Hi Kitty, Insanity The Idea and Its Consequences is as good a book as you could
pick - maybe even better than The Myth of Mental Illness. In "Insanity", Szasz
answers some of his critics, and very clearly expounds on his ideas in
"...Myth...". It's also a very entertaining book to read - with a lot of humor.
The vignette presented of a grad student Theodore Streleski who killed a
professor had a lot of similarities to those of the Unabomber Theodore Kazinski
(whom Szasz wrote a little about in Liberty Magazine. Some of the humorous
parts (to me at least) involve a muderer on death row presenting mental illness
(by wanting to die - suicidal intent) and judges ruling that the inmate must be
cured of his mental illness in order to fit to execute.

When I met Dr. Szasz at a conference on drugs at Harvard back in 1994, he gave
the keynote address. I brought my hardback copy of Insanity for him to
autograph. I told him I thought it was one of the best books he wrote, he
agreed.

Enjoy the book!

Martin


To: thomasszaszdiscussion@...: kitty@...: Sun, 3
Feb 2008 03:48:48 +0000Subject: [ThomasSzaszDiscussion] Re: Sectioning or
Abduction?




This is my first post at this group and I am not nearly as conversantwith Thomas
Szasz's writings as are most (it appears) of the postershere. In fact I am only
now reading one of his books for the firsttime - Insanity - though I'm about 3/4
through it. But I have beenaware generally of his views for many years and have
read most of themessages in the archives here before and after joining the
group. Thisthread is going into some fundamentals and, because of my
limitedreading of Szasz at this time, I do not know fully to what degree hehas
addressed them himself.--- In thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, Matt
Dioguardi <dio@...>wrote:>> > On Jan 25, 2008, at 9:34 AM, Acquista wrote:> >
But I think there are valuable questions to be asked. What are the > > results
of getting people off dangerous substances when they enter > > treatment
voluntarily vs. involuntarily? Does involuntarily putting > > people in
treatment do anyone some good? I would think yes, it does, > > and some are
grateful later, but I would also say many feel > > humiliated and dehumanized
leading to other problems when they get > > out. So called interventions where a
family members is confronted > > and taken to the hospital have been known to do
as much harm as > > good. It is not just like taking a car against its well to
the > > mechanic, since the car has no feelings or resentment, whereas > >
people are people and more complicated, certainly.> > I think the key to this is
the word "voluntary". It's clear the state > can be used to coerce people to do
"good" things for themselves. The > state can coerce people to eat "healthier"
foods or exercise more. But > clearly that's not desirable. The infringement on
liberty would far > out weigh any benefits gained.I agree that the word
"voluntary" is an essential component of whatwas written by Acquista. More than
"the state can be used to coercepeople', is that the essence of the State *is*
that it has themonopoly on the use of *legalized* force (physical
coercion).Hopefully I don't need to bring up the fact to most here, that
thislegalized force extends far beyond a court ordered retention or"treatment"
of someone "diagnosed" as "mentally ill" based on a courtdecision that s/he is
"a danger to him/her (hir) self and/or others".A large number of activities
between parties that are voluntary anddecided by each to be of mutual benefit
are deemed illegal bygovernments - all sorts of products and services can only
besold/traded if the provider has met some requirement(s) of the State,even when
the receiver does not want that requirement. Some activitiesare illegal even
when there is no other who is the recipient of asold/traded good or service,
even at times when a person is actingentirely alone. (Production and use of some
items by a single personcan be illegal if that item is on a list of items
proscribed by thegovernment.) And then there are the activities on which the
governmentretains a monopoly for itself and anyone engaging in them
(typicallywith others) risks arrest, fine and/or imprisonment. And if
someoneresists the actions of a government enforcer, they can and arephysically
assaulted and even killed. Reduction of liberty - which Iand husband Paul Wakfer
define as "the set of those human actionswhich are not physically constrained by
another human" - is whatgovernments do by their very existence. For more detail
see:http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#freedomI would be interested in having
others point me in the direction ofSzasz's writings that address this
fundamental point of government andforce, and not just its application to court
decisions to 1) eitherrestrain the actions of someone whose behavior is
unacceptable but hasnot caused harm to others, or 2) to deny responsibility for
harmcausing actions due to deemed "diminished capacity". Perhaps Szaszpresents
his views fully in Faith in Freedom: Libertarian Principlesand Psychiatric
Practices for which I see a brief description on hiswebsite. What I have read so
far (now that I've reached the beginningof Ch 10) in Insanity is still limited
in scope to these 2 types.In the meantime, A more fundamental approach is needed
to determineexactly when actions are acceptable or unacceptable rather than
simplycondemning the initiation of force/coercion in all interactions. Icontend
it is not the initiation of force but the effecting of harm,as determined by the
person professing harm, that one properly seeksto prevent, and the evaluation of
that harm, as determined by theharmed person, that one should properly seek to
restitute. If Person Awere about to step off a curb into oncoming traffic, it
would bereasonable for a person B to grab (possibly even knock down) person Ato
keep hir from being struck by a vehicle (and most people would takesuch an
action). The amount of force Person B might need to use couldvary considerably
depending on several circumstances. Most likely,Person A would be quite grateful
at having been saved from being rundown; but if s/he were injured in the
process, s/he might not beoverjoyed. Moreover, if Person A really wanted to
commit suicide s/hewouldn't be pleased at all at the interference. In a proper
society,Person B would be responsible for restitution for the total harm
thatPerson A decides has been done to hir (harm caused by the interferenceminus
the expected value of the harm caused by being struck by avehicle). And in such
a society, where information freely flowed, thesocial preferencing of both of
them by all others would, in effect,determine whether the requirement for
