Note- not one single person involved with this "OMGWTFBBQ EARTH RESOURCES!!11" story- not one editor, writer, or the astronaut involved- not one of them will change their technological lifestyle other than in the most temporary and superficial way. But they will do their dead level best to make sure all the poor people in the world stay that way- for the sake of the environment.
I'd think that as a freedom lover you'd be apalled by this.
As I wrote there:
------------------
This seems like a remarkable - and disgustingly - fascist stance.
You're not only willing to stand by while someone is imprisoned based on words that he says, you're willing to actively restrain a free human being who has given zero evidence of intending to harm another and hand them over to other people who will cage them while they are restrained, observed, and given God knows what drugs against their will...all without a court order, a jury of their peers, or any other sort of warrant.
...and you don't try to justify this through argument. You just assert it as fact "I will be a willing tool of the State and lock you up, because I'm Just Following Orders".
I find it hard to understand such a mindset.
---------------
Unless there's some big detail I'm missing, I find the fact that someone can brag about taking a paycheck to imprison people who are no danger to others to be utterly contemptible.
"I'd think that as a freedom lover you'd be apalled by this."
I can be appalled 'til the cows come home, but it doesn't change the fact that threatening to kill yourself in front of certain people in 21st Century America is going to have a Severe Negative Impact on your immediate future.
I can be appalled by the fact that, if I date the wrong person, and they get acrimonious during the breakup and get a restraining order, my Second Amendment Rights go out the window, but that doesn't mean I should ignore that fact and go dating crazy people.
Incidentally, the situation described by AD is the natural end result of two centuries of legal history in America. It's easy to rail against, but I'm all ears for a solution.
I have known very few cases of suicide that had no effect on the lives of others. If you want to be a selfish bastard, go ahead, but don't pretend it has no effects outside your bubble.
I can be appalled 'til the cows come home, but it doesn't change the fact that threatening to kill yourself in front of certain people in 21st Century America is going to have a Severe Negative Impact on your immediate future
The problem, from my point of view, is that in his post AD seems to approve of this state of affairs, take an unapologetically authoritarian attitude about using force to control other people's lives, and respond to criticism of the system by ignoring it. I understand that good people who work for the state have to do some bad things to stay in a position to do the good. I expect them at the very, very least to acknowledge that they're bad things.
I had a high opinion of him up to this point, but man... That is one bit, shitty chip on his shoulder, right there.
AD has made it pretty clear he has no time for libertarian criticism. I mentioned this here because I thought it would elaborate on TJIC's statement. Like him, I was a bit surprised that you linked it without comment. As written, it's a pretty appalling post.
Like him, I was a bit surprised that you linked it without comment.
Or: "I hadn't realized you got the upgraded Libertarian Club membership that costs extra but drops the requirement-to-kvetch-about-non-libertarians." ;)
I had not read AD's comments section, nor do I necessarily consider it germane to my link, which was simply "some words have consequences",
One would think that, of everybody here, TJIC would be aware of that fact.
Do I think it's right? No, I do not. But people need to be aware that not everybody agrees with me.
Does that make the people with whom I disagree Jackbooted Nazi Thugs of The Oppressive Fascist State Control Apparatus? Well, I guess I just lost more libertarian purity points. :(
> Does that make the people with whom I disagree Jackbooted Nazi Thugs of The Oppressive Fascist State Control Apparatus? Well, I guess I just lost more libertarian purity points. :(
There are TONS of people who I disagree with who are merely "wrong" and not "Jackbooted Nazi Thugs of The Oppressive Fascist State Control Apparatus".
Given that someone wearing Juicy pants, listening to Lady Gaga, eating more pasta to lose weight, preferring rap over prog rock, or using sandpaper for final finishing of fine woodworking doesn't threaten innocents, it's not worth my time to comment on most of their bad decisions.
When someone like Ambulance Driver happily takes a paycheck to lock up innocent people, that is a threat to liberty, and I want to call it out as such.
> "some words have consequences", One would think that, of everybody here, TJIC would be aware of that fact.
Indeed. Publicly professing Judaism, or being female and going outside, or having an unpopular political opinion can have bad consequences too, but I'd be appalled by some thug-in-blue or thug-in-white lecturing people that they should know better than to exercise their rights in America.
Unless Louisana hospitals are really terrible, committing someone to a 48 hour psych hold isn't morally equal to putting Jews in boxcars, TJIC. Suggesting as much is pretty repulsive.
I'm curious. Is leaving ten comments in the space of an hour on a weekday morning, some of them kinda over-the-top Godwin-y, to third parties' week-old comments, on the blog of someone who is manifestly not self-employed, how one goes about disagreeing with a person of obvious goodwill in order to persuade them to your viewpoint?
I am asking, because it seems a strange tactic to me. Perhaps even counterproductive.
