Leadership by psychopaths

I understand the dangers of a potential cluster fuck that being angry can bring when trying to address a situation. However, that emotion is not all negative but rather can be used to ignite the fires to alter the dynamics and so become a driving force for what could well be a beneficial/positive outcome.

Many times anger has been harnessed in this way, Even I have done this on countless occasions with success over the years. Key I believe is not allowing it to consume you but rather you being able to channel it and so maintaining self control.

Would conceivably be swifter for sure. One possible concern would be the hidden agendas in terms of what the outside participants would want in return and at what cost that "bill" would be. Ok so you can say that's me being a cynical fucker, but all the years on this planet has made me this way.

A friend of mine said: we are the way we are because society is the way it is. In some ways, he is right. People become the way they are as a result of their interaction with society. And if we are mainly surrounded by evil and mercenary people, then we ultimately learn to interact with them. In some cases, a person becomes a psychopath... Or are they born that way? I don't think this can be proven scientifically.
But I remembered an episode from the old series “Firefly.” Have you seen that series? It was an episode in which they rescued a survivor of an attack by devourers (that's how we translated that word into Russian). And he himself became a devourer because he couldn't bear the horror he had seen.

And I don't know what to do about it. I don't want to live like this, but I don't know how to change it. Maybe I just need to accept that people are the way they are? But I constantly ask myself: what would happen if people had everything they needed to be happy from the moment they were born?

And I wonder what would happen if labor laws around the world were such that people could work a maximum of four hours a day? And maybe every employee would be entitled to a percentage of the company's profits even after they quit.

Apart from the dissatisfaction of capitalists, would this cause any other problems?

I think there's reason to think they're born that way. Also, a psychopath is not necessarily an evil person, but someone who has no tender feelings toward other humans, or anyone. They are also generally emotionally cold, and don't understand when other people become emotional.
Acceptance and change are not either/or propositions. Imho, acceptance of the world the way it is something that you need to be able to most effective at creating change.
I think this idea sounds good, but would actually be bad. This would mean that the most efficient, educated, and skilled workers would have to work less, and overall productivity would decline. There are also some jobs that really no one can do effectively only working 4 hours per day, so some things would really go to hell. It's said that if you want to be a world-class expert in a field, you really have to put in about 70 hours per week maintain that. There might be a benefit in unemployment in so far as you'd quickly run out of workers who hadn't met their 4 per day quota, so new workers would have to be hired, but you'd also expect declining productivity from those workers.

The goal of helping workers is good, but there might be other mechanisms. An increasing tax, or pay requirement as hours increased might be one method. Another might be to give a wage subsidy to workers who were unable to find or do full time work, or whose full time work didn't pay their bills.

There have been a lot of things, like collectivized farming, etc., that sound or sounded good, but have turned out to be bad. There's a lot of complexity to the world and to economies, so one has to be careful about the solutions that are proscribed.

Nah, peoole aren't born as psychopaths. Although looking at some individuals, one would think that way. Though there is a genetic disposition, environmental factors need to be added in as to whether someone develops into one.

You asked what would happen if everyone had what they needed to be happy from the moment they were born? Quite the philosophical question. I'd say there'd be a state of overall numbness because everything would be flatlined into one setting so threrefore with evetything (good) being taken as a given, there would be no appreciation for those instances where things are all good.

Your thoughts about labour laws, working max of 4 hrs/day and an entitlement to a percentage of the company's profits even after they quit.........
Being an ex-business owner, it would reduce the viability and effciciency of company. If you take 8hrs as being the average working day, then in effect you're having the employ double the work force. So therefore this means increased costs such as:

1. Higher Payroll Expenses – More employees mean additional costs related to salaries, benefits, and employer National Insurance contributions.
2. Administrative Overheads – Managing a larger workforce requires more HR resources for scheduling, payroll processing, and compliance.
3. Training Costs – Each employee needs onboarding and training, which can be costly when hiring more staff.
4. Shift Premiums & Overtime – Some industries offer shift premiums for shorter or irregular shifts, increasing overall wage expenses.
5. Uniform & Equipment Costs – If employees require uniforms or specialized equipment, doubling the workforce increases procurement costs.

