I talked to a social liberal. She said she knows personally many politicians. Politicians are not psychopaths, she said. They honestly believe that drugs are bad for you. That's why they prohibit it. They honestly believe that prostitutes are forced. So that's why they're against it.
Also they need votes and that's what most voters know.
You know what. Maybe she's right. Then again, maybe religious leaders honestly believe they honestly save you from hell fire, when they beat you up for undermining their authority. Then again, maybe ugly women honestly believe women are being oppressed when they prohibit prettier women from staring in porn.
Maybe single males actually believe that no women would want to share when they prohibit sex outside life long monogamous marriage. I know. That's what I actually believe when I were single.
Maybe the thugs that stab you in the back and take your wallet honestly believe that they are performing appendix removal operation for you.
Who care what they believe? If you pay attention that they may be right, you will end up having to argue with millions of millions of total nonsense that somehow justify their acts to you.
Notice that all those strange beliefs follow the same pattern. It justifies acts that believe them. There is a reason why people entertain such beliefs in the first place.
After all, how do they believe all those nonsense in the first place anyway? Simple. Those nonsense reduce the amount of hostility they will get for harming others.
Why shouldn't they? If I beat people and I said I want money, I would have to face the cops. If I beat people and says it's God's will I get less enemies. It's toward my best interest to say it's God's will. In fact, it probably doesn't hurt much to actually believe it's indeed God's will if that can help me convincing others more. Who knows, many people actually want to see somebody got beaten up. They just need a good fairy tales to justify it.
It's their best interests to entertain it. It's not to your best interest to entertain it.
Presuming they are psychopaths and not bother entertaining their nonsense allow you to see clearly what you should do. Do not let those people have power over you. Once people have power over you, it's game over.
Like most psychopaths, politicians and society make laws to criminalizing consensual behavior. It's simple. They want to enslave you and they want to blame you. That's what psychopaths do. They blame the victim. And may be they're right. If you're a coward that reward their oppression with compliance and benefit nonsense with attention, why shouldn't people pick on you?
Then again, who says they're not psychopaths?
I don't go around robbing people and raping women. Does that mean I am not a psychophath? Who knows? Even if I were, I still wouldn't go around robbing people and raping chicks. It's not toward my best interest to do so. I may go to jail and stuff. There are saver ways to get laid and rich.
Imagine if ALL of us believe that we won't be punished at all for robbing people and raping chicks. How many do you think will do that?
Say 5% would do it. A reasonable number. Imagine if 5% people actually do that and get away with it and every body knows they get away with it. How many would do that the next day? I'd say 100%. In fact, normal people would have gone extinct and everybody would have been a psychopath if "evil" people will just get away with things.
History shows again and again that majority of humans will kill, slaughter, rape, and who knows what when they know they'll get away with it. Genocide is the norm. Schindler is the exception. Most people are NOT like Schindler. Most are like Genghish Khan. In fact, most people are descendants of people like Genghish Khan. That's the kind of people that are successful in the gene pool
Yes, like most psychopaths, people would just come up with something to rationalize and justify their acts. Just look what our bible teach: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081109135717AAEZFlL. That's David, a hero in the bible, killing 100 Philistines just to collect their foreskins. What's the difference between what he does and what psychopaths would do? Somehow, we just believe David's justification.
David's dilemma is simple. Usually killing is politically incorrect. Yet now his cost function change. If it's the philistines, killing is actually rewarding. He can get the king's daughter. So great. What would any Dave do? Who wouldn't start collecting those foreskins? Hell, till now many still think it's actually a good act. If societies approve you for killing people, if killing people is profitable, what would a psychopath and normal people both do? Kill. So what's the difference?
There are 2 ways to analyze this.
The difference between 1 and 2 is subtle and may be even mere philosophical. Both will correctly predict what people would do. Both prescribe that we need tough sentences against robbery if we want to deter people from doing it.
To be frank, #2 is simpler, and correctly predict the same act anyway.
In fact, I do not really understand the difference between homo economicus and psychopaths. What's the real difference anyway? Aren't we all? Show me some area where large number of people do not act like they are psychopaths. Maybe I can understand it.
The VAST majority of people are not psychopaths. And by vast I mean upward of 99%. Psychopathy is not the same thing as self-interest.
We live in a civilization. We enjoy a higher quality of life than humans ever have before us. These things are not possible unless cooperation is the norm. So even if you think that everyone is a psychopath, it doesn't matter because cooperation is continually chosen of deviancy.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
If you think everyone is a "psychopath" - you have to ask yourself why you are studying the social sciences.
Likewise, if you think everyone is an "evil SOB"; it's probably best to deal with these problems in an existential manner and try to find a way to come to terms with what you see - it may even do good to try to communicate and help as much as possible and in as fearless a manner as possible, while being able to accept failure. Do this while with holding any inclination of an argumentative and judgmental spirit as much as possible (join a charity, a club, or enlist in any social activity- particularly ones you may fear. Ex; if you fear dancing, sign up for a dance class).
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
I read definition of psychopaths, I really do not see why it differs from most people. It's best explained by this Star Wars quote:
Anakin Skywalker: The Sith rely on their passion for their strength. They think inward, only about themselves. Supreme Chancellor: And the Jedi don't?
Yes we are cooperative. We are cooperative because we have carrots and sticks that encourage cooperation. Not because we can be counted on to deviate from normal psychopathic self interest path to help others.
Psychopaths lie to justify their evil acts. So are everyone else. No politicians or voters would say, I prohibit drugs because I am power hungry. They would lie and say that they prohibit drugs for your own good. They may actually believe their own delusion. The reason is the same with psychophats. They simply do not have incentive to be objective. After all, they're not the consumer.
Psychopaths that murder his wife honestly believe that he loved his wife and kids. Well, that's delusional.
Religious leaders that beat up ahmadiyah for undermining their power may also honestly believe that it's God's will. That's also delusional.
Social liberals that want government to decide what's best for our children also honestly believe that politicians actually care. That's also delusional. A better explanation is, as I said in my updated articles:
In fact, most humans do presume that others are psychopaths. Why do we sign contracts? Why do we have letter of credit? Why not just send the good first and hope that the other guy is not a psychopath and will honor the deal? Because we know that the other side must be a psychopaths too and hence, it’s toward our best interest that it’s toward his interest to pay up. Even if the other side is not a psychopath, we also know that when they see that others are profiting when by frauding us, they too will turn psychopaths and follow the same path. If even in businesses, where relationship pays, we presume people are psychopaths that we put so many system to ensure that their selfish interests are properly aligned with ours, how much more we should do that in politic? What would happen if you trust politicians even more than you trust your business partners, namely something more than at all? History shows again and again what will happen to your wife and kids. Just look: Who did that? Businessmen? No. Guess again. Politicians supported by the majority of the population. How can people that count on contracts in businesses could suddenly say, that we can trust politicians to decide on what’s best for our children and family? Simple. Those people, are psychopaths too, just like the majority of voters. They don’t care about fairness. They don’t care about productivity. They just want a reason to justify robbing from the diligent and controlling the productive. The way to do so is to give power to politicians. Just like an interviewed psychopath once tell how much he loves his wife that he beat up to death, social democrats also entertain a ridiculous delusion. That delusion is that somehow we can trust politicians, and they, are not psychopaths. Fortunately, politicians are psychopaths too, and we know what’s the cure. Just bribe them.