restitution of the claimed harmis justified. (This is but a very brief example
of harm vs force andmuch much more has been written elsewhere - starting with
"SocialMeta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Human
Interaction"http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.htmlWith respect to
the involuntary treatment given to someone, thecorrect method of analysis is
based on the person(s) using thecoercion being fully responsible for any
ultimate harm resulting fromtheir actions. If the person placed in treatment is
afterwardsgrateful and happier as a result, then that person has been
benefitedrather than harmed (depending on the whole costs of the situation
suchas treatment costs and who pays for them) and no harm has been done.In
effect, "after-the-fact" permission is now given for the prior useof coercion.
However, if the person placed in treatment continues toreject the treatment as
beneficial, then those person(s) usingcoercion to have hir treated are now
responsible for restitution ofthe harm that they have done to hir.> However, say
that I voluntarily enter a six week exercise camp where I > must go through a
rigorous routine everyday. The key again would be > whether it was voluntary or
not. So long as I could always leave, then > that's fine. People can shout at me
and push me around at camp to get > me to exercise, so long as I can leave at
any time.> > There is the case where I might want to voluntarily put myself in a
> position where I can't exercise my own volition for a period of time. >
Imagine I sign up for a six week exercise camp from which I am not > "allowed"
to get out of the program. If we consider that the only way > to keep me in the
program would be physical coercion of some sort, > then certainly this is a bad
idea. It's similar to the idea that I > could sell myself off as a slave.While
the purpose of military boot camps is not as an "exercise camp",it definitely
includes a "rigorous routine everyday" that includespeople shouting and pushing
the enlistees around. There likely issomeway a person can get out of hir
enlistment contract (as opposed toa conscription) and leave boot camp without
being restrained, jailedand tried for being AWOL, but it is not at all like just
saying, "I'vehad enough. I'm leaving. Here's the money back you paid me to
come."and being politely acknowledged as simply having executed the
contractescape clause.It seems to me that when one enlists in the military, one
is in factvoluntarily becoming a slave to the government of that
particularcountry/region.So yes, while both of these may be "a bad idea" (and no
rationalperson would ever do such), it would be a denial of a person's libertyto
not allow hir to sign such a contract. There is an old libertarianmaxim (used by
my husband Paul Wakfer starting in the late 1970s)which applies here: "everyone
should be free to go to hell in hir ownway!"> You are always responsible for
your actions. You can't sign away your > inalienable rights for a day or more.I
don't see that these two ideas go together. Actually, the concept ofinalienable
rights is fraught with problems due to inconsistencies.Very briefly, if rights
(of "life, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness" as listed in the Preamble to US
Constitution) areinalienable (and inherent in people as human beings), then how
is itthat they can be removed by the government? And then sometimes berestored
to the person by that same or a different government? Atexactly what point in
hir life does a person first obtain these"rights" and how? Furthermore in
practice, the concept of rights istotally powerless without the voluntary
cooperation of others (butthen - rhetorically - just why is it even needed and
how is it to beuniversally understood and accepted?). It does not help to tell
yourexecutioner: "You can't shoot me, I have the inherent right to life!"or your
car thief: "you can't take my car, I correctly purchased titleto it and have the
inalienable right to own and possess it!"This group's purpose is for discussion
of Thomas Szasz's works, soI'll not pursue here the subject of the problem of
natural rights.Paul Wakfer has done so quite pointedly in his essay,
"SocialMeta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Human Interaction".However, if the
idea of "right to life, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness" is to mean anything
to someone who *does* consider naturalrights valid and practical, then surely a
person has the right to takehir own life or arrange for someone else to do so.
Likewise, that sameperson then also has the right to sign a contract by which
s/he sellshirself into bondage for a time or even indefinitely, if that is
whats/he has voluntarily chosen to do. I think the person who signs such
acontract without a termination/escape clause is very foolish (andwould say so),
but that is where liberty comes in. Now this isn't theway current courts view
such a situation, but then that is part of thefundamental inconsistency present
in the current system.> For example, even if I sign a > contract giving an
exercise camp the ability to use coercion to keep > me at the camp, if I later
decide to leave despite the contract, the > agency of law enforcement should
arrest the owners of the camp if they > use physical coercion to make me stay.
The contract is meaningless. > You can't volunteer away your inalienable
rights.As I stated above, there are fundamental inconsistencies here in
theconcept of "inalienable rights", which is precisely the reason that Iand my
husband, Paul Wakfer, have abandoned the idea in favor of theconcept of Social
Meta-Needs which he has discovered from a thoroughanalysis of the nature of
humans in reality and explicated in theessay referred to above.> Of course you
could say, but with drugs its a matter of life or death. > But then that's
always the case with everything. Everything is about > life and death.> > Best,>
Matt DioguardiI really expected to make my first post as a question on a
differentand perhaps less foundational subject than this one on which I have
aradically different position from (possibly) most posters here, but tome this
message really needed some fundamental comments. If I had letit pass I would not
have been consistent with my principles.**Kitty Antonik WakferMoreLife for the
rational - http://morelife.org Reality based tools for more life in quantity and
qualitySelf-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org Self-sovereignty,
rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,individual responsibility, social
preferencing & social contracting






_________________________________________________________________
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]