Dr. Garelli,

How can we, the rational :] be certain that we are blunting the destinies
of only the sociopathic who years hence may exhibit a behavior which is
unacceptable to us in teh face of the possibility that we may be blunting
the destinies of a great leader?   It seems to me that the two
differentiate themselves only by their choices and actions as adults. The
former, being im- or a-moral,  will use any means to achieve his ends
including force, threat of force and deceit while the latter, having
learned and accepted a morality,  use clear thinking, competence and
statesmanship.

The culture which generally holds ‘that the use of force and deceit in
the acquisition of property is wrong’ and 'that the use of force and
deceit in defense of one's self and one’s property against attack is
right’ will easily gather to protect itself against the sociopathic
politician and just as easily recognize and  follow a true statesman.  A
confused, self-contradicted society will founder under the direction of
the sociopaths until ... well, until the confusers, the confused and the
sociopaths eventually become paralyzed by their own venom.  I prefer an
enlightened, community as first described above and it is up to practical
thinkers like you and me to promote the founding concepts.

Also, I believe that psychiatric (or any) intervention (before the fact
of a crime) by means of drugs, operations, electroshock, PDH or the
altering of an individual’s genes,  is an immoral use of force.
Restraint of a bully, for example,  with  the informed consent of the
parent or guardian would not be immoral demonstrates an appropriate way
to mitigate damage while perhaps a moral code is presented.

Dr. Garelli, please stay with and refine your position with regard to
this topic.  Don't sweat the small stuff.

Respectfully submitted,
Don Brayton
----------------------------------