There'll also be operational drawbacks:

1. Scheduling Complexity – Coordinating twice the number of employees can lead to logistical challenges in shift planning.
2. Reduced Continuity – Shorter shifts may disrupt workflow, requiring more frequent handovers and increasing the risk of miscommunication.
3. Employee Satisfaction & Retention – Some workers may prefer longer shifts for stability and higher earnings, making recruitment and retention more difficult.
4. Legal & Compliance Issues – Employers must ensure compliance with UK working time regulations, including rest breaks and maximum weekly hours.
5. Workplace Congestion – More employees on-site at different times may lead to overcrowding and inefficiencies in workspace utilization.

As for an entitlement to a percentage of the company's profits even after they leave. - Over time there'll be a turnover of staff, leading to an increase in the number of ex-employees, meaning an increase in the percentage of people taking a cut of the company's profits which will of course reduce that firm's bottom line. Factor in the possibility of some people deciding to game the system by jumping from one company to another so as to cream of a percentage of the profits from as many firms as they can.

Feasibility just isn't there as it'll most likely have a negative impact on the long-term viability of a company.

Ok, there are some things about this that won't be very easy to do.
But what if everyone had free food, water, warm comfortable housing and travel?
What if people only worked to fulfill some other ambition of theirs, not survival?
Would there have been many workers at all then, do you think?

Why not? I think well-fed people in safety are much kinder than hungry people in the daily struggle for survival.
Besides, the modern economy produces so many unnecessary things, burning up not at all infinite natural resources.

They seem to be driven only by pragmatic goals? Or don't they?
I also want to ask you. In Buddhism, and many other Eastern religions, giving up desires is almost like giving up emotions or not?

Thank you for the detailed explanations. The difficulties in these ideas have now become clear to me.

That would be good. Hopefully there will be a way this can be achieved.
I don't know.
I'm not an expert, so you may want to ask in the faith forum
https://www.suicideforum.com/community/forums/faith-or-scripture-based-support.115/

I think it's generally acknowledged that we really can't live without desires, but it's mostly that we shouldn't have strong attachment especially to selfish or material things.

I recall one teacher saying that doing good deeds is on some level dualistic grasping, but it's positive dualistic grasping that eventually leads to enlightenment.

Similar experiments have been done before, I've put links to them under a spoiler.


These experiments speak in favor of my ideas, don't they? But I still have a question: why did the research stop? Doesn't it benefit the psychopaths in power?

I would like to do another social experiment where people would be offered 2 paths:
1. No need to work. Full financial security. Prohibition of any kind of drugs, including legal drugs (alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, etc.).
2. The need to work full time. All types of drugs are allowed.


If someone wanted to do such an experiment, I'd be interested. But I don't think the leading psychopaths would implement it because it's a big strain on the economy. Oh, and it would get the story that people did find a way to escape the leadership of the psychopaths. And that's exactly what I think the psychopaths will not be able to allow.

In my opinion, option 1 in this experiment is reminiscent of monastic inhibitions, but without having to make the religious journey. I think that's what many people are missing. I intentionally included drugs in option 1 because I think it's one of those carrots that guiding psychopaths hang in front of a donkey's (human) face.

And in the end, I would become very interested in the results of my proposed experiment. What would people choose?

Of course, it's a raw idea. It can be refined.

The research seems to prove something fairly intuitive, that poor people became happier and better off when they got more money. Increasing income for poor people seems to me like a good goal.

The potential problems are:

1. It didn't increase productivity or employment

2. You have pay for programs like that somehow, so there's a question of how you do that and what effects the tax or other funding mechanism might have

There might be some other problems too, but I don't want to try cover every possible problem.

In short, I'd say some program of helping poor people would be a good idea, it's primarily a question of how that would get funded.

That's why I practice Buddhism. Because sometimes God does not answer prayers. At that point, I must rely on myself. Not God, nothing supernatural, but instead practicality. That's why Buddhism is called the practical religion.

I guess theists would say that God does answer prayers, it's just when and how they are answered may not be what you expect.

I think Buddhism is a great religion, and a great fit for some people, but I'm reluctant to say anything that implies one religion might be better than another.

I don't think the issue is poverty and helping poor people. For me the more important issue in this thread and in my life in general: how to deal with the leadership of psychopaths who without any emotional regret force (create such conditions) people to work beyond their physical capabilities, which forces people to use additional substances as doping.
What bothers me is that people are largely not bothered by the fact that they are using legal drugs. And it bothers me that these legal drugs are allowed at all.
It doesn't bother the psychopaths. And it doesn't bother non-psychopaths who have accepted the rules of a destructive game.

