What role (if any) does a psych ward have in a libertarian society?

[guitarlifter]

The reason I ask is that it's full of people who aren't necessarily locked in there because of crimes, but because they are mentally ill. What if a person wants to be free and has committed no crime, but they are not allowed to leave? Is it immoral to check a friend in against their will to a psych ward if they, for example, are suicidal or cut themselves? What role does a psych ward have in a libertarian society if any?

EDIT: Just a continuation of thought. What about self-abuse in general? In a free society, can one commit suicide without interference from others? Is it legal to stop someone else from committing suicide or from harming themselves in a free society? What would a libertarian society do in such a situation?

[AcousticFoodie]

Well people have a right to their life, so the assumption may be that a true libertarian society would be against 5150 for people who are suicidal. However, the assumption for those 5150s is that they are not in a healthy state of mind at the moment and need to be confined for their safety. In states that allow assisted suicide, it usually requires two psychiatrist to determine if the patient is actually in control of their own thoughts before they are allowed to commit suicide.

Therefore, I would think that a true libertarian society would allow for suicide, but only after drastic actions have been taken to determine that the individual is in full control of their mental state for their rights to their lives.

I think the bigger question would be how a true libertarian society manages to fund mental health facilities, group homes and transition homes for the mentally ill. Those services are extremely pricey with longterm (sometimes lifelong) dependency on those systems.

[pcosmar]

The reason I ask is that it's full of people who aren't necessarily locked in there because of crimes, but because they are mentally ill. What if a person wants to be free and has committed no crime, but they are not allowed to leave? Is it immoral to check a friend in against their will to a psych ward if they, for example, are suicidal or cut themselves? What role does a psych ward have in a libertarian society if any?

EDIT: Just a continuation of thought. What about self-abuse in general? In a free society, can one commit suicide without interference from others? Is it legal to stop someone else from committing suicide or from harming themselves in a free society? What would a libertarian society do in such a situation?

I think there is a wide chasm between "should there be a law" and "what is morally or socially acceptable".

As far as "Psyche wards",, there would no doubt be hospitals that care for the mentally unstable. I am sure families and loved ones would seek care for those with actual problems.

Those who just behave in a socially unacceptable manner should not necessarily be locked up (unless they are clearly dangerous), but would rather be shunned by polite society.
The whole "there ought to be a law" mentality needs to be removed from free society.
There are a few and only a few laws that are needed.

[guitarlifter]

I think there is a wide chasm between "should there be a law" and "what is morally or socially acceptable".

As far as "Psyche wards",, there would no doubt be hospitals that care for the mentally unstable. I am sure families and loved ones would seek care for those with actual problems.

Those who just behave in a socially unacceptable manner should not necessarily be locked up (unless they are clearly dangerous), but would rather be shunned by polite society.
The whole "there ought to be a law" mentality needs to be removed from free society.
There are a few and only a few laws that are needed.

Just for the record, I never said that there should be a law in case you're implying that I was implying that through my post.

[kah13176]

Rothbard addresses this subject in "For a New Liberty".

[guitarlifter]

And of course, I would totally be against mental hospitals being federally funded by stolen money. They would have to be privatized.

[guitarlifter]

Rothbard addresses this subject in "For a New Liberty".

I'm on about page 45 on that book. What page is it on?

[kah13176]

I'm on about page 45 on that book. What page is it on?

I don't remember; finished months ago.

By the way, there's a free audiobook on iTunes.

[noneedtoaggress]

The reason I ask is that it's full of people who aren't necessarily locked in there because of crimes, but because they are mentally ill. What if a person wants to be free and has committed no crime, but they are not allowed to leave?

Also, who determines whether you are "mentally ill" and must be held against your will when you haven't infringed the rights of anyone?

Cui Bono?


Is it immoral to check a friend in against their will to a psych ward if they, for example, are suicidal or cut themselves? What role does a psych ward have in a libertarian society if any?

Was the power to make these decisions attributed to the "friend, or is the "friend" arbitrarily making decisions about your freedom for you?

People might be pressured into joining voluntarily through social pressure, but in a libertarian society you own yourself.


EDIT: Just a continuation of thought. What about self-abuse in general? In a free society, can one commit suicide without interference from others?

Who has the right to your life? Who owns your body?

How do you prevent someone from committing suicide if they are utterly committed? What quality of life will they have?


Is it legal to stop someone else from committing suicide or from harming themselves in a free society? What would a libertarian society do in such a situation?

As far as I understand, that would depend on whether they are grateful about saving their life or not.

[Xenophage]

In a free society you don't lock anyone up unless they have committed and act of aggression against another person, or presented a credible threat. Waving your gun around casually with the safety off might not violate anyone's rights unless the gun accidentally goes off, but it can be considered a credible threat constituting aggression. Likewise, certain types of threatening, irrational behavior that can be brought on as a result of mental illness could be considered a credible threat.