You could look at threatening (or attempting) suicide as just another case in the endless discussion of "how stupid should we allow people to be?"
I've chosen to do things that many people would consider to be putting my life at risk, including playing in whitewater and running off cliffs with fabric wings. I'd be angry if anyone tried to stop me from doing what I had worked to enjoy. But if someone showed up at an unforgiving launch with an old bedsheet and announced his intention to jump off and fly...I'd try to stop him. And I suspect my fellow pilots would join me.
It may not be logical, but it's human.
I've done a fair bit of reading about suicide. In most cases it is a short-lived impulse. If you can help the person through a rough spot they go on to lead a full life, and end up being grateful for the intervention.
I don't have a moral problem with suicide if it is a rational act, undertaken after careful consideration of all the options and provsions made for everyone it will affect. But that usually isn't the case. It's usually an impusive act.
Do I enhance you "freedom" more by letting you act on an impulse, or by giving you an opportunity to make more choices?
[Condemnation of the implicit presumptuousness of your "letting" me do things or "giving" me opportunities--and the lack of character demonstrated by putting "freedom" in scorn quotes--taken as understood.]
Roberta makes a good point -- By making threats where I can hear them I can hear them, you have chosen to involve me. You have, in a small way, violated my freedom. It's the classic "Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose."
By making a statement that offends my core values in a public forum, you've chosen to involve me in your so-called "freedom of expression." We should probably let our lawyers take it from here.
I guess we'll disagree. My experience is that most people who threaten/attempt suicide -- and those who care about them -- are grateful for a second chance. The few who are truly committed probably won't be affected by a brief inconvenience.
I've seen a lot of poor choices driven by drugs, medical conditions, abuse, or acute stress. One can argue that they were all the outcome of a string of conscious choices. I don't think that's always true.
In meatspace discussion here at Roseholme, Bobbi raised an interesting point: Is me threatening to kill myself with the implication that I will do so unless you meet my demands extortion?
I'm not entirely convinced it is, but it is an interesting tack.
Things were so much simpler in my fifty-page AnCap/Libertarian arguments on TFL years ago, especially since I was Right and everybody else was Wrong. ;)
Tam: Hope you don't mind if I think out loud for a minute, but what do we mean by extortion?
"I'll do this unless you do that" is an ultimatum. I take extortion to mean the subset of ultimatums that are illegal.
If "I'll do this" refers to something I don't have a right to do, then it's extortion in both the Real World and Libertarian Utopia.
At the other end, if "I'll do this" refers to something I have the right to do and wouldn't cause you any distress, RL and LU agree that it's not extortion.
Where they disagree is with regard to "I'll do this"es that I have a right to do and will cause you distress. The Real World does a complicated balancing act with how _much_ right I have to do it versus how _much_ distress it'll cause you, along with a heaping tablespoon of What's in the Best Interest of the Community.
In my personal Libertarian Utopia, I'd say that if I have a right to do something, I have the right to decide the conditions under which I'll choose to do it, and the right to communicate those conditions to you, and if that causes you distress... Well, so might painting my house lime green, or sporterizing my Committee of Safety musket. It doesn't seem to me that my intent to influence your choices makes a difference.
I'm interested in the argument that intent can turn legitimate exercise of a right into an initiation of force, but at the moment I'm very skeptical of it.
"AD has made it pretty clear he has no time for libertarian criticism."
Utter friggin' nonsense, Elmo.
You can disagree with me or criticize me all the live long day on my blog, and be welcome. I've deleted less than a handful of comments and banned probably half a dozen people in six years, and then only for engaging in personal attacks and not playing nice with other commenters.
Interestingly enough, all of those people were rabid fanatic gun control types who insisted on insulting me and my commenters.
How's it feel to voluntarily place yourself in that company, my libertarian friend?
You can comment and criticize all you want to, and you have in the past. Yet when I say something you disagree with, you accuse me of being deaf to counter arguments, and in someone else's comment section, no less.
That sir, is not only disingenuous, but patently false.
If you're offended by my replies to Travis, then I can only say that you don't get to toss verbal grenades at someone and expect them to lob you compliments in return.
Incendiary rhetoric - and equating my actions with herding people onto trains bound for death camps is incendiary and counterproductive no matter how you cut it - will only beget incendiary rhetoric in return.
Calling me a Nazi death camp guard will only get me to call you an asshole in return. If you think that makes me uninterested in dissenting opinion, so be it. I'm not interested in debating, if that's the level of the debate you engage in.
You also seem to miss the entire point of the post: If you're going to do something, do it. Don't threaten, don't run your mouth about it, just do it.
Threatening just gets me involved when I'd rather not be. But if or when I am, I'm damned sure not going to risk my certification or livelihood to protect your libertarian ideals.
