Oversight Voting: Preventing Psychopaths From Getting Power

Preventing Psychopaths Using Oversight Voting

I recently read an article that brought up a good question that applies to nearly every governmental framework.

The article asks how to prevent psychopaths from getting power:

Is There A Way To Prevent Psychopaths From Getting Into Positions Of Power?

Despite a growing resurgence of interest in the science and psychology of narcissistic sociopaths and psychopaths it seems as though society today has lost track of how these people can sabotage the core fabric of a civilization or nation. It is very easy to hyper-focus on collectivist ideologies as the source of our problems and forget that these ideologies do not function in a vacuum; they cannot wreak havoc by themselves, they need psychopathic people directing them to do real damage.

[…]

Civilizations throughout history have consistently dealt with the problem of zealots, but the greater threat is the existence of narcissists and psychopaths sneaking into positions of authority and encouraging zealotry among the masses. Generally, psychopaths are seen as an anomaly which is quickly identified and shunned in order to prevent them from climbing too high up the ladder of social influence. The problem is they are not as rare as one might hope and many of them have the ability to hide among the herd.

Around 1% of any given population is made up of psychopaths while another 1% are sociopaths. Around 5% of people are identified as having narcissistic traits. Narcissists are self absorbed and view themselves as superior to everyone else – They believe they are entitled to adoration and authority. Sociopaths have an inability to feel empathy for others and this makes them impractical as leaders. Psychopaths also exhibit a lack of empathy but also have a propensity for emotional or physical violence. They take joy in the suffering of others and perpetrate a large number of violent crimes.

Even though psychopaths are 1% of the population, they make up 15% to 25% of those incarcerated in prisons. The drag they exert on society cannot be overstated.

There is definitely some overlap among the various types, but in general close to 10% of human beings exhibit dangerous and mostly inherent psychological malfunctions that are often not treatable. Think about that for a moment – 10 out of every 100 people are ticking time bombs waiting to make life miserable for the rest of us.

[…]

History shows us that vetting and preventing psychologically broken individuals from slipping into institutions that offer power is not so easy. In fact, many monarchies and empires were built on systems that allowed psychopaths and narcissists to flourish because they relied on genetic succession. If a monarch had a son that was predisposed to psychopathy it did not matter, that crazed prince would one day become a king and there was little that could be done about it. There was no vetting process. Also, many such traits are passed on genetically, which means a power structure built on heredity could become progressively more destructive as psychopaths in royalty intermarry. This would help explain why psychopathic behavior is over-represented among monarchs of the past.

The creation of democracy and democratic republics was in part designed to help weed out aberrant individuals by using open elections and the voting process. In other words, let the people scrutinize candidates and remove the crazies from circles of power. Unfortunately, this doesn’t work too well if ALL the candidates are psychopaths and the public has no real choice. By extension, psychopaths have also found ways to circumvent the political process and control it without directly participating in it.

The corporate world and financial institutions allow psychopaths to influence politics from behind the curtain, buying off candidates and their loyalty or vetting candidates and ONLY allowing those with similar sociopathic, narcissistic and psychopathic habits through the selection process and into the political arena.

[…]

Some will of course point out that changing the system tomorrow will require getting rid of the psychopaths that run it today. I agree, it’s a dilemma. Sadly, once psychopaths become organized and entrenched history tells us they will not be moved without the force of violence. They don’t care about protests, they are not moved by reason or logic, they don’t care about the suffering of the masses and they will always see themselves as the rightful rulers of us “lesser” peasants.

This snip is only a few key pieces from the article. It’s a good read. I recommend checking out the site and reading it fully.

Toward the end of the article, the author considers a lottery system as something that would be better as an alternative for power. While I don’t disagree with this given our current state, it’s still not the best option. The best option is to subjugate power. We need a proper power cycle.

If we had a proper power cycle, then the only societal arena that would be worrisome would be the political arena. We wouldn’t have to worry about any institution, including financial institutions.

The older I get and the more I research, the more I dislike voting for “representatives” or for “direct policies”. It makes more sense to instead have a vetted class of strong leaders, based on merit, that contributors then have full oversight over. This state then has oversight over institutions.

This is oversight voting instead of representative or direct democratic voting.

