Hello Kitty,

I hope I'm not encroaching on our list owner's territory by welcoming
you to this list. Being a great fan of Dr. Szasz, I'm a frequent poster,
though I speak strictly for myself.

Your message is rather long, below I only respond to those of your
remarks about which I feel I have something to say.

Kitty Antonik Wakfer wrote:

> all sorts of products and services can only be sold/traded if the
> provider has met some requirement(s) of the State

Right. You might like Szasz's book "Our Right to Drugs".

> I would be interested in having others point me in the direction of
> Szasz's writings that address this fundamental point of government
> and force

I.m.o. all of Szasz's writings illuminate this point. He addresses it
from the viewpoint of psychiatry. Of course the gov't uses force also in
education, housing, trade, banking, immigration, and family
relationships, to name but a few of the myriad areas. These subjects do
come up in Szasz's writings incidentally, but are not the ones one which
he focuses. His first book was "The Myth of Mental Illness". Have you
read that? Summing up his vast body of writings into one sentence is a
bit pretentious, but anyway I would put it something like this: "Mental
illness exists only because the gov't says so."

> Perhaps Szasz presents his views fully in Faith in Freedom

He presents his views fully in all of his books, but Faith in Freedom is
one of my absolute favorites, I highly recommend it. In it he takes a
critical look at the views of other libertarians or people/groups
perceived as being libertarian. Another one of my favorites is
"Liberation by Oppression". I particularly love his examples of famous
historical figures perceived to be mentally ill and yet allowed to live
in relative freedom.

> I contend it is not the initiation of force but the effecting of harm
snip
> If Person A were about to step off a curb into oncoming traffic, it
> would be reasonable for a person B to grab (possibly even knock down)
> person A to keep hir from being struck by a vehicle (and most people
> would take such an action).

You have a point here, and your example is a good one. I too would grab
someone away from an oncoming car if I could. I would assume that the
person overlooked the car, not to mention that the driver does not want
to collide with him.

Note, however, that there is a major difference between this example and
coercive psychiatry. We have no state-licensed/empowered
pedestrian-grabbers patrolling the streets. Such an action would be
performed by an ordinary citizen without special status who happened to
be on the scene, and it would probably be witnessed by many lay citizens
who happened to be present at the same time. If the grabbee would later
claim that the grabber has interfered with his liberty to throw himself
under the wheels of a car, the conflict could be settled in an ordinary
court of law, with no imbalance of power that predetermines the ruling.

> With respect to the involuntary treatment given to someone, the
> correct method of analysis is based on the person(s) using the
> coercion being fully responsible for any ultimate harm resulting from
> their actions.

Psychiatrists' actions are always beneficial and never harmful. Why?
Because that is the (state's) definition of psychiatry.

> If the person placed in treatment is afterwards grateful and happier
> as a result, then that person has been benefited rather than harmed

"Afterwards" does not exist in psychiatry. This is the observation Szasz
made already as a child: You go in and never come out. Nowadays you may
come out in a physical sense, but you are never released from it in a
social sense. Once a psychiatric patient always a psychiatric patient.
And because in psychiatry you are, as Szasz has so poignantly observed,
like a slave, you do not have the freedom to speak your mind. Would you
dare express ingratitude to your master as long as he remains your master?

> It seems to me that when one enlists in the military, one is in fact
> voluntarily becoming a slave to the government of that particular
> country/region.

Would that also apply to someone entering the police force? I hope some
day our gov'ts will find that they can only entice citizens to enlist in
the military by offering an employment contract that includes a decent
escape clause.

> (and no rational person would ever do such)

Are you saying that everybody who enlists in the military is irrational?
I think it likely that reservists are enticed by the promised perks and
gamble that they will never be called to duty.

> "everyone should be free to go to hell in hir own way!"

Agreed, but what a shame that when it comes to the voluntary military,
the trip is paid by the tax-payer, not to mention the massive invasion
of liberty on the other side. Wherever there are imbalances of power,
there will be Abu Ghraibs. Psychiatric institutions are apt examples.

> the concept of inalienable rights is fraught with problems due to
> inconsistencies.

I personally believe that there is no such thing as "rights". We have a
"right" to life, so does the gov't owe us life? Of course not. What we
really mean when we say we have "the right to life" is that other
people, groups, and the state have the *obligation* to not deprive us of
it even though they do have the power to do so.

> Very briefly, if rights (of "life, liberty and the pursuit of
> happiness" as listed in the Preamble to US Constitution) are
> inalienable (and inherent in people as human beings), then how is it
> that they can be removed by the government?

Contrary to popular conception, "rights" are not a gift bestowed on
people by their gov't. When the founding fathers of the US referred to
these "rights" they meant that the individual states are not allowed to
make laws that violate them. Unfortunately, the US constitution itself
is massively violated.

> However, if the idea of "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
> happiness" is to mean anything to someone who *does* consider natural
> rights valid and practical, then surely a person has the right to
> take hir own life

Agreed. A person owns his own life.

> or arrange for someone else to do so.

In my view every person has the obligation to refrain from taking
someone else's life. The proper response to "I want you to kill me"
would be "No". It would anyway be impossible to ascertain after the fact
that the person receiving the service of murder really wanted it.

> that same person then also has the right to sign a contract by which
> s/he sells hirself into bondage for a time or even indefinitely,

Here I disagree. Liberty and responsibility are two sides of the same
coin. The one cannot exist without the other. Someone who signs away his
liberty also signs away his responsibility. Society cannot operate when
people cannot be held responsible for their actions.

> I have
> a radically different position from (possibly) most posters here

This is one place where people with radical ideas can feel at home.
Welcome again. And congratulations on your marriage to Paul Wakfer.

Regards,
Mira