Daily Anarchist Forum
April 23, 2014, 05:07:48 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: How to deal with the dangerous mentally ill  (Read 2991 times)
Freya
Tranarchist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 353



View Profile
« on: October 31, 2011, 09:28:35 AM »

Prevention is better then cure has always been a big motto for me. However, abiding by the non-agression principle we can not force for example mental patients to get treatment if they do not want to.

But what about liabilities? Those that are a danger to others? We could wait until it gets out of hand and the person in question violates the NAP in some way, then coercion can be used to force him into treatment. At this point though it might be too late, or someone might already have been hurt or killed as a consequence.

How would we solve this issue? Can his family ignore the NAP and force him into treatment? I think this would not stay true to the NAP.

The only solution I see if via contracts. People providing health care or health care insurance or even law enforcement make it part of their contract that they can use coercion to force a patient into treatment. This seems like the most practical solution, since everyone will probably opt into such a service.

It's not ideal and people can still avoid signing such contracts, or some companies might not provide them. But violating the NAP is probably the greater evil here. Has anyone given this thought? is there any literature or discussion on this topic in the voluntarist community?
« Last Edit: October 31, 2011, 09:31:12 AM by EddyK » Logged
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3096



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2011, 01:23:43 PM »

I don't believe one could morally force treatment on the mentally ill until they themselves have broken the NAP, but if they are mentally ill it shouldn't take too long for that to happen. Even petty trespass could at least be a defensible reason to treat them, and if they haven't got any defense agency of their own contesting it, they are pretty much shit out of luck. It shouldn't have to escalate to murder before something along these lines happens.

On a side note, just remember that even if we let all of the crazies run wild and kill people, they still couldn't do near the damage than if we gave them nuclear missiles, battleships, bombers, and soldiers, like we do now.
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
rahvin
Full Member
***
Posts: 138


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2011, 02:21:18 PM »

A dangerous individual attacks someone.

Someone defends himself.

Problem solved.


I think that people have to do something dangerous in order to be considered dangerous (else you start punishing thought crimes) and I'm a big fan of only having one-time offenders. 



Logged
bastiat
Full Member
***
Posts: 100


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2011, 05:48:58 PM »

Fortunately, the mentally ill are not much more violent than the sane so I donot think this is a big problem.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525086/
Logged
ff42
Full Member
***
Posts: 162


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 31, 2011, 08:05:18 PM »

Assuming that EVERYTHING is private a mentally ill person is not going to get far because most Defense Resolution Organizations are going to insist, as part of their insurance coverage, that we only allow 'screened' (for some definition of screened) individuals on our property and/or in our business, so those without DRO representation are only really a danger to their immediate neighbors and/or family members.

I tend to agree with Stephan Molyneux that the percentage of mentally ill will drastically go down when we, as a society, stop mentally, emotionally, spiritually, and physically abusing children.    I also believe that technology might improve to the point where embryos could be tested to eliminate the remaining cases.
Logged
oooorgle
Full Member
***
Posts: 173



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2011, 08:07:14 PM »

My opinion is that the amount of ostracization one experiences would be one way to attempt to identify crazies. DRO's could deal with individuals that perhaps cannot provide personal references or other sorts of references. Not thought through that much but, I do my best not to judge someone other than their behavior and essentially there would have to be a violation of NAP otherwise it may well be ostracization.

Something to consider for sure. Thanks.
Logged
Draygon Uoy
No Classification
Newbie
*
Posts: 6


LET'S RAVE BITCHES!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: January 02, 2012, 01:14:51 PM »

Fortunately, the mentally ill are not much more violent than the sane so I donot think this is a big problem.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525086/
Very agreeable and who's to say who's sane/insane in the first place? For all we know, the people we consider insane may be seeing what's real and what we see is in our head? :O
Logged

Zombies: If you can't kill them, then join them.
(Seriously, those are the only choices)
Syock
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2192



View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 02, 2012, 01:33:46 PM »

I find this entire concept funny as most people are violent, if even indirectly through the government.  They are considered perfectly sane. 
Logged