In fact, most humans do presume that others are psychopaths. Why do we sign contracts? Why do we have letter of credit? Why not just send the good first and hope that the other guy is not a psychopath and will honor the deal? Because we know that the other side must be a psychopaths too and hence, it’s toward our best interest that it’s toward his interest to pay up.
Even if the other side is not a psychopath, we also know that when they see that others are profiting when by frauding us, they too will turn psychopaths and follow the same path.
If even in businesses, where relationship pays, we presume people are psychopaths that we put so many system to ensure that their selfish interests are properly aligned with ours, how much more we should do that in politic?
What would happen if you trust politicians even more than you trust your business partners, namely something more than at all?
History shows again and again what will happen to your wife and kids. Just look:
Who did that? Businessmen? No. Guess again. Politicians supported by the majority of the population. How can people that count on contracts in businesses could suddenly say, that we can trust politicians to decide on what’s best for our children and family?
Simple. Those people, are psychopaths too, just like the majority of voters. They don’t care about fairness. They don’t care about productivity. They just want a reason to justify robbing from the diligent and controlling the productive. The way to do so is to give power to politicians.
Just like an interviewed psychopath once tell how much he loves his wife that he beat up to death, social democrats also entertain a ridiculous delusion. That delusion is that somehow we can trust politicians, and they, are not psychopaths.
Fortunately, politicians are psychopaths too, and we know what’s the cure. Just bribe them.
@OP: Nice try at moral equivocation. Psychopathy has nothing to do with self-interest, it has everything to do with an inability to correctly perceive the world at a very gross level (for example, being delusional and believing you are Napoleon or something like that).
Sociopathy (which is what I think you're trying to talk about) is like psychopathy but with respect to basic social facts, i.e., killing another person is wrong or saying hurtful things to a person is wrong, and so on. The inability to correctly perceive social facts and exhibit normal empathy toward human suffering are hallmarks of sociopathy.
Politics has always been filled with sociopaths and the release of the money flood (central bank inflation) draws them out like flies drawn to the smell of fresh, warm shit. This has nothing to do with psychopathy or self-interest. It has everything to do with the essential feature of political action: hypocrisy. A normal person who enters politics must learn, over time, to overcome the screams of his conscience at hurting people. The sociopath has a competitive advantage vis-a-vis the non-sociopath in this regard. He has a very real psychological problem that prevents him from experiencing the usual pangs of guilt at hurting another person or the feeling of empathy at the suffering of another. He breezes through the ranks of political power and quickly rises to the top. The higher you go in the political structure, the denser the sociopaths are.
The Elites are sorcerers and they conjure spirits - the spirit of the Beast is being conjured today as it was just prior to the Great War of 1914 and again just prior to the wars of Europe and the Pacific that started in 1939. The Beast is made of a million men, sociopaths devoid of all natural sympathy, devoid of conscience, psychologically incapable of feeling guilt or moral compunction. They are Beta males, submissive cowards who cannot feel at ease until they have found a leader to attach themselves to. In the Inquisitions of Europe, they were the dungeon-keeps, the torturers, the executioners, the members of the Holy Office, the snitches, the anti-witch and anti-heretic zealots and, of course, the ruling Elites, both secular and religious.
Rob Zombie artistically depicts the sorcery of the Elites here - it is a depiction of the world as seen through the eyes of the Beast after it has been conjured by what he calls the Lords of Salem and what I am calling the Elites. In mythical terms, the Beast is the ancient god Kronos who eats his own children. The Beast is the principle of cannibalism; it is the incarnation of the parasite. It is inexorable, relentless, pitiless.
The Beast is not natural, it must be conjured. The Beast is not an expression of self-interest. Social cooperation does not arise despite human nature but because of it. Every healthy, non-sociopathic human being has all the circuitry in his brain that he needs to be a normal, cooperative participant in society. No Leviathan is needed to create order, in fact, the Leviathan is the source of the destruction created by the Beast. The book of Revelations states that the Beast is conjured by the serpent (Leviathan) and this is precisely what happens. The ruling Elites (Leviathan) conjure the Beast and unleash it on humanity. They've done it countless times in human history.
How do they conjure the Beast? Well, it's never precisely the same ritual but the essential principle is always the same: by redistributing the resources of society to the Beta sociopaths. Every legal and economic advantage is given to the special class of human beings which can only be described as slavishly obedient sociopaths. As these people rise through the ranks of political and economic power and influence, society begins to be restructured and the natural social order is perverted. Upright behavior is penalized while all forms of parasitism and cannibalism are rewarded with higher status, more influence and greater wealth. Once the Beast has been fully conjured, the Elites unleash it on society. The last shackles are removed and the Beast exhausts itself in one last orgy of death and devastation, wiping out untold wealth and entire populations.
Stop trying to peddle this bullshit that the sociopaths of politics are just like the rest of us. They're not. They're part of the Beast and - sooner or later - they will be the agents of death and devastation unleashed upon society.
Clayton -
There are 2 ways to analyze most similar situations.
Politics does not require large scale psychopathy in order to be explained. In fact, there is a much larger amount of useful idiots than there are psychopaths - those who desire a particular end but seek an ineffectual means of attaining it (as in the examples you give). It is those who are used by the very small amount of psychopaths (or, as Clayton says, sociopaths), in order for the latter to achieve their own ends.
@Clayton: That was cool
I see. Liberals are like useful idiots for Hamas and commies.
We can't argue with hardcore feminazis or hardcore socialists. They are true psychopaths that have hidden motives. We can, however, convince the useful idiots on how idiotic they are so they get smarter.
But then again, psychopaths are indeed homo economicus. You said that yourself, they are succesful. Maybe we should learn to think like them.
If the world is fair, it make sense to be moral. If the world is unfair, you should properly understand reality the way it really is and make whatever expedient political decission that max out your self interest. That's essensially, what psychopathy really mean.
What is moral, after all, if not the interests of those who made them.
