Anyone who has ever seen a schizophrenic on Haldol then off Haldol knows that medications can increase people’s ability to think rationally, perceive reality accurately, and to adhere to important social norms (such as not acting aggressively)
Often on these boards it has been asserted that a society of rational individuals is in everyone’s best interests. Further, we all seem to agree that initiation of force without a good reason is pretty destructive. These would seem to be reasons to encourage the state to protect its citizens by taking “pre emptive action” and forcing treatment.
Yet at the same time, it seems that the courts have extended the power of the state to act not only when a “clear danger to selves or others” exists, as was the case under Tarasoff, but now when patients erratic behavior is deemed to be enough to justify forced treatment. This would seem to offer the danger that the state might infring on peoples rights to be act in ways that dont harm others. Yet sometimes this erratic behavior is a precursor to extremely dangerous behavior.
What is the rights of the state under such conditions??? What are the Responsibilities of the state?
The state has no rights apart from those of each individual within it.
The responsibilities of the state are to prevent certain actions from occurring, namely initiation of force and such. Not to ensure that every individual is rational: it has no responsibility to stop me from donating the multibillion-dollar businesses I own to a blind one-legged teenager, deaf in one ear, and who speaks only Akkadian. It has no responsibility to stop me from getting drunk every night. It has no responsibility to stop me from advocating socialism. It only has the responsibility to stop me from hurting others.
“The responsibilities of the state are to prevent certain actions from occurring, namely initiation of force and such. Not to ensure that every individual is rational:”
I guess I had already assumed aggreement on that… What I was getting at is what responsibilities the state has when peoples irrationality poses a potential threat of initiation of force, etc.
For instance, when a schizophrenic begins talking tangentially, demonstrating evidence of paranoid thought processes etc this is a sign that they are no longer on their medication… and when they are no longer on their medication its sort of a craps shoot as to whether they will initiate force or not. more than half dont, but as the story I posted demonstrates thats a pretty dangerous gamble.
The courts should only do this IF there has been an initiation of force, or the actual (not potential) threat of force. Just because someone has allowed themselves to become impared does not give another person the right to dictate their life. It is ONLY when someone ACTUAL does initiate force (or ACTUALLY threatens such force) can another man properly respond. A potential is not an actual - and cannot be treated as such.
Additionally, forcing the populace to pay for the health care of the mentally sick would constitute an initiation of force (and would be improper even if the funds were voluntary.)
The courts should only do this IF there has been an initiation of force, or the actual (not potential) threat of force
radcap
does this mean a past initiation of force, (such as what would have led to previous hospitalizations?)
Does this include presently ineffective initations of force? (as would be the case if someone was on the brink of a manic episode that may or may not escalate to an unacceptable level?)
“Just because someone has allowed themselves to become impared does not give another person the right to dictate their life”
I am assuming you mean formerly medicated people stopping medication??? In the case of a bipolar not taking lithium, I am inclined to agree, because that blood-level medication usually restores people to equilibrium. But what about the case of a paranoid schizophrenic whose medication regimine stabilizes aggression but is not as effective with paranoid thought processe?. If they believe that the pills are poison from the CIA, and refuse to take the pills, are they “allowing” their impairment, or is it the problems with dopamine transmission or their third ventricle?
What about as often happens with anti-psychotic medications, the impairment was the result of necessarry action by the state?
“Additionally, forcing the populace to pay for the health care of the mentally sick would constitute an initiation of force”
GC
A)If the role of government is to protect individuals from physical force, doesnt protecting individuals from physical force from the mentally ill fall into that category?
B)since outpatient care is actually much cheaper than institutionalization, (which would be required for the state to stop the patients from initiating force in the absence of state managed medication management) doesnt health care of the mentally sick REDUCE the taxpayer burden?
If the role of government is to protect individuals from physical force, doesnt protecting individuals from physical force from the mentally ill fall into that category?
This is a pretty ridiculous line of reasoning similar to leftists who argue that we should pay extortion money to the poor so that they don’t steal from the rest of us. The purpose of the police and courts is to carry out justice, not to medicate or treat in any way someone who might potentially become dangerous, no matter how sick they are.
Debating just what kind of treatment the mentally ill will receive in a rational society is a pointless discussion, other to say that they will neither get treated at the taxpayer’s expense, nor will their rampages (if they go on any) be tolerated. I think a possible solution would be to have all prisons and mental institutions be private, profit-making entities that would pay the government to receive prisoners and receive bonuses for lower recidivism rates.
"This is a pretty ridiculous line of reasoning similar to leftists who argue that we should pay extortion money to the poor so that they don’t steal from the rest of us’
False analogy…
A)Poor people choose to steal , crazy people dont choose to be crazy.
B) Poor people can be reasoned with… Crazy people by definition lack reason.
C) the credible threat of imprisonment can be a deterrent for poor people who can understand what imprisonment is. It cant for the mentallyu ill
D) Why not debate the actual line of reasoning instead of “similar” ones?
B) Poor people can be reasoned with… Crazy people by definition lack reason.
