Social pressure is our most important soft power.  Soft power, creating change through influence and agreement is superior to hard power.  It is superior because it embraces both cooperation and competition, leaving the future open for more economies of scale than it’s master/slave cousin hard power.  Hard power, using violence and threats to achieve your ends is mainly a competitive power.  Yet both are used in hierarchies that are the ultimate authority.  Is this evidence of psychopaths abusing their power?  In some cases, but just as often it is a reaction to external psychopathic behaviour.  A fight fire with fire approach to hard power.  Usually pushing productivity gains into the future in order to accomplish better logistics now.  Addressing a present danger, real or imagined.

Rigid hierarchies justify all hard power off this dynamic.  The supposition is that to protect you from other rigid hierarchies one must be erected/protected now and for us.  This may be true at the front line in a hot war, where sheer terror can overwhelm a soldiers mind, but not before or after.  The idea that a master/slave relationship must be established to quiet an empaths mind at some unknown critical moment is correct in some of the worst cases but not all of them.  Some empaths complete the journey of self knowledge and are able to morally resolve greater purpose (murder versus kill for example.)  Completely internalizing the master/slave relationship, with their conscience as the master and their psychopathic self as the slave.  Some of the smarter war films like ‘Apocalypse Now’ or ‘Full Metal Jacket’ explore this dynamic.

in a world peppered with psychopaths, empaths with self knowledge, and empaths without it, a rigid hierarchy is necessary to align their personalities in a common ‘can’t fail’ effort against the cases of a real clear and present danger.  But what happens if you completely remove all the psychopaths from power over data or other human beings?  Just because defaulting to trust is a fundamental economic force doesn’t mean it’s a sensible defence strategy.  I think history has shown us otherwise.  A world leader could be incorrect or think to have the ethical higher ground and could attack the unprepared countries.  What is interesting is the front line.  Without the need to create a psychopathic cooperative among the soldiers, you eliminate the need for standing armies and professional soldiers.  Periodic training both to help the volunteer part time soldier know themselves (not to be surprised by a shrieking fear of God on the front line for example) and to normalize justified violence in defence of the self and the innocent, you could create a more predictable, less expensive army.

More simply put, you can use the more self-sustaining soft power to prepare soldiers enlisted by whatever means for war part time when the need arises.  They can participate in the society economically while bettering their emotional connections with the society they are sworn to defend.  Lessening the negative impact of rejoining that society(PTSD/Shell shock)  after a war.  Having your society of soldiers as your most important society dedicates time and resources to training, but good planning can produce the same result with part time soldiers as well without the economic drain.  History can be a guide here.  It is dotted with revolutionary soldiers who won, in part because their conscience said they were morally right.  Something a psychopath, or a scrutinized psychopathic society, can’t do.