Threatening suicide runs the risk of getting people such as cops and EMT's involved, and giving them Hobson's Choice: either ignore 200 years of American jurisprudence and risk losing your means to feed your family and potentially dealing with the guilt of allowing someone to kill himself on a stupid, drunken whim, or risk infringing on the civil rights of the 1 in 100 that is rational and in full command of his mental faculties.
And placing me in that position actually seems pretty damned antithetical to libertarian ideals, come to think of it. You don't get to place me in an untenable position because you were making idle threats.
You don't get to set your own house on fire if it endangers the safety and property of your neighbors, even if you own it free and clear.
The corollary to that is, you don't get to set YOURSELF on fire if doing so endangers the safety and livelihood of people tasked by law with preventing it.
Do that, and you bump up into my libertarian ideals, which can be summed up as, "Leave me the hell out of your little drama."
So go off yourself in private, and I'm cool with that. I'll likely as not just read about it in the paper, shrug my shoulders and say, "Now there's someone who was serious about it," and go on with my day.
In your rush to run off to someone else's blog and slam me rather than engage me on my own, you may have missed this reply I made to Nick42 in the comment thread:
"There's gray area and wiggle room, but when the patient herself admits to saying it, or the 911 caller who witnessed the threat is there on scene, I treat it as credible.
In those instances where anonymous third party callers have reported a suicide threat, usually what we do is go with who we find more believable - a lucid, alert and non-distraught patient, or a shadowy 911 caller who refused to even give a name.
In those cases, we're more likely to take the patient's word."
I'm not bowing out my chest and carting off calm, rational people to the booby hatch, Elmo, and you damned well ought to know me better than that, as long as you've read my blog.
The people that I carry for psych evals are emotionally distraught, usually intoxicated, and more often than not, have a history of mental illness and previous suicide threats.
I don't throw my weight around. When the cops do that on a scene, it usually makes matters worse. What I do is explain to the patient that my hands are tied in the matter, and give them the choice: cooperate and come quietly and explain yourself to the person tasked with making the decision to turn you loose, or fight and go in handcuffs. I'd much rather they choose Option 1.
Option 2 is substantially less likely to convince the ED doc that you're rational and unlikely to harm yourself, and I make that point to them as well.
It ought to be pretty damned simple to understand: If you want to kill yourself, kill yourself. Just don't get the authorities involved.
"You're not only willing to stand by while someone is imprisoned based on words that he says, you're willing to actively restrain a free human being who has given zero evidence of intending to harm another and hand them over to other people who will cage them while they are restrained, observed, and given God knows what drugs against their will...all without a court order, a jury of their peers, or any other sort of warrant.
The Baker Act says that the words are evidence enough, TJIC. Don't like it, go to one of those politicians you said people should start shooting, and get them to try repealing it.
...and you don't try to justify this through argument. You just assert it as fact "I will be a willing tool of the State and lock you up, because I'm Just Following Orders".
You do get to assert it through argument, a fact I pointed out and you chose to ignore.
You just don't get to make that argument to me, because I'm not the guy empowered by law to listen to your argument. I'm just the guy with the unenviable task of getting you to the person who can act on your argument.
Again, don't like the way the law is set up, do what you can to change it. Your current strategy hasn't accomplished much for you in that regard, though.
"AD has made it pretty clear he has no time for libertarian criticism."
Utter friggin' nonsense, Elmo.
...I've deleted less than a handful of comments and banned probably half a dozen people in six years
I wasn't referring to deletion and banning; I was referring to your lack of response to libertarian criticism, specifically TJIC's. Most non-libertarians don't want to speak Libertarian, and I see no point in speaking it at a person after he's declined somebody else.
It took until much later today to realize I'd misunderstood how comment threading works on your blog, and didn't realize I was looking at hours-old comments on a week-old post. That was my fault, and I apologize. My comment above was unfair.
...equating my actions with herding people onto trains bound for death camps is incendiary and counterproductive no matter how you cut it...
I don't support TJIC's holocaust comparison, nor with his statements about you violating people's rights "for a paycheck." I disagree strongly with the way you characterize the situation (that the law imposes on you once I say something doesn't make me the bad guy for saying it; it makes us both victims of the law), but expect we could end up pretty close on this in results. You do a hell of a lot of good, and the law forces you to do some bad along with it. I'm a hardcore libertarian ideologically, but appreciate that we have to make these compromises in the Real World.
I'm not going to lie, man, your tone over at your place really, really rubs my Wookiee fur the wrong way. "It sucks that I have to do this, but the law puts me in a position where I have to, and you should refrain from saying X so that we don't end up in that position" is one thing; "If you say X it doesn't matter what you want you don't get a say I will fight you and win and strap you down and the law will be on my side" sends a different message. And yeah, it reads as having a big damn chip on your shoulder to somebody like me, who knows you from occasional links but doesn't follow your blog.