"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant".
Freya
Tranarchist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 353



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: January 11, 2012, 06:09:32 AM »

This was posted after my recent conversion. I recently had a debate about forced vaccination where I took the completely opposing stand. Makes this post seem a bit ridiculous but at that time it was a concern for me.
Logged
MAM
Guest
« Reply #9 on: April 20, 2012, 06:22:07 PM »

If one person is allowed to ignore NAP then it is only a matter of time before we find ourselves back in the position we are in now. Exceptions to NAP only allow for abuse of the system of exceptions, I would rather have to defend myself from one crazy person, than have to defend myself from an organized group attempting to take my rights away.
Logged
helio
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 571



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2012, 01:27:30 PM »

I like what Stefan Molyneaux has to say about 'explaining away' problems like this.

Before we worry about how to deal with random 'CrAzIeS' after the state has vanished, we should focus all our efforts on pointing out the 'CrAzIeS' in the governments and how what they do is much much worse than what a handful of isolated, alone, poorly armed, irrational, impoverished schizophrenics are going to do.

That tiny problem will be solved in ten thousand different ways all around the world and the best methods will be adopted once the law monopoly is gone and not enforcing its 'one way'.

Freedom to solve social problems is what the state fears most because people will realize they can just solve their own damn problems and don't need a bunch of thugs to 'protect' them.
Logged

"Fire in the head, peace in the heart."  -Samael
Aegidius
Abuser of italics and semicolons
Full Member
***
Posts: 131



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2012, 06:37:12 PM »

I think a trap that a lot of people fall into when thinking about issues like this is the notion that we can prevent all bad things from happening.  This simply cannot be; even in a just society, things are going to go wrong and some people are going to be jerks.  There will be accidents.  There will be tragedies.  There will be crimes.  You cannot prevent these things from happening, and when the statists attempt to do so they only end up aggressing against the innocent.  

So, yes, you do have to wait until it gets out of hand and the person breaks the NAP.  Somebody might, at this point, already have been hurt or killed as a consequence.  This is an unfortunate fact of life.

I actually do like your contract solution, though.  It's definitely something worth trying, and the market will either bear it or not.  If anyone doesn't like it, all they have to do is not agree to it: there'd surely be competing defense/healthcare providers who could attract customers by either having or excluding such a clause in their contracts.

This was posted after my recent conversion. I recently had a debate about forced vaccination where I took the completely opposing stand. Makes this post seem a bit ridiculous but at that time it was a concern for me.

I wouldn't say your post is ridiculous, this is an important point to discuss.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2012, 06:59:16 PM by Aegidius » Logged

"I need not say how eager we are to trade with you and your kind!  Now, how can I be of service to you?"
Disengage
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 321


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2012, 01:56:11 PM »

The dangerously mental ill will be taken care of by their families (or people hired by their families) OR they will be "taken care of" by some armed person while in the process of being dangerous toward that person.

Will innocent people be hurt?   Sure.  But innocent people are hurt by dangerous people every day right now, so how is this any different?   I'm not saying there ISN'T a difference.   One difference is that "dangerously mental ill" people can't become untouchable armed thugs with the power of the state behind them.  I'm sure there are others.

Logged



negator
Newbie
*
Posts: 46


no


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: August 04, 2012, 11:10:16 AM »

Before we worry about how to deal with random 'CrAzIeS' after the state has vanished, we should focus all our efforts on pointing out the 'CrAzIeS' in the governments and how what they do is much much worse than what a handful of isolated, alone, poorly armed, irrational, impoverished schizophrenics are going to do.

this.
Logged

yes
Josh D
Full Member
***
Posts: 153



View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 05, 2012, 06:16:20 PM »

I think a trap that a lot of people fall into when thinking about issues like this is the notion that we can prevent all bad things from happening.  This simply cannot be; even in a just society, things are going to go wrong and some people are going to be jerks.  There will be accidents.  There will be tragedies.  There will be crimes.  You cannot prevent these things from happening, and when the statists attempt to do so they only end up aggressing against the innocent.

I agree 100%
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!