@ genepool
Life is hard, and as soon as you figure out that is ultimately a good thing (and it is a good thing) the better shape you are in. Quit writing these insanely nihilistic posts, and thinking useles nihilistic thinking - they won't do you any good.
To go the extra mile on you:
I don't care what you believe or what you wish to believe - anything that is worth a damn in ife is going to show you that life requires effort - and that's point. Anything that doesn't, and I don't care if it is in a rich bourgoise society or a "utopian" leftist socity, is simply BS it is either either blatant advetisment or kooky leftism. Either way ignore both, and learn how to enjoy the fruits of the Earth.
genepool: I see. Liberals are like useful idiots for Hamas and commies. We can't argue with hardcore feminazis or hardcore socialists. They are true psychopaths that have hidden motives. We can, however, convince the useful idiots on how idiotic they are so they get smarter. But then again, psychopaths are indeed homo economicus. You said that yourself, they are succesful. Maybe we should learn to think like them. If the world is fair, it make sense to be moral. If the world is unfair, you should properly understand reality the way it really is and make whatever expedient political decission that max out your self interest. That's essensially, what psychopathy really mean. What is moral, after all, if not the interests of those who made them.
I'm not one to agree with Plato, but you sound a lot like Thrasymachus. People have consciences, and nobody is inherently conditioned by the world. You make choices for yourself, and that's all there is to life, really. You don't sound very existential, so I'm having trouble relating to what you're saying.
For the benefit of lurkers...
If the world is fair, it make sense to be moral.
Both fairness and morality are synthetic concepts that can only arise once the particular facts of society are determined, that is, once there are actual beings (such as human beings) to reason about fairness and morality. Hence, there is no a priori concept of fairness against which to measure the world. Is it fair to be borne with a digestive tract that requires you to obtain food on at least a semi-daily basis or face death due to starvation? Is it fair that you have to exert effort to obtain food for yourself? Is it fair that you can only live by killing some other living thing?
Your assertion is gibberish.
If the world is unfair, you should properly understand reality the way it really is and make whatever expedient political decission that max out your self interest.
Pursuit of self-interest is a bit of a misnomer - humans are not so much self-interested as purposeful, acting beings. Whether or not human purposes (ends) are generally "selfish" or "altruistic" is a separate question from the question of human action: the use of the available means to attain one's ends.
That's essensially, what psychopathy really mean.
Psychopathy is a non-specific term with no general agreement to its meaning. Sociopathy or anti-social personality disorder, on the other hand, is a well-defined term. Wikipedia is your friend.
Good point. The "selfishness" just comes from "what is acting", or "where the imperative of purpose lies" - which is in the individual
Ah, but even the term 'purpose' requires a value judgment such that one action is preferrable over another in order for a goal to be pursued. What's wrong with 'self-interest' is its implication that the self is always the value being served.
Personally I like way that Robert LeFevre casts it, saying that people seek "plus factors" rather than using the "self interest" term. Because that removes the assumption of the self as the highest value in the term "self-interest". Using "plus factors" puts the focus on values in general, not merely the self. Meaning that a person's highest value is what they will seek in the moment and allowing that that value may not always be their own self.
Many have preferred death to betraying truth, or have sacrificed themselves for the lives of others.
This helps us explain why a person might sacrifice their life for another, if that other person's life is at that moment of higher value to them than their own life, they may choose to act to save another at the cost of their own life, like a parent rushing into a burning building to recover a child. This is not an irrational choice under this rubric, but a completely rational one.
It also helps us explain evil behavior, since a person can seek plus-factors at the expense of other people. A masochist might value his own evil joy at causing pain over the well-being of others (arguably because they in many cases lack the capacity for empathy).
People seek plus factors, but what constitutes a plus factor to them is controlled by their value structure. Thus one person may see a plus factor in causing himself pain, while another prefers pleasure. Both are rational choices, just the one seeking pain believes in 'no pain, no gain' and the other prefers comfort over the kind of growth that can only be achieved by painful trials (like, say, weight training).
It's like David collecting 100 foreskins of Philistines civilians under the order of Saul. I do not know whether those 2 are sociopath or not. Most christians, jews, and muslims may believe otherwise. We can agree that the acts of killing people just to collect their foreskins is like a sociopath. But we can all agree that most humans, including biblical heros, including large number of people, either behave like sociopath or condone sociopath like behavior. After, all it's bible.
http://listverse.com/2008/01/31/top-10-bizarre-biblical-tales/
The same way, even though most humans are not sociopath, most humans behave as if they are or condone many acts that are like sociopathic acts. The difference between those and true sociopaths are not in the acts, but in perception of the act. Atheists would think David is a sociopath. Christians would think differently. As an economist in economic mode I only judge people based on their action. That's why it's simpler to simply say that humans are psychopaths. They act as if they are.
I think typical humans are not far from selfish. Altruism exist only friends, and family such as the case of reciprocal altruism and genetic altruism. Reciprocal altruism is not really altruism because you reasonably expect something greater than what you give. Reciprocal altruism is like you altruistically give brochures to people around you so they buy.
To everyone else, humans behave as if they are sociopath. Not that they truly are, but they behave as if they are even though they're not realizing it.
And that's my point. Every deviation from libertarianism can be explained from humans' natural tendency to want to have power over others so they can more easily manipulate others. Just like some may find it more profitable to just rob rather than buy, many humans psychopatically demand bigger government because they expect to be able to get more.
Just like those who choose to rob others rather than buy may justify their acts with really bizare ideas, such as that it's for their own good. The same way humans that want to rob us out of our freedom will entertain bizare ideas.
They would argue that ganja is dangerous. They would argue that God hate fags. They would argue that prostitution can't possibly be consensual. They would argue that all trafficked women are sex slave. They would argue that blondes are dumber and jews are inferior.
Those are beliefs that are so vague or so wrong that it's utter bullshit. There is very little link between truth and those beliefs. But there is a key to understand the bullshit. That is, the interest of those who entertain and make them.
Like sociopath, people that entertain those nonsense may actually believe them. And that's why they're not sociopath. They may actually be honestly well meaning. But they behave as if they are sociopaths anyway because they want to take away our freedom so they can more easily manipulate.
Hence, it's simple and accurate to just presume that humans are. I do that in businesses. How much more should I do that in politic?
Atheists would think David is a sociopath. Christians would think differently.
Again, nice try with the moral equivocation. You are confusing partisanship with sociopathy. Tribe/clan loyalty is clearly a built-in part of human nature. Thousands of years ago, it served a purpose but it is somewhat maladaptive today. So what?
As an economist in economic mode I only judge people based on their action. That's why it's simpler to simply say that humans are psychopaths. They act as if they are.