Direct democratic voting is perhaps the worst version of voting. It results in a dictatorship of the majority, which has failed countless times over throughout history. It is a progressive’s wet dream, because it allows for continual “progress” over time with no safeguards, that will lead us right into the hands of the rule by few framework. Direct democracy requires an almost perfect population of voters. If this changes, it will start rapidly degrading and only snowball-effect over time.

Representative voting made improvements over direct democratic voting, but it’s still far from flawless. Representative voting renders us useless exactly from what this article postulates. But we don’t need this article to understand that. We can just look around us and see what our system is like right now under representative voting. The majority can be duped by a psychopath, or the gatekeepers (political parties) can simply vet who they want to lead. Everything relies on the representative, who then has conflicting interests once elected. We then have idiotic leaders and no oversight over them. In effect, we elect them under hope that they’ll do something we approve of, but in reality they can do whatever they want. That’s not a great system.

Both systems of voting allow the proliferation of psychopaths because the masses are easily fooled by these individuals and their promises. Direct democracy in the form of a popularity contest and representative voting in the form of gatekeepers and no oversight. Neither actually gives us sustainable oversight over these leaders.

Oversight voting does the opposite of both other voting systems. Especially when combined with contributor voting instead of “democratic” voting. It grants strong power to the state to curtail the influence of the institutions, but the voters then have oversight over the actions of the state. Read my article on the Override provision to understand how oversight could be accomplished rather easily. We could override, or simply stop, any law that we disapprove of.

If we had that power, it would not matter who our leaders were or what they did. We’d have the final veto power.

This combination reduces the ability of psychopaths to manipulate a contributor caste of individuals.

Even if the psychopaths do sneak through occasionally, which they certainly will, the oversight elements can override them. Once they show their true character, they could be limited. Unlike in a representative scheme. It also doesn’t come packaged with the problems of direct democracy.

Again, direct democracy is a progressive voting system. It will always vote for new things and new changes. This brings about significant sustainment risk, as the nation must constantly adapt to new things. Representative democracy is a slightly more conservative approach, but it comes with the expectation of virtuous leadership and knowledgeable citizenry, which is not always the case. As soon as bad representatives get in, the system starts degrading. It only picks up speed as the decay reaches new heights.

Oversight, with a focus on overriding laws, is an anomaly here. Because citizens can’t pass new laws, there is no risk of progressivism and leftism taking hold. They can only subtract, not add. It also solves the issue of problematic representatives, because these representatives are not immune from citizen response. The citizens can still target them and override their policies.

Oversight is the only way we could make a majority-lead government sustainable long-term, because it is the only one that subtracts. If we start with a strong foundation, the most the citizens could do is bring it back to that strong foundation. Even if leftist elements infiltrated the voters, all they could do is bring it back to its former glory. If degeneracy occurs, conservative elements could infiltrate the voters and bring it back to its former glory. Both methods are conservative and traditional, in contrast to representative and direct democratic voting, which are both progressive.

Our leaders would also be much more focused on citizen agreement to laws, because if they don’t have it, they’d be overridden.

When we understand anacyclosis, we realize the risk is that constant “progress” simply pushes us along the cycle of collapse until we reach a former stage (rule by few, rule by one). Oversight instead favors a regression to a previous point, instead of progressing to a further point.

I can’t stress this subtraction element enough in its importance in stopping the cycle. If we had it in America today, we could subtract all the degenerate laws that have led us to where we are now. We could go back to a more traditional position. We could correct a few glaring mistakes our representatives made in the past. Obviously, our system wasn’t designed like that. Nor would many of us want to go back. But a future, stronger system could be. A more Right-leaning government could use this, with a proper foundation, to great success.

My idea with Enclavism is to make a government immune from the cycle of collapse. There is no way that is feasible with direct democracy or representative voting, because of the progressive and tradition-destructive nature of both of them. But neither could we sustain a centralized system like a dictatorship, because we can’t control the leadership element.

The only way sustainment would be possible is through an override/oversight voting system. And it’s precisely because it alone can deal with the psychopaths (centralizers) that degrade the other two voting systems.

I still have more work to do on refining this idea for modernity, but the template is set.

Read Next:

The Grey Masses Finally Start Waking Up

The Unequal Effect When Comparing Capitalism And Socialism

Porn Normalizes Everything That Is An Inversion To The Natural Order

If you enjoyed this article, bookmark the website and check back often for new content. New articles most weekdays.

You can also keep up with my writing by joining my monthly newsletter.

Help fight the censorship – Share this article!