In general, society today does not lock up mentally handicapped or ill people unless they are also threatening other people or engaging in violent behavior. It's important to have objective standards in law enforcement, but this area has historically always been a bit of a gray area. How do you determine who is a credible threat, or what actions constitute threatening behavior when nobody's rights have actually been violated? I think it's important to resolve that question, but I don't have the answer.

[fisharmor]

I think everyone should know the name Ignaz Semmelweis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis


Semmelweis postulated the theory of washing with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847 while working in Vienna General Hospital's First Obstetrical Clinic, where doctors' wards had three times the mortality of midwives' wards. He published a book of his findings in Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever. Despite various publications of results where hand-washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community.
....
In his 1861 book, Semmelweis lamented the slow adoption of his ideas: "Most medical lecture halls continue to resound with lectures on epidemic childbed fever and with discourses against my theories. […] The medical literature for the last twelve years continues to swell with reports of puerperal epidemics, and in 1854 in Vienna, the birthplace of my theory, 400 maternity patients died from childbed fever.
....
Beginning from 1861 Semmelweis suffered from various nervous complaints. He suffered from severe depression and became excessively absentminded.
...
Semmelweis lashed out against his critics in series of Open Letters.... They were full of bitterness, desperation, and fury and were "highly polemical and superlatively offensive at times denouncing his critics as irresponsible murderers or ignoramuses.
...
n 1865 János Balassa wrote a document referring Semmelweis to a mental institution. On July 30 Ferdinand Ritter von Hebra lured him, under the pretense of visiting one of Hebra's "new Institutes", to a Viennese insane asylum
...
He was severely beaten by several guards, secured in a straitjacket and confined to a darkened cell. Apart from the straitjacket, treatments at the mental institution included dousing with cold water and administering castor oil, a laxative. He died after two weeks, on August 13, 1865, aged 47, from a gangrenous wound, possibly caused by the beating. The autopsy revealed extensive internal injuries

Oh, yeah, I'm a real big fan of your "friends" involuntarily committing you. Particularly when you're trying to save lives.
Don't give me the "they're not like that anymore" - lots of members on this forum are old enough to have lived in a time when your friend would have gotten an ice pick lobotomy.

(ETA: just a point of interest, but he was fighting against the same bacterium that killed Jim Henson.)

[noneedtoaggress]

Oh man :(

[pcosmar]

Just for the record, I never said that there should be a law in case you're implying that I was implying that through my post.
Was not aiming at you particularly. But it is a common theme, and the reason we have 90,000+ laws on the books today.

[outspoken]

The irony is that we live in a society that condones the violence necessary to force others to pay for the suicide prevention of those who for whatever reason do not value their life enough to continue living it. It's about enough to make a 'normal' person crazy!

[Working Poor]

I have known several suicidal people 3 of them were eventually successful. I don't know the answer. One person made several attempts and was hospitalized several times and put on meds but she eventually made it happen. So i am not sure if it is really right to put so much into prevention. I know it makes the still living so sad to loose a loved one to suicide. I wonder if the prevention is more for the loved ones than the person wanting to commit the act.

[specialK]

The majority of admissions to psych wards are voluntary.

[libertygirl2]

One view (Kantian):

Suicide = destroying your own rational capacity

Destroying your own rational capacity does not infringe upon the freedom of others. Although suicide may be considered 'morally wrong' (according to philosophers like Kant), it shouldn't be controlled by the government. Things like murder and theft do destroy the freedoms of others and consequently should be controlled by the gov't.

Another view (Lockean):

According to Locke, the right to life is a natural/impresecriptible right. Locke believes that suicide may be prohibited by law because the right to life is NOT renounceable or transferrable.

[Rael]

The problem with legal sanction for suicide is that it is a slippery slope which might lead to criminal charges or civil liability for someone who rescues someone trying to commit suicide.

If I find a friend in his garage with the car running, and save his life by pulling him out, have I violated his right to suicide? Should he be able to sue me?

[Created4]

In general, society today does not lock up mentally handicapped or ill people unless they are also threatening other people or engaging in violent behavior.

This is just not true. Psychiatry in general is a way to sell psyche drugs, and if you don't agree with their diagnosis, you can be locked up and your children can be taken away from you. There are no biological tests to determine "mental diseases" - none. They are solely determined by psychiatrists, and the "diseases" are invented by voting on them and putting them into their DSM, the "bible" of pysche "diseases" that are determined by psychiatrists. See: http://www.cchr.org/videos/marketing-of-madness/all-in-favor-say-aye.html

Children are taken away from their parents all the time now for "psychiatric" reasons, as the definition of "abuse" is now expanded to mean "you don't agree to buy our drugs (or vaccines) and give them to your children." It happens most often with lower income people. See how they seized one home-school mother's daughter here and locked her up: http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/police-use-assault-weapons-and-tank-against-home-school-mom-wanting-to-protect-daughter-from-dangerous-medications/