The "-pathy" suffix should be a hint that your attempt to mangle language is futile - a "-pathy" is some form of suffering which is abnormal. By definition, something which is abnormal affects a minority of people.
The virtue of altruism is partly a genetic disposition (kids share, even without teaching or prompting) and partly learned. Like any virtue, what makes altruism a virtue is the fact that it is rewarding - doing what is right brings a feeling of satisfaction. That feeling of satisfaction is evidence that virtuous behavior is hardwired into our brains - it wouldn't feel good to be virtuous if our brains were not wired for social cooperation.
To everyone else, humans behave as if they are sociopath. Not that they truly are, but they behave as if they are even though they're not realizing it. And that's my point. Every deviation from libertarianism can be explained from humans' natural tendency to want to have power over others so they can more easily manipulate others.
And that's my point. Every deviation from libertarianism can be explained from humans' natural tendency to want to have power over others so they can more easily manipulate others.
Well, moral deficiency is a serious problem. Widespread immorality is a social sickness. The key is to realize that a society may be healthy or sick. The movie Apocalypto, for example, depicts a deeply sick society in the throes of self-immolation.
Just like some may find it more profitable to just rob rather than buy, many humans psychopatically demand bigger government because they expect to be able to get more.
The uniting feature of all immoral or criminal behavior is hypocrisy. When hypocrisy becomes systemically rationalized by the moral leaders of society, the society becomes infused with the political means (theft, graft, redistribution).
Actually, I think most thieves understand what they are doing is wrong. The whole point is that politics and political religion are a moral whitewash that exonerates those who employ political means to do what would otherwise be simple crime.
Those are all rather inferior issues to the central purpose of politics: redistribution from the productive class to the parasitic class.
You're completely missing the point. It doesn't matter if they believe that marijuana is harmful or that Jews are inferior. What matters is that they think it's in their own interest for the state to use force to supress those things. In doing this, almost everyone looks only at a single effect or a few effects, rather than on all the possible effects, and the effects of those effects. This is why people do not have to be sociopaths to pursue such policies - rather they are looking at the seen and ignoring the unseen. If, after reviewing and properly understanding the effects of these and similar authoritarian policies, the vast majority still supported them, the liberal would probably accept that yes, they are sociopaths.
The difficult question is whether there is in fact a significant amount of people who have the time, inclination, and ability to properly understand all of these things.
If, after reviewing and properly understanding the effects of these and similar authoritarian policies, the vast majority still supported them, the liberal would probably accept that yes, they are sociopaths.
Aristippus, I am not missing the point. My point is EXACTLY like yours in predicting what people would do. Basically the difference between them and psychopaths are not what they do but what they know and understand. But then again, many psychophats are indeed delusional and honestly believe they are helping, like most voters.
That is exactly my point. They behaves as if they are psychopaths even though most of them are not..
However, if we see just what they do rather than what their state of mind is, which is what economy is all about, then yes they are psychopaths.
Economists also says that humans are rational even though most of us are emotional. We behave as if we are rationals. The same ways, voters and politicians behave as if they are psychopaths whether they truly are or not.
Giving power to politicians are then like giving power to psychopaths. Fifteen percents of politicians are psychopaths. The other behaves as if they are psychopaths. They selectively choose to believe opinions that justify their self interest while ignoring the rest. The different between psychopaths and normal people is that psychopaths are more enligtened. That's it. They do the same thing.
As for they don't know. Why don't they know? Because they have very little incentive to know. If I decide what's best for me, I go the extra mile knowing the truth. If people decide what's best for others, it's toward their best interest to look only on aspects that justify giving more power to them.
So it's as if they are psychopaths.
That's my point. Not that most humans are psychophats. But we won't falsely predict what they will do if we presume they psychopathically max out the interest of their kind..
Yeah I suppose we're saying similar things in that regard. The point I was making is that it isn't the (probably incorrect) beliefs about ganja or the Jews that lead to pseudo-sociopathy/psychopathy, but the beliefs about the role of the state in society that do.
That's correct. The idea that the state has positive role (if it's small, at least) is not necessarily a delusion though. While anarchism may be good, it's not tried and tested yet. So far, it's scientific that monarchies are more prosperous than anarchy and democracy are more prosperous than monarchy. If we want to promonte anarchy, we must remember that while it may be good, it's not proven.
When I said we should presume that everyone is a psychopath is not far from Adam Smith's assertion that humans are rationally selfish. In fact, it's how what most people think when they see rationally selfish mean. We don't magically stop when our acts are wrong. We simply delusionally work our reasoning so that somehow the wrong is right.
Sample: Johns pay women more than husbands.
Profitable path: Prohibit prostitution
Delusional justification: Prostitutes can't possibly do it consensually (which is a lie)
Sample: Porn stars are prettier than feminazis
Profitable path: Prohibit porn
Delusional justification: Porn cause rape. Recent scientific evidences show that the truth is the opposite. I do not see any that's hell bent on prohibiting porn now want to make porn mandatory in light of new scientific evidences that porn reduce rape.
Sample: Hot babes that don't mind becoming sex objects end up living happily with richer males
Profitable path: Prohibit men from thinking that women are sex objects
Delusional justification: Women are not sex objects.
So you see, simply seeing what's most profitable for a person will help us predict what he will do. Also knowing what's politically correct and vague will help us guess what bullshit they will come up with.
*groan
@genepool: Please respond to what I pointed out above - psychopathy, like any -pathy, is abnormal. Something which is abnormal affects a minority of people by definition. Please explain how we can all be psychopaths when, by definition, psychopathy is something that only affects a minority of us.
It's the same reason why economist believes that humans are rationally selfish even though most of us are not rational. We behave as we do. Also look at my post above you for some samples.
I wouldn't be surprised if some biologist says that cats mark their teritory to maximize their food and mates, as if cats actually know some calculus and predict that in advance. Not my cat.
All false delusions that people use to justify state's intervention actually match their selfish interests. In fact, it's as if deep down they know their cause is politially incorrect that they have to mask it with vague/false/undisprovable nonsense.
genepool - well I wasn't actually arguing for any particular program (on the whole I tend towards a common law society with monarchism for common defence, but libertarian anarchism is a possibility also) but rather the role of the state in general. In fact the political program is not very important when compared to the signficance of the ideas held in society, since in the long-run the political institutions will align with public opinion (the political program does, however, influence how long this process takes).
Clayton - apparently he's not actually arguing that most people are psychopaths, but rather that the results of their actions are akin to those of psychopaths.
EDIT:
genepool, what do you mean by rationalism? Are you aware of the difference between Misesian rationalism and the rationalism of the homo economicus?