I'm not gonna rant at you or call you a Nazi over a matter of tone, but it made me surprised that a fellow hardcore Wookiee didn't have something to say about it while linking.
Non-wall of text version: Hardcore libertarians being outside the mainstream, good people are very likely to believe in some things things hardcore libertarians think are terrible. In those cases, hardcore libertarians usually kvetch like hell to each other about it, but I think it's poor form to rant at the good-person-who's-not-a-libertarian about it. I thought this was one of those situations, and was wrong in at least a couple ways. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
"I was referring to your lack of response to libertarian criticism, specifically TJIC's."
In fairness, TJIC's comments were made very early this morning to a week-old post, and your response about AD's non-replies was made at 0929 EDT, at a time where he may not have even read his blog yet this morning, given that he's in the Central Time Zone...
Tam: yeah, like I said after that, it turned out I was just internet-retarded, and assumed the comments were in timestamp order. TJIC was up top with a quarter mile of comments below him. I didn't notice until you called him on posting to a week-old thread.
If it sounded like I have a chip on my shoulder, I do.
But against people who place me in that position, and no one else.
If it came across as an authoritarian rant, I apologize in turn. It was supposed to be a "Don't say stupid things and then expect me to ignore them because you gots rights!" rant.
I don't like fighting with people. It sucks. I don't like being the bad guy, when the career I chose was supposed to be one of the good guys that provides the same professional care to the crack dealer as the socialite.
But the law requires that I do certain unpleasant things like carry people to the hospital against their will, and there is good reason for the law.
It just sucks that the execution of the law can be so jacked up sometimes, and the people tasked with that often aren't any more jazzed about it than the patient.
It also sucks that a couple of people insist on being jerks and picking fights with people who agree with 90% of their views.
We should be cooperating and supporting each other.
If you're ever unfortunate enough to find yourself going through New Jersey, drop me a line. I'll buy you a beer, and we can kvetch about the 90% we agree on. ;)
As a practical matter, this insistence of the State on locking up suicidal people actively discourages some people from seeking help.
More than one person I know fears seeking treatment for their depression and suicidal thoughts explicitly because they are concerned that if they mention it to a health care professional, they'll get locked up "for their own good".
As for the "extortion" question, I have found that this is very related to how people think internally, and how they process certain phrases.
To some people, the phrase: "If you cheat on me, I will dump you" is a simple statement of fact and consequence. if - then. To others, merely the way it's phrased makes it sound significantly more like a threat or an ultimatum.
I suspect this would have something to do with how different people would parse the statement "If you leave me, I'll kill myself."
"actively discourages some people from seeking help."
This. I went to the university health center freshman year, and was thoroughly chilled by the checklist of "if you answer yes we will have you locked up and pumped full of drugs" questions. Especially since I only went because this country boy was having trouble sleeping in a noisy urban dorm! It must be like a minefield for depressed or troubled people, trying to admit they need help without crossing a line and getting "helped" into a straight-jacket.
Incidentally, their only solution was a bottle of sleeping pills... A hippie yoga teacher ended up giving me better advice: "stop drinking so much coffee with dinner, you idiot!" Those "alternative medicine" folks huffing patchouli and mainlining colloidal silver might be onto something. At least they're less likely to get beaten up by Ambulance Driver and his mates!
We use those little shot shells fairly regularly out here in the country...
ReplyDeletehttp://godgalsgunsgrub.blogspot.com/2012/03/cci-22-lr-shotshells-for-pest-control.html
Dann in Ohio
Well, of course the guilt is much more profound silly, its FROM SPACE!
ReplyDeleteWhy are we sending luddites to space?
ReplyDeleteMaybe someone has actually found a use for the Judge?
ReplyDeleteAD is on the money, and the the last one MUST be true... sigh...
ReplyDeleteNote- not one single person involved with this "OMGWTFBBQ EARTH RESOURCES!!11" story- not one editor, writer, or the astronaut involved- not one of them will change their technological lifestyle other than in the most temporary and superficial way.
ReplyDeleteBut they will do their dead level best to make sure all the poor people in the world stay that way- for the sake of the environment.
> Certain words have consequences.
ReplyDeleteI'd think that as a freedom lover you'd be apalled by this.
As I wrote there:
------------------
This seems like a remarkable - and disgustingly - fascist stance.
You're not only willing to stand by while someone is imprisoned based on words that he says, you're willing to actively restrain a free human being who has given zero evidence of intending to harm another and hand them over to other people who will cage them while they are restrained, observed, and given God knows what drugs against their will...all without a court order, a jury of their peers, or any other sort of warrant.
...and you don't try to justify this through argument. You just assert it as fact "I will be a willing tool of the State and lock you up, because I'm Just Following Orders".
I find it hard to understand such a mindset.
---------------
Unless there's some big detail I'm missing, I find the fact that someone can brag about taking a paycheck to imprison people who are no danger to others to be utterly contemptible.
