Trebor

As I said, since the 50s he's been arguing that there's no such thing as mental illness. I do not think he's a "typical Libertarian," nor that he holds, as you suggest, the view that "'freedom is good, government involvement is bad' no matter what." I do not find the concept of "reason" missing at all from his discussions on the topic of "mental illness" or of the "mentally ill." He has long argued that mental illnesses -- he does not deny or dismiss the problems that people have in living that are typically referred to as mental illnesses -- are metaphorical illnesses, not literal illnesses, but that the metaphor has been dropped and the phenomena that are referred to as mental illnesses are treated as though they are in fact illnesses. If there are no such things as mental illnesses, if they are only metaphorical illnesses, in the way that spring fever is a metaphorical illness, then that should be acknowledged. If there are no mental illnesses, that would be sufficient gounds, philosophically, to "demands that patients should not be coerced" because they are mentally ill. If he is correct, if there are no mental illnesses, then, again, that itself is sufficient grounds, or argument, for the case for completely abolishing involuntary commitments for the "treatment" of "mental illnesses." (He is certainly not for the use of "mental illness" as relieving a person of his responsibility for his criminal actions, the "insanity defense." If a person commits a crime, he should be treated as a criminal.) If he is correct, then metaphorical illnesses should not be held to be literal illnesses, nor "treated" by a medical specialty, no more than a "sick economy" should be held to be a literal illness to be treated by a medical specialty. It is not that the standards used today are bad; if mental illnesses are only metaphorical illnesses, then there's no proper standard for their medical treatment because they're not medical conditions. For my part, I find his arguments convincing. Still, I think the ideas of mental health and mental illness to be of worth, metaphorically.

I would suggest reading anything by Dr. Thomas Szasz ( http://www.szasz.com/ ). Not an Objectivist, but a professor of psychiatry, he has written several books and has a long history of challenging the very idea of mental illness. For an introduction to his basic ideas, you can read his various essays on his "Szasz Materials" link on his home page, or: http://www.szasz.com/szaszwri.html

George H. Smith, who years ago wrote, "Atheism, the Case Against God," gave a talk on defending atheism, and at the end of the talk he offered a counter argument or wager to Pascal's, "Smith's Wager." You might find it interesting: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/geo.../defending.html. Scroll down towards the end, looking for the paragraph that begins, "As one final argument or satire on an argument, you may have heard of Pascal's wager at some point."