Aristipus,
Not quit clear. I read some in Israel's book. It seems that typical classical economic theory presume that humans are psychic and always max out profit. If they don't, they make mistakes.
Misses, assume that humans only make mistakes if they are wrong in the short reasoning. If you know a car worth $1000 in one place and you pay $2k for it, that's a mistake. If you don't know a car worth $1k somewhere else, it's not a mistake. You choose not to spend time on research. If you, based on experience, knows that research pays, and choose not to spend time on research, that's a mistake.
That is correct. I mean David for example, killed 100 palestines to collect the foreskins. War and corruption can be thought of as psychopathy too. Yet 99% of politicians would do it if they can get away with it. Genocide, war, socialism, big government, are a reflection of voters' effective psychopathy. In fact, a person doesn't have to be a psychopath to act as a psychophat. If responsible productive acts like making honest money are punished and unproductivity is rewarded, humans are "forced" to be psycophats.
Say you want to be a responsible husband. Get rich first then get laid. Chance is you pay huge income tax. After that you have to keep paying lifetime alimony and child support to kids that's not even yours. The amount is set proportional to man's wealth. If you just breed and knock up babes like irresponsible studs, you get rewarded and government would pay for those. What men would not be a psycopath in their sexual life? Losers... In fact, I think being a psychopath is a normal, natural, or even moral answer to injustice. Of course, once the world is just, it's to your best interest to be productive.
However, the idea that humans are indeed actually psychopaths may not be too wrong either.
As someone point out, all those paths are always minority. But they're not minority because people are not like them. They are minority because social illness is unnaturally defined so that the majority is not categorized as ill.
Delusion for example, should include religions. However, delusional is defined in a way that popular religions don't count.
The same way most humans share the same traits with most psychopaths. Most humans are selfish. Most strangers won't honor their contract without enforcement. Most humans will justify their immorality when incentive is big enough. But the definition of psychopaths are carefully defined not to include most people.
Look at definition of exploitation for example. It can naturally mean all non consensual interaction or it can naturally mean all taking advantage of other people, consensual or not. Feminazis carefully define exploitation to mean women having sex to paying males, irrelevant of consent or not. This very unnatural definition makes arguments very difficult.
Again - by definition, a -pathy is something that affects a minority of people. Furthermore, acting like a psychopath is the definition of being a psychopath. All I see in genepool's posts is an attempt to morally equivocate the crimes of the psychopathic ruling Elites by arguing that we're all psychopaths! Bullshit. And it doesn't even make sense on its own terms. The whole line of argument is pathetic.
Again good point / good reiteration of the same basic point:
It is - by itheir very definition (be you socialist, capitalist, or whatever) against the scope of psychology, economics, sociology, anthropology, or even biology to assume we are "psychopaths" (a very dubious term); the only thing that would have the audacity to do such thing would be politics.
So what's the difference then? What's the difference betwen typical psychopaths and typical normal people?
Normal politicians are corrupt. So is normal psychopaths.
Normal politicians are delusional or promote delusion. So is psychopaths.
Normal people would renege on contract if and only if they can get away with it. So are psychopaths.
What's the difference?
Psychopaths have inflated self worth. Normal people demand minimum wage.
Psychopaths want to control others. Normal people want to control what movies you can watch and what drugs you can enjoy.
So what's the difference?
Really... what?
If we want to explain unlibertarian moves by psychopathy, it fits data perfectly. Ganja is not dangerous, but voters want to control it anyway. If we think humans maximize wealth, we will wonder, what kind of money anti ganja advocates get? It's not about money. it's about power. Money is just a form of power. Humans, like psychopaths seek power. Like psychopaths they do not admit it.
I guess the idea that we are just like those we hate offend you so much isn't it? You can't accept that. Most humans are delusional. Are you going to say that only a minority is?
That's a question for psychology, not economics or even politics.
"normal psychopaths" is an oxymoron... how many times do I have to repeat this?
Corruption isn't just any moral deficiency, it is the acceptance of bribes in exchange for turning the other way while the briber hurts people. Yes, the average person has many moral deficiencies. No, the average person is not anything like the Senator accepting a deal to have an area of the city where he owns property re-zoned in order to increase its value (e.g. Jack Murtha) in exchange for securing sweetheart defense contracts (hurting taxpayers).
*shrug - I really don't know how delusional the average politician is. The higher you go, the more keen a grasp on reality you must have. I think the whole "politicians just don't get it" schtick is part and parcel of how politicians avoid moral responsibility for their actions. It's much easier to forgive someone who is stupid or ignorant than someone who is smart and well-informed but simply doesn't care.
*shrug - what sane person would bind himself to a contract that is not being enforced??
What's the difference? Psychopaths have inflated self worth. Normal people demand minimum wage.
Oh, come on, this is absurd. Demanding minimum wage is psychopathy?? Seriously?
The morality police are enabled by the enormous subsidies showered on the busybody-class. Without taxpayer-funded drug enforcers and censors, these moralists would be a lot less pesky, mainly restricted to pounding pulpits and handing out tracts, which is perfectly peaceful behavior.
So what's the difference? Really... what? If we want to explain unlibertarian moves by psychopathy, it fits data perfectly. Ganja is not dangerous, but voters want to control it anyway. If we think humans maximize wealth, we will wonder, what kind of money anti ganja advocates get? It's not about money. it's about power. Money is just a form of power. Humans, like psychopaths seek power. Like psychopaths they do not admit it.
Money is not a "form of power." The word "power" is not well-defined because there are so many widely different kinds of power. But the one thing that unites all forms of power is that people seek power as a means to attaining their ends, not as an end in itself.
I guess the idea that we are just like those we hate offend you so much isn't it?
This is the Internet. There are a zillion pictures of people doing unimaginably offensive things posted anywhere you care to look. Nothing you say can possibly offend me. It's just that what you're saying isn't true and doesn't even make sense on its own terms. It's oxymoronic.
You can't accept that. Most humans are delusional. Are you going to say that only a minority is?
I think most people have a keen grasp on the unvarnished truth of politics as well as anything else. The reality is that it is the punditry and the political class that are the source of most of the smoke and mirrors. I think that people generally understand that taxes are not voluntary (even if they say otherwise), that government is not "nice" (even if they act otherwise), that democracy is still coercive (even if they say otherwise) and so on. The truth is that they generally put very little thought into these subjects because they have more pressing issues (paying their bills, feeding their kids, getting to work on time, and so on) and have no choice but to repeat what they hear from pundits and social leaders who are spouting constant propaganda. So, when you ask the man off the street his opinion, you are not getting his opinion, you are getting the opinion of some pundit that he thinks he respects and has decided to parrot.