TJIC,
ReplyDelete"I'd think that as a freedom lover you'd be apalled by this."
I can be appalled 'til the cows come home, but it doesn't change the fact that threatening to kill yourself in front of certain people in 21st Century America is going to have a Severe Negative Impact on your immediate future.
I can be appalled by the fact that, if I date the wrong person, and they get acrimonious during the breakup and get a restraining order, my Second Amendment Rights go out the window, but that doesn't mean I should ignore that fact and go dating crazy people.
Incidentally, the situation described by AD is the natural end result of two centuries of legal history in America. It's easy to rail against, but I'm all ears for a solution.
TJIC -
ReplyDeleteI have known very few cases of suicide that had no effect on the lives of others. If you want to be a selfish bastard, go ahead, but don't pretend it has no effects outside your bubble.
Anon 8:57,
ReplyDelete"I have known very few cases of suicide that had no effect on the lives of others."
Those are, indeed, tough cookies, but I own myself, and part of that ownership is getting to decide whether or not I want to play anymore.
Thus far the answer is "yes" because, hey, you die for free sooner or later.
I can be appalled 'til the cows come home, but it doesn't change the fact that threatening to kill yourself in front of certain people in 21st Century America is going to have a Severe Negative Impact on your immediate future
ReplyDeleteThe problem, from my point of view, is that in his post AD seems to approve of this state of affairs, take an unapologetically authoritarian attitude about using force to control other people's lives, and respond to criticism of the system by ignoring it. I understand that good people who work for the state have to do some bad things to stay in a position to do the good. I expect them at the very, very least to acknowledge that they're bad things.
I had a high opinion of him up to this point, but man... That is one bit, shitty chip on his shoulder, right there.
Elmo Iscariot,
ReplyDeleteYou should probably mention that in his comment section. I have no ability to clarify or further explain AD's thoughts on the matter.
AD has made it pretty clear he has no time for libertarian criticism. I mentioned this here because I thought it would elaborate on TJIC's statement. Like him, I was a bit surprised that you linked it without comment. As written, it's a pretty appalling post.
ReplyDeleteUncle Sam takes a dim view of his employees threating to end it all.
ReplyDeleteSame escorted trip to hospital and a loss of security clearences.
A career ender for Naval officers.
Gerry
Like him, I was a bit surprised that you linked it without comment.
ReplyDeleteOr: "I hadn't realized you got the upgraded Libertarian Club membership that costs extra but drops the requirement-to-kvetch-about-non-libertarians." ;)
Elmo,
ReplyDeleteI had not read AD's comments section, nor do I necessarily consider it germane to my link, which was simply "some words have consequences",
One would think that, of everybody here, TJIC would be aware of that fact.
Do I think it's right? No, I do not. But people need to be aware that not everybody agrees with me.
Does that make the people with whom I disagree Jackbooted Nazi Thugs of The Oppressive Fascist State Control Apparatus? Well, I guess I just lost more libertarian purity points. :(
Elmo,
ReplyDeleteHeh. We were obviously typing at the same time. ;)
> Does that make the people with whom I disagree Jackbooted Nazi Thugs of The Oppressive Fascist State Control Apparatus? Well, I guess I just lost more libertarian purity points. :(
ReplyDeleteThere are TONS of people who I disagree with who are merely "wrong" and not "Jackbooted Nazi Thugs of The Oppressive Fascist State Control Apparatus".
Given that someone wearing Juicy pants, listening to Lady Gaga, eating more pasta to lose weight, preferring rap over prog rock, or using sandpaper for final finishing of fine woodworking doesn't threaten innocents, it's not worth my time to comment on most of their bad decisions.
When someone like Ambulance Driver happily takes a paycheck to lock up innocent people, that is a threat to liberty, and I want to call it out as such.
> "some words have consequences", One would think that, of everybody here, TJIC would be aware of that fact.
Indeed. Publicly professing Judaism, or being female and going outside, or having an unpopular political opinion can have bad consequences too, but I'd be appalled by some thug-in-blue or thug-in-white lecturing people that they should know better than to exercise their rights in America.
Unless Louisana hospitals are really terrible, committing someone to a 48 hour psych hold isn't morally equal to putting Jews in boxcars, TJIC. Suggesting as much is pretty repulsive.
ReplyDeleteTJIC,
ReplyDeleteI'm curious. Is leaving ten comments in the space of an hour on a weekday morning, some of them kinda over-the-top Godwin-y, to third parties' week-old comments, on the blog of someone who is manifestly not self-employed, how one goes about disagreeing with a person of obvious goodwill in order to persuade them to your viewpoint?
I am asking, because it seems a strange tactic to me. Perhaps even counterproductive.
Killing yourself: a legitimate exercise of the right of self-ownership.
