. In the political (non-personal) realm, it is most evident in the turn of conversation when the self-deceit or internal contradiction is in danger of being exposed. Conversations end, suddenly and with insults thrown around, or a statement is made such as “let’s agree to disagree”, which is a fine statement as long as one party isn’t standing by with a government gun at the other party’s head to enforce his view despite the toss-off statement to agree to disagree.
Do I have defensiveness? Hell yes! Denial? Probably lots, but I am too in denial to see where it is, because it is denial, after all! I would bet we all have plenty of it, and it is all challenging for us. Do you have it? If you get angry in any way, or toward anybody, about even considering the possibility that you are in denial about this or that, then that is good evidence that you are likely in denial. The webs we weave in our lives are sure strong and sticky.
Among the positive things about surviving a sociopathic encounter is that overcoming self-deceit and denial is a huge part of recovery, and the ability to overcome them, and helping others to do so, can be a powerful tool for truth and good, as long as we recognize that there is patience needed in the process. There is a painful amount of self-deceit in the country right now, how could there not be when the people give their power to political sociopaths so readily, justified in so many silly ways? Sociopaths promote their irrational crap, and the people self-lie into thinking it is awesome, and when it doesn’t solve the problems, the people beg the sociopaths’ forgiveness for not allowing the sociopaths to do it they way they really wanted to, and then give them more power.
You can call us suckers, or you can call us victims, but there are enough of us mired in self-lies that there is collateral damage all over the place. We can’t fix sociopaths. We can, with love, patience, and gentleness, seek the self-deceit in ourselves that allows sociopaths to have power. Remember, sociopaths are cowardly, morally bankrupt liars. Charismatic narcissists. They are worthy of laughter, not of votes. The worst people in the planet to have in power are charismatic narcissists (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and many of our popular politicians). The best are charismatic and humble (Jesus, Ghandi come to mind immediately). What gets us to support the charismatic narcissists running for political office? Our ability to self-lie and self-justify, totally irrationally, while angrily and vociferously defending our self-lies against exposure to truth, these are our enemies in our personal interactions and in our political situation. These are our weaknesses that we need to admit to, humbly accept, and then overcome. It is the sociopath who is evil, not the victim. But we can’t fix the sociopath. We can just work on ourselves.
Sociopaths lie to others (commit force and fraud on others). Victims lie to themselves (defraud themselves). We can’t fix sociopaths. But we can disempower them in our lives and in the government by finding our self-deceit and revealing the naked emperor.