There are a lot of people who really don't understand the structure of reality, or how prevalent and how destructive sociopaths (and the conformists that they influence) are.

You know, this raises an interesting question: what would actually motivate a clinical psychopath in a position of power? Well, self-interest, right? I can see how there might be a lot of environmental disasters, defective products, poor working conditions as a result ... probably also a certain amount of skullduggery would be related to this as well.

Of course, this is an example of society/economics leading a psychopath astray, rather than the other way around. Still, it might be worth pushing to have politicians etc. tested and found unfit if they're psychopathic.

In fact, there is a blind spot in most people's realities that's filled by their evolutionarily-determined blindness to sociopaths.

I remain deeply suspicious of this sentence.

In fact, virtually everyone who hasn't read Stanley Milgram's book about it, and put in a lot of thought about its implications is in this category [...] you might not be referencing an accurate picture of political thought, political reality, political networks.

This seems reasonable, actually. I'm unclear why I should believe you know better, but we are on LessWrong.

The world still doesn't have much of a problem with the "initiation of force" or "aggression." (Minus a minority of enlightened libertarian dissenters.) ...Especially not when it's labeled as "majoritarian government." ie: "Legitimized by a vote." However, a large and growing number of people who see reality accurately (small-L libertarians) consistently denounce the initiated use of force as grossly sub-optimal, immoral, and wrong. It is immoral because it causes suffering to innocent people.

I ... words fail me. I seriously cannot respond to this. Please, explain yourself, with actual reference to this supposed reality you perceive, and with the term "initiation of force" tabooed.

Talk about the prison industrial complex with anyone, and talk with someone who has family members imprisoned for a victimless crime offense.

And this is the result of ... psychopaths? Human psychological blindspots evolved in response to psychopaths?

Talk with someone who knows Schaeffer Cox, (one of the many political prisoners in the USA).

Well, that's ... legitimately disturbing. Of course, it may be inaccurate, or even accurate but justified ... still cause for concern.

Your statistical likelihood of being murdered by your own government, during peacetime, worldwide.

You know, my government could be taken down with a few month's terrorism, and has been. There are actual murderers in power here, from the ahem glorious revolution. I actually think someone who faced this sort of thing here might have a real chance of winning that fight, if they were smart.

This contributes to my vague like of american-style maintenance-of-a-well-organized-militia gun ownership, despite the immediate downsides.

And, of course, no other government is operating such attacks in Ireland, to my knowledge. I think I have a lot more to fear from organized crime than organized law, and I have a lot more unpopular political opinions than money.

I suggest asking yourself whether the math that created that graph was correctly calculated. A bias against badly illustrated truths may be pushing you toward the embrace of falsehood.

The site appears to be explicitly talking about genocide etc. in third-world countries.

If sociopath-driven collectivism was easy for social systems to detect and neutralize, we probably wouldn't give so much of our wealth to it. Yet, social systems repeatedly, and cyclically fail for this reason, just as the USA is now, once again, proceeding down this well-worn path [...] societies typically fall to over-parasitism, (too many looters, too few producers), we should ask ourselves what part we're playing in that fall.

Citation very much needed, I'm afraid. You are skirting the edge of assuming your own conclusion, which suggests it's a large part of your worldview; am I right?

What if all those law students had become STEM majors, and built better machines and technologies?

I'm going to say "surprisingly little". Eh, it's worth a shot in at least a state-level trial.

If societies don't fall entirely to over-parasitism, then what forces ameliorate parasitism?

And, how would you know how likely you are to be killed by a system in transition? You may be right: maybe the graph doesn't take into account changes in the future that make societies less violent and more democratic. It just averages the past results over time.

Assuming "past" and "future" here are metaphorically referring to more/less advanced societies, absolutely.

But I think R. J. Rummel's graph makes a good point: we should look at the potential harm caused by near-existential (extreme) threats, and ask ourselves if we're not on the same course.

This doesn't seem likely to fall into even the same order of magnitude as X-risks. In fact, I think the main effect would be the possible impact on reducing existential threats.

Have we truly eliminated the variables of over-legislation, destruction or elimination of legal protections, and consolidation of political power? ...Because those things have killed a lot of people in the past, and where those things have been prevented, a lot of wealth and relative peace has been generated.

And you blame these on ... psychopaths?

Truth can come from a poorly-dressed source, and lies can (and often do) come in slick packages.

Hmm. Have you considered dressing better? Because those youtube documentaries are borderline unwatchable, and I am right only barely motivated enough to watch them because I would feel bad at potentially neglecting a source of info. (If they continue to consist of facts I already know and raw, unsupported declarations I will, in fact, stop watching them.)