[ExI] A Small Request
lcorbin at rawbw.com
Tue Feb 12 04:54:08 UTC 2008
>> > First it should be pointed out that there were instances
>> > of "involuntary commitment" in the sense that many persons
>> > were in jails or prisons
>> well, yes, but for "our" protection, not theirs!
> The question was not about who was being protected. The question was
> about "involuntary commitment" for whatever reason.
Hmm? Well, sorry, but I had the definite impression that the
thread focused on the issue of commiting those who were a danger
to themselves. Whatever. Certainly we all agree here that those
that pose a danger to *others* for sure must be sequestered.
>> > rather than institutions specifically for their treatment.
>> > Secondly it was in the mid 1800s that many of these
>> > institutions began to be constructed. There was a
>> > reform movement began in the 1840s to construct
>> > asylums so that persons commonly classified as
>> > "mentally ill" could be treated rather than left in the
>> > usually deplorable conditions of the jails.
>> But who was to pay for it? As always, that's the key
> No. The key question is often one of getting the history correct.
Well :-) perhaps we have different priorities. I did leave the
question open for you, since I didn't reseach the question.
Who, indeed, did pay for the 19th century housing and care
of the mentally ill? I mean, in those cases that you so kindly
found for us? For goddamn sure, it wasn't the federal government!
(What would shed the most light would be to know if state
governments were involved---I do have much less of a problem
with communities deciding to do something collectively, for the
primary reason---so alien to the thinking of most socialists---
that local knowledge is vital, and cannot be obtained by people
sitting in judges robes thousands of miles away, nor by nameless
bureacrats eager to expand their departments.)
More information about the extropy-chat