What about the victims of nutjob scizophrenics who ought to be in jail? Is there an underground movement of those people?

Anyone who thinks that "forced hospitalization" of some lunatic screaming that he's Jesus and threatening people should themselves be hospitalized. Forcibly and forever.

By  Greg newburn, at Thu Mar 02, 08:32:00 AM  

schizophrenics, rather.

By  Greg Newburn, at Thu Mar 02, 10:14:00 AM  

schizophrenics are rarely violent, and should face the same punishment the rest of us do if they are.

and yes greg, we should hospitalize everyone who makes you uncomfortable/annoyed... so, who would not be hauled away??

By  ns, at Thu Mar 02, 01:48:00 PM  

Oh yeah? Then why did my schizophrenic friend Ryan bum-rush the pulpit at a Pensacola revival church and almost beat up a preacher?

It isn't that they annoy me, it's that they are a "danger to themselves or others."

Lock 'em up, I say. Forced hospitalization saved my friend's life. Why do you want to see mentally ill people die?

By  Greg, at Thu Mar 02, 07:08:00 PM  

because i don't like people, in general. that is why i'm a libertarian!

seriously, i didn't say they can't be, but that they usually aren't, violent. we're talking in generalities; of course there are exceptions. from research i've read, most are withdrawn and prefer solitude, and usually only those with previous history of violence are violent once becoming "ill". in any case, violence against others is a problem sure, but not necessarily violence against oneself (if that were the case, then we'd be for making cigarettes illegal). but i know you want to make cigarettes illegal anyways, greg.

By  ns, at Thu Mar 02, 07:15:00 PM  

The usual standard for forced hospitalization is "danger to oneself or others," not "schizophrenic." Hence the principle assumes that some, but not all, schizophrenics are violent.

In other words, it doesn't matter if "nearly all" mentally ill patients are not violent. What matters is the mental state at any given time. If the reasonable person would determine that the paitent is sufficiently non-rational that he poses a threat, then he can be locked up. What's wrong with that?

Perhaps "danger to oneself" shouldn't be part of the equation (or perhaps the standard should be higher in such situations). But it seems that if you concede that someone can be sufficiently outside the norms of reason that they pose a threat to others, and that people in such a state can justifiably be hospitalized against their will, then the whole argument is conceded.

By  Greg Newburn, at Thu Mar 02, 07:59:00 PM  

>If the reasonable person would determine that the paitent is sufficiently non-rational that he poses a threat, then he can be locked up. What's wrong with that?

because these things are impossible to measure, first of all. second because you're punishing someone by the most serous method possible save death for having done nothing wrong at all. i do think that a line has to be drawn at some point about using preemptive action, but i think i'd draw the line much, much, later than you would, at the point where it was clear that they were intending harm to some specific person. that point seems to be where we differ.

By  ns, at Fri Mar 17, 12:14:00 AM  

hospitalization is "the most serious [punishment] possible save death"? That's a little extreme, I think. If you asked the average bipolar patient, once he starts responding to meds and is released, whether he feels that he was just punished "in the most serious way possible save death," my guess is he says no. And he probably says, "why would I think that? I'm glad they put me in the hospital; I could've killed someone."

"clear that they were intending harm to some specific person" is an impossible standard to meet. I'd imagine that most of the time, there is no intended victim. Rather, some event occurs that triggers an immediate violent response; one which wouldn't have occurred if the person was--in any meaningful sense, and to the reasonable person--sane.

By  Greg Newburn, at Tue Mar 21, 08:23:00 AM  

Loved the book and learned a lot!

By  Lotus Reads, at Sun Apr 23, 05:30:00 AM  

What you and the rest of the mainstream media aren't reporting is that a champion of property rights was shot by a high level government official: http://www.sploid.com/news/2006/02/injured_geezer.php

He was a threat and the powers that be arranged to have him taken out. Sweep it under the rug if you want but the people demand the truth.

My tinfoil hat is itchy.

By  JA$ON, at Mon Feb 13, 05:49:00 PM  

ok, my last comment was jokey but I do respectfully disagree with this post. The man suffered from a heart attack today from complications due to the shooting.

The spin is that this "guy is fine" as you wrote but I don't buy it. Stay tuned hedgehogs.

By  JA$ON, at Tue Feb 14, 07:12:00 PM  

okay. i'll grant you that the man having heart trouble is a big deal. but the actual shooting? not.

By  ns, at Wed Feb 15, 09:30:00 AM  

Nikki, since you are both a good libertarian and a good psychology student, I was curious your stance on suicide. I think it likely you would argue that the individual has ownership over their body/life, so if they freely choose to end it, that is their right. But I also read your commentary regarding depression/suicide, and I wonder if you consider mental illness to be a deprivation of one's ability to "freely choose"? Do you buy the "chemical imbalance" contention? And if so, don't hard drugs (which we might argue ought to be legalized) count as "imbalancing" chemicals in the brain?

By  Fox, at Fri Feb 10, 11:54:00 AM  

-GROAN- that’s a very difficult question that i struggle with, my friend. to me, government issues are clear; the body is one’s property, is not owned or owed to anyone/thing else. although i think all should be treated as such from a governmental perspective, in certain cases people don’t physically have the same ability to make certain ethical calls that others do. this goes for both children and those with some neurological maladies. so what to do? this is a dilemma for me. can someone who has the moral-reasoning areas of their brain removed, for example, be held accountable for her actions? what about a child whose brain is not fully developed? perhaps for utility reasons it makes sense to hold them accountable (for others’ protection in the former case, and for eventual moral development in the latter). however, as far as person-ownership issues are concerned, it’s not clear to me. can someone who has had parts of her brain destroyed – in critical judgement/reasoning/decision-making areas - be allowed to commit suicide? i’m inclined towards “yes” – perhaps for more utilitarian reasons, again - but again it’s not a clear case to me. so, i don’t know. it’s something i think about, and i know this my response is not clear, because the answer is not.

By  ns, at Fri Feb 10, 02:37:00 PM  

I love the new site!

By  Anonymous, at Tue Feb 07, 10:36:00 PM  

thank you!!! :)

By  ns, at Tue Feb 07, 11:07:00 PM  

I so could have used such advice from the Army at one point in my life...

By  hcamp, at Tue Feb 28, 11:00:00 AM