ReplyDeleteThreatening to kill yourself: Extortion. It is exactly the same as threatening to kill a hostage.
The threatener is initiating force-by-proxy on those with whom he shares his threats.
Dammit, this isn't rocket science.
Oh, look. My roommate and I disagree on this. We both lose wookie points and can never speak to each other again.
ReplyDeleteYou could look at threatening (or attempting) suicide as just another case in the endless discussion of "how stupid should we allow people to be?"
ReplyDeleteI've chosen to do things that many people would consider to be putting my life at risk, including playing in whitewater and running off cliffs with fabric wings. I'd be angry if anyone tried to stop me from doing what I had worked to enjoy. But if someone showed up at an unforgiving launch with an old bedsheet and announced his intention to jump off and fly...I'd try to stop him. And I suspect my fellow pilots would join me.
It may not be logical, but it's human.
I've done a fair bit of reading about suicide. In most cases it is a short-lived impulse. If you can help the person through a rough spot they go on to lead a full life, and end up being grateful for the intervention.
I don't have a moral problem with suicide if it is a rational act, undertaken after careful consideration of all the options and provsions made for everyone it will affect. But that usually isn't the case. It's usually an impusive act.
Do I enhance you "freedom" more by letting you act on an impulse, or by giving you an opportunity to make more choices?
Do I enhance you "freedom" more by letting you act on an impulse, or by giving you an opportunity to make more choices?
ReplyDeleteThe former.
[Condemnation of the implicit presumptuousness of your "letting" me do things or "giving" me opportunities--and the lack of character demonstrated by putting "freedom" in scorn quotes--taken as understood.]
ReplyDeleteRoberta makes a good point -- By making threats where I can hear them I can hear them, you have chosen to involve me. You have, in a small way, violated my freedom. It's the classic "Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose."
ReplyDeleteBy making a statement that offends my core values in a public forum, you've chosen to involve me in your so-called "freedom of expression." We should probably let our lawyers take it from here.
ReplyDeleteYou freely chose to participate...
ReplyDeleteI guess we'll disagree. My experience is that most people who threaten/attempt suicide -- and those who care about them -- are grateful for a second chance. The few who are truly committed probably won't be affected by a brief inconvenience.
I've seen a lot of poor choices driven by drugs, medical conditions, abuse, or acute stress. One can argue that they were all the outcome of a string of conscious choices. I don't think that's always true.
My impulse is to try to help.
Elmo,
ReplyDeleteIn meatspace discussion here at Roseholme, Bobbi raised an interesting point: Is me threatening to kill myself with the implication that I will do so unless you meet my demands extortion?
I'm not entirely convinced it is, but it is an interesting tack.
Things were so much simpler in my fifty-page AnCap/Libertarian arguments on TFL years ago, especially since I was Right and everybody else was Wrong. ;)
Tam: Hope you don't mind if I think out loud for a minute, but what do we mean by extortion?
ReplyDelete"I'll do this unless you do that" is an ultimatum. I take extortion to mean the subset of ultimatums that are illegal.
If "I'll do this" refers to something I don't have a right to do, then it's extortion in both the Real World and Libertarian Utopia.
At the other end, if "I'll do this" refers to something I have the right to do and wouldn't cause you any distress, RL and LU agree that it's not extortion.
Where they disagree is with regard to "I'll do this"es that I have a right to do and will cause you distress. The Real World does a complicated balancing act with how _much_ right I have to do it versus how _much_ distress it'll cause you, along with a heaping tablespoon of What's in the Best Interest of the Community.
In my personal Libertarian Utopia, I'd say that if I have a right to do something, I have the right to decide the conditions under which I'll choose to do it, and the right to communicate those conditions to you, and if that causes you distress... Well, so might painting my house lime green, or sporterizing my Committee of Safety musket. It doesn't seem to me that my intent to influence your choices makes a difference.
I'm interested in the argument that intent can turn legitimate exercise of a right into an initiation of force, but at the moment I'm very skeptical of it.
"AD has made it pretty clear he has no time for libertarian criticism."
ReplyDeleteUtter friggin' nonsense, Elmo.
You can disagree with me or criticize me all the live long day on my blog, and be welcome. I've deleted less than a handful of comments and banned probably half a dozen people in six years, and then only for engaging in personal attacks and not playing nice with other commenters.
Interestingly enough, all of those people were rabid fanatic gun control types who insisted on insulting me and my commenters.
How's it feel to voluntarily place yourself in that company, my libertarian friend?
You can comment and criticize all you want to, and you have in the past. Yet when I say something you disagree with, you accuse me of being deaf to counter arguments, and in someone else's comment section, no less.
That sir, is not only disingenuous, but patently false.
If you're offended by my replies to Travis, then I can only say that you don't get to toss verbal grenades at someone and expect them to lob you compliments in return.