But if you could sit down and have a really long, in-depth conversation with him over the course of, say, several months or years, I think you could penetrate most of the propaganda and eventually discover his genuine opinions and I think most people "get it", they just can't articulate it or figure out how to debunk all the propaganda and don't have the time, energy or inclination to try. This sure as hell doesn't make them psychopaths.
This is where we disagree. This is where I think why most people, including libertarians are delusional. In any case, none of us are going to spend years changing people's mind. Either because they don't care (like psyhopaths) or because they don't have time to care, voters do vote for their self interests irrelevant of how much misseries that vote will cause other humans.
Now look at this case. A man called cops to remove his girlfriend from HIS property. He's the one arrested. Stuffs are broken and stolen. Do you think the girl is a psychopath? Do you think the girl behaves as psychopaths (like most girls are)
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/rgwrt/so_reddit_i_called_the_cops_on_my_gf_after_an/
Just randomly throwing a story a friend told me about him getting arrested because of a crazy ex. He was in another city when she called the cops to report that he had just left the house after beating her. He flew on a plane, so he had that evidence, along with cab fare, etc... that placed him in the city three nights before she called. When he got back, they immediately arrested him (they had some sort of stake out at his house), and held him for six days. She later recanted everything saying that she was just upset that he wasn't answering her calls. Nothing was done to her.
Now notice that paragraph again. Look in reality. Say I said to my self, there is no right and wrong. There is only power. If I hurt people, as long as I can hurt him even more or convince him that I can hurt even more, I'll get away with stuff. Am I wrong? In a sense, psychopaths are normal, and normal people are the one that's simply not being realistic here. Why do we not have thousands staging demonstration complaining that the girl that lied is not charged?
No amount of sitting will change people's mind because it's interests and not logic that make their mind. For the sick and lazy, obamacare is indeed profitable. That's all they care.
Perhaps a better way to measure psychopathy is to measure how much a person would deviate from their self interests to avoid hurting others, breaking the rules, or not honoring commitments. My guess is, most humans won't deviate much.
As for delusional politicians there are 2 theories on these threats
1. Politicians are indeed delusional and believe that drugs are really bad. Proponent of this theory would claim that had the politician is not delusional, they are indeed psychopath. Notice that means I am correct. I am not arguing that politicians are psychopaths. I am arguing that politicians behave as if they are.
2. Politicians are NOT delusional, like you said. They know very well that drugs are not dangerous and that prostitution is a happy job. They prohibit anyway so they can control people. In a sense, they're like psychopaths.
I actually like the 3rd theory:
3. Politicians are not psychopaths. Voters are. President of my country want to end fuel subsidy and embrace globalization. He did the right thing. It's the people that's crazy not wanting it. With tons of voters wanting to prohibit drugs and sex outside marriage, politicians play along. They then allow people to do it with some bribe. That's why anti prostitution laws are so vague and laws about it are rarely enforced. Politicians know all along. They're just being reasonable, trying to maintain a facade of political correctness and actually do the right thing.
@gene: We'll have to disagree. I agree that politicians have a much better grasp on political and even economic reality than the commoner has. However, politicians aren't trying to "do what is right" - whether by ending fuel subsidies or looking the other way at prostitution. Rather, they're simply attempting to attain their selfish (to use your term) goals.
The pursuit of self-interest has long been the heel of moral philosophy. As Bastiat says, every ill known to humanity is ascribed to this wellspring of human action. What the critics miss is that this wellspring of action is also the cause of every good which humans do. So, self-interest is neither here nor there, it's simply the urge that prods individuals to act, whether for good or evil.
Most people have very poor morality. Politicians are no better and, in addition, they have sold their souls in the pursuit of power, that is, in the pursuit of the double-standard by which they get to live at the expense of others, while everyone else has to pay their own way. That's the primary difference.
Atop and above all political power is private power. In the old days, private power was the king and his nobility. Today, it's less clear exactly who holds the private power but the royalty are still there, despite the propaganda to the contrary. The private power of State is the root source of most of the evil in society. It is true that kings can only rape and pillage their subjects because their subjects let them get away with it. In terms of the moral analysis, however, this is irrelevant. The people don't morally deserve what they get from their rulers. It's simply karmic law... if you leave your door unlocked and wide open in a bad neighborhood, your stuff will be stolen. But the thief is still acting immorally and the victim does not deserve to have his stuff stolen.
The first step to healing society from its long-running illness is to first get moral clarity about the situation. Raping and pillaging the masses simply because you can is immoral. On the other hand, leaving your front door wide open for burglars in a bad neighborhood is unwise and self-treacherous - the masses need to wise up and stop allowing themselves to be raped and pillaged. And part of this "wising up" process requires that the masses throw off the bad moral instruction that their religious "leaders" have been indoctrinating them with for thousands of years.
Contrary to the long-standing dogma that "self-interest" is the root cause of all evil, it is in fact the case that all morality flows from a right regard for the self. Right living consists of carefully pursuing one's satisfaction (the Good) and scrupulously avoiding one's dissatisfaction (the Evil). All other moral considerations are just sub-headings under this one rule of action. When this right moral teaching begins to re-assert itself in society and our moral teachers again begin explaining to us how to live rightly (purse the Good and avoid the Evil), our society will be able to begin the process of healing. In the meantime, this present monstrosity will continue on.
Psychophath mode off:
Okay I agree with you. I agree with everything what you say. That's standard libertarian rethoric. Most people in this forum agree with it. I agree with your ideal. I disagree with your understanding of practical world.
Psychophath mode on:
Biggest difference between psychopaths and normal people is empathy. Do you want to count on people's self interests or their empathy? For anything to work, the former is obviously the way to go. Just presume everyone is a psychopath and ignore that they have empathy. You won't miss by far.
Says who teaching "new" morality or any kind of morality will fix the problem?
You said that your self. Voters got bills to pay. So they can't pay too much attention to other's people interests ruined by government intervention. In other world, they effectively don't care. Just like psychopaths don't care.
When nazi killed jews, they behave like psychopaths right? Yes most of them are not really psychopaths. But the thing is they don't care. It's jews anyway that died, not them.
If you go to a store, do you care about the processes why the stores sell meat that at $5? No. And that's the beauty of it. Most of us behave like psychopaths that do not care about whether the meat owners' kids can still wear shoes or not if we buy meats from wallmart instead. In fact, in western civilization, I bet you won't even bargain for the meat. Price high you just go. In capitalism, all of us behaves as if we're psychophats that don't care.
And that's the beauty of capitalism. It works even if everyone is a psychopaths. Turns out, everyone effectively is. That's why capitalism is the only thing that works.
The same way, voters don't care how much obamacare would hurt everyone. All they care is they get more money from government. In fact, humans are actually jealous and the mere act of hurting the rich actually make them smile.
