I was thinking about psychopathy. "Leaders" *tend* to have been fully or partially psychopathic, with some exceptions. Leaders of companies tend to be psychopathic, but when it goes well for their company they get richer. > Company leaders tend to want their companies to *get better*. He does not want his company to fail or shrink. Psychopathy was probably relatively common among kings. Kings went to war to enlarge their nations to be able to get a larger population to take tax from. Kings prospered when the people under him were strong and smart and were able to conquer others. > Kings tend to want their countries to *get better*. A king does not want his country to be conquered. Now in the current "democratic" order the leader still tends to be psychopathic. However the "leader" doesn't want what he leads to succeed anymore. The leader does not get anything out of it if his country develops and gets richer. Their salaries does not increase when the country succeeds, and does not fall when the country fails. They get in do as much as they can for only themselves then they get out. And when they are in the opposition they even actively sabotage for the government to make the government look bad, in the hopes that they will be elected next time. > Politicians don't give a fuck about if they contribute to their countries prospering or not. Fuck 'em. (Maybe this got too long for a shower thought but whatever)