Incendiary rhetoric - and equating my actions with herding people onto trains bound for death camps is incendiary and counterproductive no matter how you cut it - will only beget incendiary rhetoric in return.
Calling me a Nazi death camp guard will only get me to call you an asshole in return. If you think that makes me uninterested in dissenting opinion, so be it. I'm not interested in debating, if that's the level of the debate you engage in.
Second part of reply to Elmo Isacariot follows:
ReplyDeleteYou also seem to miss the entire point of the post: If you're going to do something, do it. Don't threaten, don't run your mouth about it, just do it.
Threatening just gets me involved when I'd rather not be. But if or when I am, I'm damned sure not going to risk my certification or livelihood to protect your libertarian ideals.
Threatening suicide runs the risk of getting people such as cops and EMT's involved, and giving them Hobson's Choice: either ignore 200 years of American jurisprudence and risk losing your means to feed your family and potentially dealing with the guilt of allowing someone to kill himself on a stupid, drunken whim, or risk infringing on the civil rights of the 1 in 100 that is rational and in full command of his mental faculties.
And placing me in that position actually seems pretty damned antithetical to libertarian ideals, come to think of it. You don't get to place me in an untenable position because you were making idle threats.
You don't get to set your own house on fire if it endangers the safety and property of your neighbors, even if you own it free and clear.
The corollary to that is, you don't get to set YOURSELF on fire if doing so endangers the safety and livelihood of people tasked by law with preventing it.
Do that, and you bump up into my libertarian ideals, which can be summed up as, "Leave me the hell out of your little drama."
So go off yourself in private, and I'm cool with that. I'll likely as not just read about it in the paper, shrug my shoulders and say, "Now there's someone who was serious about it," and go on with my day.
In your rush to run off to someone else's blog and slam me rather than engage me on my own, you may have missed this reply I made to Nick42 in the comment thread:
"There's gray area and wiggle room, but when the patient herself admits to saying it, or the 911 caller who witnessed the threat is there on scene, I treat it as credible.
In those instances where anonymous third party callers have reported a suicide threat, usually what we do is go with who we find more believable - a lucid, alert and non-distraught patient, or a shadowy 911 caller who refused to even give a name.
In those cases, we're more likely to take the patient's word."
I'm not bowing out my chest and carting off calm, rational people to the booby hatch, Elmo, and you damned well ought to know me better than that, as long as you've read my blog.
The people that I carry for psych evals are emotionally distraught, usually intoxicated, and more often than not, have a history of mental illness and previous suicide threats.
I don't throw my weight around. When the cops do that on a scene, it usually makes matters worse. What I do is explain to the patient that my hands are tied in the matter, and give them the choice: cooperate and come quietly and explain yourself to the person tasked with making the decision to turn you loose, or fight and go in handcuffs. I'd much rather they choose Option 1.
Option 2 is substantially less likely to convince the ED doc that you're rational and unlikely to harm yourself, and I make that point to them as well.
It ought to be pretty damned simple to understand: If you want to kill yourself, kill yourself. Just don't get the authorities involved.
"You're not only willing to stand by while someone is imprisoned based on words that he says, you're willing to actively restrain a free human being who has given zero evidence of intending to harm another and hand them over to other people who will cage them while they are restrained, observed, and given God knows what drugs against their will...all without a court order, a jury of their peers, or any other sort of warrant.
ReplyDeleteThe Baker Act says that the words are evidence enough, TJIC. Don't like it, go to one of those politicians you said people should start shooting, and get them to try repealing it.
...and you don't try to justify this through argument. You just assert it as fact "I will be a willing tool of the State and lock you up, because I'm Just Following Orders".
You do get to assert it through argument, a fact I pointed out and you chose to ignore.
You just don't get to make that argument to me, because I'm not the guy empowered by law to listen to your argument. I'm just the guy with the unenviable task of getting you to the person who can act on your argument.
Again, don't like the way the law is set up, do what you can to change it. Your current strategy hasn't accomplished much for you in that regard, though.
"AD has made it pretty clear he has no time for libertarian criticism."
ReplyDeleteUtter friggin' nonsense, Elmo.
...I've deleted less than a handful of comments and banned probably half a dozen people in six years
I wasn't referring to deletion and banning; I was referring to your lack of response to libertarian criticism, specifically TJIC's. Most non-libertarians don't want to speak Libertarian, and I see no point in speaking it at a person after he's declined somebody else.
It took until much later today to realize I'd misunderstood how comment threading works on your blog, and didn't realize I was looking at hours-old comments on a week-old post. That was my fault, and I apologize. My comment above was unfair.
...equating my actions with herding people onto trains bound for death camps is incendiary and counterproductive no matter how you cut it...