Feminazis don't care how much marriage actually hurt women and men. Feminazis don't care that their anti women trafficking laws actually trap women in afghanistan and make it easy for males in other countries to oppress women. Feminazis don't care that many women prefer to share richer smarter males than be the only one for the poor. This alone should eliminate poverty.
All feminazis care is women are not sex objects. Why? Because feminazis, like everyone else, are psychopaths. If men see women are sex objects, feminazis, which usually are ugly, fat, and hate males, will simply go extinct. They're jealous with porn stars that easily get all the attention. So they behave as any psychopaths would do. They control us.
The same goes with socialists, social democrats, politicians, and anything non libertarians. Libertarians are not psychopaths. They're just delusional to think that morality might works. That's how people are. Either psychopaths or delusional.
Voters are effectively psychopaths.
It's not morality. It's self interests that make people votes.
If you want to be succesful in politic, you need to be more like Milton Friedman rather than Ayn Rand. Be like those store owners. Make sure that your deals are better for at least 51% of the population. There are many ways we can get far less government and till make 51% people happy but that's a different topic.
Libertarians do not act like bizs in politic. Voters pick differently and they think voters are wrong. If you have a store, do you simply shrug and says customers are wrong? Presume humans are selfish and psychopathic and we can extend what we understand in business, to politic. It's the same thing.
Again, moral deficiency (insufficient empathy) is not the same thing as psychopathy.
Well, I don't think the problem can be "fixed" - I just think that the only route to correct the obvious immorality and injustice of the current world order lies through a revival of very ancient moral ideas (pre-Agricultural Revolution).
So now you're moving the goalposts? Before, the masses were psychopaths, now they're like psychopaths?
When nazi killed jews, they behave like psychopaths right? Yes most of them are not really psychopaths. But the thing is they don't care. It's jews anyway that died, not them. If you go to a store, do you care about the processes why the stores sell meat that at $5? No. And that's the beauty of it. Most of us behave like psychopaths that do not care about whether the meat owners' kids can still wear shoes or not if we buy meats from wallmart instead. In fact, in western civilization, I bet you won't even bargain for the meat. Price high you just go. In capitalism, all of us behaves as if we're psychophats that don't care.
WTF?
You're hyperbolizing human nature and its relation to the case for capitalism. I don't have time to dig up the cite right now but Hoppe addresses this in one of his articles on the myth of collective defense.
There is no question that human nature is maladaptive with respect to a non-zero-sum environment.
Yes, legalizing prositution and polygamy would be the shortest route to elimination of massive wealth inequalities across national boundaries and would lead to generally fairer arrangements in romantic relationships. The fact that these inequalities correspond to national boundaries should be a hint that they originate not in human nature but in the particular facts of the political divisions in the world.
*shrug - sounds like you need to take this up with your shrink, I don't think I can help you with it.
Not delusional at all. Moral instruction - just like manners, etiquette and other social customs - plays a key role in regulating society. The problem is that moral instruction has been corrupted and perverted to the ends of the political Establishment. Its role in regulating a decent social order has been hijacked and it has been re-purposed to maintaining society in a malleable and pliant condition suitable for supporting the parasitic subsistence of the political elites.
Voters are effectively psychopaths. It's not morality. It's self interests that make people votes.
No, voting is delusional, not psychopathic.
I don't want to be successful in politics. I want to have nothing to do with politics. I want to live my life in peace like a decent human being and preserve my moral integrity.
You're incorrect in your assumption that most people on this forum are interested in political success. We're not, except to the extent that political success (such as Ron Paul's) can be a vehicle for what really matters: teaching truth.
Actually you said something that perfectly match what I want to say. You said that better:
So what's the difference then? What's the difference betwen typical psychopaths and typical normal people? That's a question for psychology, not economics or even politics.
That's my whole point. Normal people are economically and politically equivalent to psychopaths. If you're a psychologists, then yes you should differentiate them. For all other purposed they are the same.
Do we have an agreeement here? I read that it's very difficult to differentiate psychopaths from normal people. So don't bother. Presume they're the same then. What can go wrong?
The goalposts have always been the same. The mass are like psychopaths they behave like they really are.
As you said yourself, psychopaths are 4 % of population. However, that's because definition of psychopaths are unnatural. Psychopaths have no empathy. Normal humans have a little empathy that they don't listen. Both are not that different right?
My understanding is the following:
When psychopath can eat you, they will eat you, and then they will justify and lie about it.
When normal humans can eat you, they will eat you, and then they will honestly believe that they're right and justify about it. When they know they're wrong, they'll still lie to save face. That's what all humans do.
So the difference, the only difference, between psychopaths and normal humans, are that psychopaths is more enligthened faster. A normal nazi honestly believe that jews are guilty. A psychopathic nazi konws it's not the case but kill anyway. If you are that jew, run or fight. Presume all nazis are psychopath and you'll have better chance.
You are like sheeps arguing why wolves shouldn't eat them. The sheeps should have run. Sheeps should have fight. You don't argue. Argument solve nothing.
If you presume that people are psychophats, you judge them based on what they do to and for you. If you presume people are normal, you have to put up with thousands and thousands of nonsense justficiation. Which most libertarians seem to try to do. Argue.