So, let's keep working beyond our physical capabilities, compensate with caffeine, alcohol, sugar and other legal drugs. We'll pay with our health and time for money for the boss ( mostly). And still won't be able to buy health and time when the time comes.
We'll see the boss smugly rubbing his hands together.
Call it taking responsibility for your life. It's convenient for the psychopaths in power.

At least nowhere in my life have I encountered an objection that it isn't.

I'm trying to start liking people who agree with this arrangement of the world. I'm not very good at it so far. But I have begun to understand slave owners who hate their slaves.

I think there's only a relatively small number of people who are completely content with the status quo. The problem is that change is both difficult to achieve, and even when you can achieve change, it's tricky not to end up making things worse.

Indeed, why change anything when there are so many doctors?
And dissatisfaction can always be drowned in alcohol. A lack of energy can be compensated for with caffeine, pizza, and other flour-based products. And antidepressants will be prescribed if necessary.
What, are people working beyond their capabilities? They already live too long, and paying retirement benefits is a huge burden on the economy! Let's raise the retirement age to 65 (in my country)! And if in 20 years they are still living long lives, then let's raise the retirement age to 70! Why not? All we need to do is tell these idiots the right words about how bad the economy is and that we can't make it worse while we relax on warm islands 7-8 times a year, drive Maybachs, and go to work just to chat.
He won't forget to put on a serious face.

I just put myself in the shoes of those leading psychopaths. Sometimes my empathy is my enemy.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be change. The problem is that getting change is hard, and even when you can change things, it's easy to have a change that makes things worse.

The US once tried banning alcohol (prohibition). It sounded like a good idea. It's certainly true that many people die from alcoholism, there any many crimes and illnesses that result from consuming alcohol, and it would just be overall better if no one drank any alcohol.

The problem is that banning alcohol led to people drinking more not less, organized crime groups arose that had alcohol production and distribution as their main business (and also branched out to other areas), and many people died or became sick from unregulated dangerous alcohol.

We should not be satisfied with the status quo, but it's simply necessary to approach problem solving in an intelligent way if you hope to make things better and not worse.

First of all, I apologize. Sometimes I become too rude and harsh. I am ashamed of this.

Secondly, it's not about alcohol itself. We also had prohibition between 1985 and 1990, I think. And it didn't lead to anything good either.
However, alcohol is a consequence, not a cause, in my opinion. People drink a lot because they are trying to cope with stress, I think. And the cause of this stress, in my view, lies in excessive workloads and the fast pace of life.

From movies, books, and articles, I learned that there was a Great Depression in the United States in the 1930s. According to economists, one of the reasons for it was that capitalists reduced wages so much that people did not have money to buy goods. What am I getting at? If psychopaths had the opportunity, they would not pay us any money at all. It was after the Great Depression that labor laws improved. In my country, everything is much sadder. We still have not emerged from the old Soviet system.

I don't know what needs to change or how. However, we are talking about human lives. The existing full-time work schedule is impossible without the use of additional stimulants. However, people are forced to do this because they need money.

Is slowly killing yourself a suicidal tendency? People know about the dangers of coffee, but they continue to drink it to stay alert and earn money. People know about the dangers of alcohol, but they continue to drink it to relieve stress. And much more...

In my opinion, human life is not a commodity in business. Everything should be structured so that people can live long and happy lives. But at the moment, human life is treated as some kind of expendable material. Leading psychopaths have built a system that squeezes everything out of people, which ultimately leads to a decrease in the quality and length of human life. And all this is happening under the slogan of improving the quality of human life, which is incredibly annoying. It sounds like, work hard now, and then, someday, you will have a good life. Maybe. If you can live to see it. If you survive at all.

I don't know what exactly needs to change. And I don't know how to achieve these changes. But human life and health should not be a commodity. Simply because there is enough food, water, air, and housing for everyone on this planet. However, these resources necessary for survival are in the hands of leading psychopaths. And they skillfully manipulate them for their own benefit.

When human lives are destroyed, it is something that is simply part of modern life, the status quo.
But when we think about stopping the destruction of human lives, it is something we must do without making the situation worse.
That's ridiculous to me.

In my opinion, everything should be based on people feeling good and healthy in this life. And everything else should be built on that.

Otherwise, what is the point of life in general? To be reborn and atone for your sins and such? No, I don't want to get into religious philosophy. It doesn't work for me.