I don't support TJIC's holocaust comparison, nor with his statements about you violating people's rights "for a paycheck." I disagree strongly with the way you characterize the situation (that the law imposes on you once I say something doesn't make me the bad guy for saying it; it makes us both victims of the law), but expect we could end up pretty close on this in results. You do a hell of a lot of good, and the law forces you to do some bad along with it. I'm a hardcore libertarian ideologically, but appreciate that we have to make these compromises in the Real World.
I'm not going to lie, man, your tone over at your place really, really rubs my Wookiee fur the wrong way. "It sucks that I have to do this, but the law puts me in a position where I have to, and you should refrain from saying X so that we don't end up in that position" is one thing; "If you say X it doesn't matter what you want you don't get a say I will fight you and win and strap you down and the law will be on my side" sends a different message. And yeah, it reads as having a big damn chip on your shoulder to somebody like me, who knows you from occasional links but doesn't follow your blog.
I'm not gonna rant at you or call you a Nazi over a matter of tone, but it made me surprised that a fellow hardcore Wookiee didn't have something to say about it while linking.
Non-wall of text version: Hardcore libertarians being outside the mainstream, good people are very likely to believe in some things things hardcore libertarians think are terrible. In those cases, hardcore libertarians usually kvetch like hell to each other about it, but I think it's poor form to rant at the good-person-who's-not-a-libertarian about it. I thought this was one of those situations, and was wrong in at least a couple ways. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
ReplyDeleteElmo,
ReplyDelete"I was referring to your lack of response to libertarian criticism, specifically TJIC's."
In fairness, TJIC's comments were made very early this morning to a week-old post, and your response about AD's non-replies was made at 0929 EDT, at a time where he may not have even read his blog yet this morning, given that he's in the Central Time Zone...
Tam: yeah, like I said after that, it turned out I was just internet-retarded, and assumed the comments were in timestamp order. TJIC was up top with a quarter mile of comments below him. I didn't notice until you called him on posting to a week-old thread.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the emoticon for "sheepish"?
Hey, no worries, Elmo.
ReplyDeleteIf it sounded like I have a chip on my shoulder, I do.
But against people who place me in that position, and no one else.
If it came across as an authoritarian rant, I apologize in turn. It was supposed to be a "Don't say stupid things and then expect me to ignore them because you gots rights!" rant.
I don't like fighting with people. It sucks. I don't like being the bad guy, when the career I chose was supposed to be one of the good guys that provides the same professional care to the crack dealer as the socialite.
But the law requires that I do certain unpleasant things like carry people to the hospital against their will, and there is good reason for the law.
It just sucks that the execution of the law can be so jacked up sometimes, and the people tasked with that often aren't any more jazzed about it than the patient.
It also sucks that a couple of people insist on being jerks and picking fights with people who agree with 90% of their views.
We should be cooperating and supporting each other.
Good deal. Failure to communicate, et cetera.
ReplyDeleteIf you're ever unfortunate enough to find yourself going through New Jersey, drop me a line. I'll buy you a beer, and we can kvetch about the 90% we agree on. ;)
I love a great big wookie-furred hug. :)
ReplyDeleteLOL, I'll do just that. I get through Jersey every year.
ReplyDeleteTo clarify, I wasn't referring to Elmo as one of the jerks.
ReplyDeleteWhew! I'm glad that's settled! I dunno about the hug, though. I would prefer a Grandin squeezebox.
ReplyDeleteI get through Jersey every year.
ReplyDeleteWhew--I'm very sorry. ;)
As a practical matter, this insistence of the State on locking up suicidal people actively discourages some people from seeking help.
ReplyDeleteMore than one person I know fears seeking treatment for their depression and suicidal thoughts explicitly because they are concerned that if they mention it to a health care professional, they'll get locked up "for their own good".
As for the "extortion" question, I have found that this is very related to how people think internally, and how they process certain phrases.
ReplyDeleteTo some people, the phrase: "If you cheat on me, I will dump you" is a simple statement of fact and consequence. if - then. To others, merely the way it's phrased makes it sound significantly more like a threat or an ultimatum.
I suspect this would have something to do with how different people would parse the statement "If you leave me, I'll kill myself."
"actively discourages some people from seeking help."
ReplyDeleteThis.
I went to the university health center freshman year, and was thoroughly chilled by the checklist of "if you answer yes we will have you locked up and pumped full of drugs" questions. Especially since I only went because this country boy was having trouble sleeping in a noisy urban dorm!
It must be like a minefield for depressed or troubled people, trying to admit they need help without crossing a line and getting "helped" into a straight-jacket.
Incidentally, their only solution was a bottle of sleeping pills... A hippie yoga teacher ended up giving me better advice: "stop drinking so much coffee with dinner, you idiot!"
Those "alternative medicine" folks huffing patchouli and mainlining colloidal silver might be onto something. At least they're less likely to get beaten up by Ambulance Driver and his mates!