Presumably, a reasonable person wouldn’t resort to extortion in the first place. B) Like all Marxist schemes, this one necessarily replaces reason and free will with class warfare.
In any case, this in no way answers the point I made.
OG, what are you trying to say? If the mentally ill truly are rational animals no longer, then they have no rights and we ought, or have no reason not, to shoot them on sight (if that’s what we do with rabid tigers and such prowling through the city).
"OG, what are you trying to say? If the mentally ill truly are rational animals no longer, then they have no rights and we ought, or have no reason not, to shoot them on sight (if that’s what we do with rabid tigers and such prowling through the city). "
Its not that clear cut because
A) some mentally ill have the potential to recover (for instance if an infection which affected their thought process clears up)
B) some mentally ill are rational when treated
c) presumably unlike tigers, peoples rationality exists on a continuum (objectivists are more reasonable than quasi secular christians are more reasonable than fundamentalist christians are more reasonable than small children are more reasonable than paranoid schizophrenic patients)
The state ought not help Objectivists, quasi secular Christians, fundamentalist Christians, small children, or paranoid schizophrenic patients.
You cannot set a point on your continuum where it is reasonable for the state to help below but not above: that point would be arbitrary. Ie, one could argue, if the state helps paranoid schizophrenics, then why not let it help small children too?
In fact, the idea of a continuum is wrong - ie, one is either rational regarding acquiring a piece of knowledge or acting in a certain way, or he is irrational in regarding such -, but that is a topic for another time.
You cannot set a point on your continuum where it is reasonable for the state to help below but not above: that point would be arbitrary. Ie, one could argue, if the state helps paranoid schizophrenics, then why not let it help small children too?
If you were talking on a level of “what is” you might be correct, but we are talking about the legal world where establishing a set point is constantly necessarry
In fact, the idea of a continuum is wrong - ie, one is either rational regarding acquiring a piece of knowledge or acting in a certain way, or he is irrational in regarding such -, but that is a topic for another time.
I wasn’t speaking of a continuum in terms of the specific rationality of a specific act/thought. Instead I was speaking of a continuum of how often and to what extent people are able to think/act rationally.
In any case, I dont see how you have addressed my other concerns (even if rationality isnt on a continnum, in some cases it can still appear in intervals and is not permanent)
The answer to your question of ought is, go back to the principles. The ethical state may not initiate force against anybody, no matter how irrational or how paranoid schizophrenic; it may only counter the initiation of force. It may not arbitrarily prevent things at whim, as you would have it do. If a paranoid schizophrenic is off to kill somebody, the state should attempt to stop him, whereas if he were at home watching TV the state should not attempt to put him on a drug regimen. But the exact same thing applies to everybody else as well.
If a paranoid schizophrenic is off to kill somebody, the state should attempt to stop him, whereas if he were at home watching TV the state should not attempt to put him on a drug regimen
and just how do you determine that since either way they will be talking/acting suspiciously? do you have to wait until they actually push someone in front of a subway, as in the story?
If the state can provide evidence to a judge, or a police officer makes a snap judgment, that a paranoid schizophrenic or any person is off to kill somebody, the state or the police officer should stop him; if not, neither the state nor the police officer should initiate force. There is no difference here between a paranoid schizophrenic and any other person.
If the state can provide evidence to a judge, or a police officer makes a snap judgment, that a paranoid schizophrenic or any person is off to kill somebody, the state or the police officer should stop him
The behavioral sciences not old enough to provide reliable evidence to predict how a schizophrenic might act. and as the story shows, even the “snap judgement” of the people at the subway were unable to predict the erratic behavior of a schizophrenic.
The diagnostic criteria for a paranoid schizophrenic include disorganized and unpredictable behavior.
Have you ever worked with them??? What do you know about them??
"There is no difference here between a paranoid schizophrenic and any other person. "
What do you consider the principle that operates with respect to paranoid schizophrenics? Are they rational animals - ie, men, normal people? Are they irrational animals - ie, rabid unowned dogs one could shoot indiscriminately? Are they rational animals under guardianship - ie, like children, under the authority and protection of a normal person?
Is there a different category to which paranoid schizophrenics belong?
Government is charged with protecting men from other men; that is to include children and such under guardianship being protected and being protected from. Government has no call protecting or protecting from irrational animals.
What do you consider the principle that operates with respect to paranoid schizophrenics? Are they rational animals - ie, men, normal people? Are they irrational animals - ie, rabid unowned dogs one could shoot indiscriminately?
False Choice. Is h20 a liquid, a solid, or a gas??? (you would have to test it a particular moment in time to tell but that test would only remain valid for that instant)
Science has not advanced to the point where one can determine at any given instance whether a schizophrenic is volitional or rational. The most that we know is that a substantial amount of the time they are neither.
“Snap Judgement” would be hampered in three ways; 1. the nature of the disorder is such that affect does not match thoughts, and words do not match behavior 2. Most law enforcement officers either do not have the time or the training to determine the intent, volition, or rationality of a PS behavior… the only way in which this level of supervision could be done is institutionalization which was much more expensive 3. Unless they were “going with their gut” the judgement would have to stem from what we know about schizophrenia, which is limited.