Charge them with manslaughter, of course.

On Feb 8, 2008, at 11:14 AM, D Waters <cubyanks@...> wrote:

> What would Dr. Szasz and other Libertarians say that we should do
> about individuals who drive drunk and, consequently, kill people?
>
> D
>
> Martin Kessler <titaniummdk@...> wrote:
>
> 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]
>
> ---------------------------------
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
> Search.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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