States are even motivated to lock up children to receive federal funds. See: http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/child-abuse-laws-legally-abducting-children-by-broadening-the-definition-of-child-abuse/

Look into the history of the pseudo science of psychology and what you find will shock you. Psychology was behind the thinking of eugenics in Nazi Germany: http://www.cchr.org/videos/psychiatry-an-industry-of-death/psychiatry-the-men-behind-the-holocaust.html

[libertybrewcity]

If someone commits a violent crime they should go to jail. I have heard the free market arguments on privatized court systems, but I am not yet convinced mainly because I haven't really seen any arguments for it. There would definitely be privatized psychiatric wards, but I don't know what would happen if the family didn't have the means or didn't want to voluntarily send them to a psych ward even though they have a diagnosed mental illness that makes them a danger to themselves.

And yes, there are people are a danger to themselves. Go visit a psych ward some time.

[Created4]

And yes, there are people are a danger to themselves. Go visit a psych ward some time.

This may be true, but how many of those people are a "danger" BECAUSE of the psyche drugs. There is plenty of research showing that these drugs are behind many of the acts of violence in our society today. Columbine kids were on Prozac, the guy in Norway that just recently killed a bunch of kids in a camp was on psyche drugs, etc. Drugs today are one of the biggest threats to liberty, by far, as they are sanctioned by the government and non-compliance can land you in a psyche ward or have your children taken away from you. See: http://www.cchr.org/videos/psychiatrys-prescription-for-violence.html

[Rael]

This may be true, but how many of those people are a "danger" BECAUSE of the psyche drugs. There is plenty of research showing that these drugs are behind many of the acts of violence in our society today. Columbine kids were on Prozac, the guy in Norway that just recently killed a bunch of kids in a camp was on psyche drugs, etc. Drugs today are one of the biggest threats to liberty, by far, as they are sanctioned by the government and non-compliance can land you in a psyche ward or have your children taken away from you. See: http://www.cchr.org/videos/psychiatrys-prescription-for-violence.html

That's just...well, crazy. Many people have been helped by psychiatric drugs.

Correlation does not imply causation. Although many people who do violent things are on antidepressants, most people on antidepressants don't commit acts of violence.
Just like many people who murder do so with guns, but not everyone who owns a gun is a murderer.

[Becker]

Psych wards are a weapon to control people, in a free society, there is no such thing as insanity, all people are equal and judging people by their psyche is never acceptable.

[noneedtoaggress]

If someone commits a violent crime they should go to jail. I have heard the free market arguments on privatized court systems, but I am not yet convinced mainly because I haven't really seen any arguments for it. There would definitely be privatized psychiatric wards, but I don't know what would happen if the family didn't have the means or didn't want to voluntarily send them to a psych ward even though they have a diagnosed mental illness that makes them a danger to themselves.

And yes, there are people are a danger to themselves. Go visit a psych ward some time.

Hey lbc, check these out :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khRkBEdSDDo&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0

[libertybrewcity]

This may be true, but how many of those people are a "danger" BECAUSE of the psyche drugs. There is plenty of research showing that these drugs are behind many of the acts of violence in our society today. Columbine kids were on Prozac, the guy in Norway that just recently killed a bunch of kids in a camp was on psyche drugs, etc. Drugs today are one of the biggest threats to liberty, by far, as they are sanctioned by the government and non-compliance can land you in a psyche ward or have your children taken away from you. See: http://www.cchr.org/videos/psychiatrys-prescription-for-violence.html

You clearly have never been to a psyche ward. There are plenty of people that are born with major mental illnesses and cannot mentally or physically handle living in society. They would simply die, hurt themselves, or hurt someone else. Yes, I'm sure there are people on psyche drugs that aren't benefiting from them, but there are plenty of people that need them. Not everyone is capable of taking responsibility for themselves. Not everyone can just be a normal person and live free.

I don't know the answers or the role a psyche ward would play in a libertarian society, but whether private or on the local level, some sort of facilities might be needed to treat or house people that have serious psychiatric illnesses.

[jtstellar]

ugh it would be a lot more local, for starters even. neighbors would know the hell a lot better than you guys sitting around in armchairs whether a neighbor has a retarded kid, and just how severe is it. having a relative who is mentally handicapped, i would know. people don't bring a retarded kid with them on travel any day of the week. they might once in a while, so it's almost an issue as local as it can get because he/she will be staying home most of the time. whether that still poses stress in the neighborhood, only neighbors can tell. local issue and the end of it.

as for growing up, maybe the only way to treat them 'well' is to have them pose some kind of economic value. sorry that's always the truth, even if it offends you. none of us here are treated nicely because we don't have some value to the society. you can throw them to the government as alternative, but when the visit hours are off i can guarantee you they won't be treated as nicely. the only way is for them to participate in research or whatever and pose some economic value. pls don't have those hollywood images popping up in your head now.. hollywood liberals really are a plague to society (or ignorance, synonymous)