Among the most popular and consequential beliefs of our age is the belief in collective security. Nothing less significant than the legitimacy of the modern state rests on this belief. I will demonstrate that the idea of collective security is a myth that provides no justification for the modern state, and that all security is and must be private. First, I will present a two-step reconstruction of the myth of collective security, and at each step I will raise a few theoretical concerns. The myth of collective security can also be called the Hobbesian myth. Thomas Hobbes, and countless political philosophers and economists after him, argued that in the state of nature, men would constantly be at each others’ throats. Homo homini lupus est. Put in modern jargon, in the state of nature, a permanent “underproduction” of security would prevail. Each individual, left to his own devices and provisions, would spend “too little” on his own defense, resulting in per manent interpersonal warfare. The solution to this presumably intolerable situation, according to Hobbes and his followers, is the establishment of a state. In order to institute peaceful cooperation among themselves, two individuals, A and B, require a third independent party, S, as ultimate judge and peacemaker. However, this third party, S, is not just another individual, and the good provided by S, that of security, is not just another “private” good. Rather, S is a sovereign and has as such two unique powers. On the one hand, S can insist that his subjects, A and B, not seek protection from anyone but him; that is, S is a compulsory territorial monopolist of protection. On the other hand, S can determine unilaterally how much A and B must spend on their own security; that is, S has the power to impose taxes in order to provide security “collectively.” There is little use in quarreling over whether or not man is as bad and wolf-like as Hobbes supposes, except to note that Hobbes’s thesis obviously cannot mean that man is driven only and exclusively by aggressive instincts. If this were the case, mankind would have died out long ago. The fact that he did not demonstrates that man also possesses reason and is capable of constraining his natural impulses. The quarrel is only with the Hobbesian solution. Given man’s nature as a rational animal, is the proposed solution to the problem of insecurity an improvement? Can the institution of a state reduce aggressive behavior and promote peaceful cooperation, and thus provide for better private security and protection? The difficulties with Hobbes’s argument are obvious. For one, regardless of how bad men are, S— whether king, dictator, or elected president—is still one of them. Man’s nature is not transformed upon becoming S. Yet how can there be better protection for A and B, if S must tax them in order to provide it? Is there not a contradiction within the very construction of S as an expropriating property protector? In fact, is this not exactly what is also—and more appropriately—referred to as a protection racket? To be sure, S will make peace between A and B, but only so that he himself can rob both of them more profitably. Surely S is better protected, but the more he is protected, the less A and B are protected from attacks by S. Collective security, it would seem, is not better than private security. Rather, it is the private security of the state, S, achieved through the expropriation, i.e., the economic disarmament, of its subjects. Further, statists from Thomas Hobbes to James Buchanan have argued that a protective state, S, would come about as the result of some sort of “constitutional” contract. Yet who in his right mind would agree to a contract that allowed one’s protector to determine unilaterally—and irrevocably—the sum that the protected must pay for his protection? The fact is no one ever has!
- Hans Hoppe, The Private Production of Defense
Ah homo homini lupus. That's the term. Psychopath is not far, but a good approximation that fits data anyway.
Look, you pull out another standard libertarian rethoric again. Yes I agree. So what? That's not the point.
My point is whether presuming humans are psychopaths would correctly approximate typical voters' behavior. I know it approximiate business partners and most strangers I know.
I think a better way to see it is that voters are like psychopaths, and the fact that they aren't actually make them even worst. Zhuang Tzu, for example, pointed how a moral robbers' leader that take care all of his underling is far more dangerous, then an immoral ones.
Another correction is that humans are psychopathic toward strangers and in pursuance of the interest of himself as well as his friends and those simmilar to them.
In any case, I think thinking that humans are like psychopaths are good approximation. So the next time someone complain about women trafficking, ask your self, why does feminazis care? Even the trafficked women often don't mind, so why does the feminazis care? If they were psychopaths would they care? Obviously no. So anti women trafficking laws can't possibly be the result of actual care about others. I think feminazis are just affraid of competing with cheaper women immigrants.
thinking that humans are like psychopaths are good approximation
"Hobbes’s thesis obviously cannot mean that man is driven only and exclusively by aggressive instincts. If this were the case, mankind would have died out long ago. The fact that he did not demonstrates that man also possesses reason and is capable of constraining his natural impulses."
It is no approximation at all - on its face, it's oxymoronic and even what I believe is your intended meaning is simply false, as Hoppe makes clear in the above quote.
why humans kill each other? Because they are psychopaths
why humans are capitalistic and spend little time killing each other? Because even psychopaths understand that it is to their best interest not to kill each other.
That's what I really mean.
As hobbes say, it's reason, not compassion that keep the peace. I hate tax, but hell, voters are stronger, so I pay anyway and now have some temporary peace. Ah, but you should lower your tax, otherwise, I move jobs to china. At the end that's how politics work.
We all understand what we can do and max out our interests based on that. I pay my tax, you don't kill me. You lower your tax, so I don't move out to China. If we can understand this, a lot can be done realistically rather than just ideally.
Too much politic, however, is based on lies. People want something as if they actually care about others. 'They don't. That's what I want to say.
Politicians do not prohibit ganja because it's dangerous. Politicians prohibit ganja to make government bigger and voters condone it because they too are psychophats that don't care.
Most psychopaths aren't killers and a lot of killing has nothing to do with being a psychopath.
@gene: I just don't see the use of discussing human nature in oxymoronic language. "Normal" is whatever is the population average. A "-pathy" is, by defintion, something which is not normal, not average. So, whatever your personal feelings are about what is normal, average human behavior and whether you think it reflects a true caring for one another or not, it is what it is and it is by definition not any kind of -pathy, psychopathy or otherwise. These are the rules of language and they are definite rules which you must conform to if you expect to be understood. Maybe you're just venting and it's not meant to be understood. Who knows.
Suppose we were talking, reasoning parasitic wasps, instead of human beings. Now, I dare you to watch that video and not say to yourself "that's fucked up!" (in any words of your choice). But the fact is, it is what it is. I think this is what you're trying to say about human beings... no matter how much we may not like the way people are, it is what it is. So we have to pay taxes just like the caterpillar has to be stung by the wasp and eaten alive from within by its larvae.
But there is a crucial difference between human beings and parasitic wasps and it's called a frontal cortex. This is the really modern part of the human brain that evolved most recently and is responsible for most of our ability to speak and engage in complex, abstract thought. Unlike wasps, human beings are capable of developing laws. For example, rape was pervasive in the ancestral environment where humans spent the vast majority of their evolutionary history (90+%). The physiology of the reproductive organs as well as the behavioral traits of modern human beings leads directly to this conclusion.
Yet, today, rape is extremely uncommon by comparison to the ancestral environment. How did this happen? Well, the development of family protection, the monogamous union (male "ownership" of his wife), retributive justice and legal precedents have combined to all but eradicate the behavior of rape from our species, however intrinsically inclined males may be to commit rape. Genetic determinism holds for homo sapiens to a much smaller degree than it does for other species. It's there, but it's much smaller and social developments are sufficiently powerful to completely alter the biological balance.
So, I disagree with the political nihilistic that there's no point in trying to change things. There is a point, the point is to eradicate what is evil and to attain what is good both within our own lives and in the lives of our descendants. As far as having a more "business-like" attitude about it, that's a matter of taste. Some people take a more action-oriented approach, others take a more cerebral or academic approach. Both have their place and to the extent that you derive satisfaction from thinking about these problems and trying to find solutions or at least understand their true nature, it is effort well spent.
Okay understood. Humans are not psychopaths. BUt we're not that much difference.
Tell me then, what's our difference, beyond psychological differences?
For political or business purpose, what's the difference between humans and psychopaths?
Not much. If any thing, we'll be better off if politicians are psychopaths. The fact that they aren't is the reason why they cooperate so well to tax capitalists?
Do we have to pay tax? Ugh... Ask Google. That big company only pay 2% tax.
Now that's rich. Hell I know many people that actually eat tax money. I used to think it's wrong. But when I see that most humans are so delusional they do not see the obvious, I sort of let go.