Who should take care of the disgruntled and deranged?

[utopian]

Child abuse. It happens. Some of us may be lucky enough to get away with none of it. Some may get away with not much, and be able to heal ourselves, finding our way to things like FDR which might help us alleviate symptoms and conditions.

 

And then there are some who are beyond help. Who social workers recognize as not having anything that can be done for them; they are simply irreparably damaged, whether because of brain damage, lengthy conditioning or some other reason. 

 

These people tend to stay out of the public eye, and society tends to altogether forget they exist. It's not my problem or responsibility, they may reason. And then they go on living their lives, perhaps going to a movie theater, where they settle in to enjoy themselves right before one of these deranged individuals shoot the place up and kill everyone, the unconcerned libertarian included.

 

I have heard arguments that most of societies problems can be contributed to things like child abuse, and of course Steph himself has striven to discuss its effects on the world. It is unlikely that such a widespread pandemic will ever be solved, however, and it is practical for the common man to consider that he might run into issues with a deranged fellow some day. 

 

So with that being the case, who should be responsible to take care of these things? If someone advocates that no one is responsible, that individuals need to take care of themselves when perhaps they are not all capable of it, then they leave open the possibility for being effected by one of these individuals should he ever fly off the handle. If society is responsible for itself concerning this, then there will always be people like Steph speaking to it's detriments, with the masses largely ignoring  his wisdom as seen by his constant lack of donations. And then of course, if you expect a private entity to be responsible for your safety, you have the beginnings and makings of a gang and/or state.

[NotDarkYet]

Volunteerism is the only moral and practical way to improve society.

[Alan C.]

Are you talking about people who have an inclination for uncivilized behavior or people who do not have control of their mental faculties and cannot control themselves?

[MagnumPI]

Who deals with violent individuals? Smitty and Wess. Who deals with harmless crazies? Whomever wants to.

 

Neglected people neglect people. And since we can't tell the future, the individual is responsible for himself and his surroundings. If safety and security are purchased that would be separate and fall upon whomever accepted the contract.

If they're not public then why are we even talking about them? They technically don't exist. It's like a Schroedinger's cat paradox. Who deals with the dead cat? How do you know he's dead? There are consequences to living, its not a complicated problem. People just don't like the answer that there's nothing you can do.

[utopian]

 

Are you talking about people who have an inclination for uncivilized behavior or people who do not have control of their mental faculties and cannot control themselves?

 

I imagine both categories may fall under the same field. Perhaps an individual who has control of himself has faced so much mistreatment, that he determines some act of violence is warranted. And of course there are those that have some such condition like PTSD for whatever reason, where they seem to have control of themselves until something triggers them. And then again, there could always be someone out there who is completely unable to control themselves, restrained by the watchful eye of a family member perhaps, until that guardian makes a mistake and that individual gets loose and/or ahold of a weapon.

 

Neglected people neglect people. And since we can't tell the future, the individual is responsible for himself and his surroundings. If safety and security are purchased that would be separate and fall upon whomever accepted the contract.
If they're not public then why are we even talking about them? They technically don't exist. It's like a Schroedinger's cat paradox. Who deals with the dead cat? How do you know he's dead? There are consequences to living, its not a complicated problem. People just don't like the answer that there's nothing you can do.

 

That's the thing, they don't become public until its too late. Disregarding what is possible makes as much sense as never having any money saved up, or any food kept at your house. You are going to need these things some time, it is wise to have a buffer zone between you and the next event. As far as deranged individuals are concerned, if there is an entity actively looking to prevent one of these individuals from a traumatic event, it could save the rest of us a lot of time spent, and heartache. Otherwise theres no reason for people like Steph to attempt to talk about things like child abuse, to prevent it. 

[Alan C.]

There are many mentally unbalanced people who can still behave in a civilized manner. In a free society, there would be far better options for vetting to keep malicious types, thugs, and hoodlums separated from civil society.

 

As far as people who have no control over themselves, they'd have to be restrained and looked after by people who want to take on that responsibility. Otherwise, they'd be left to roam in the wild.

[MagnumPI]

 

 

 

I imagine both categories may fall under the same field. Perhaps an individual who has control of himself has faced so much mistreatment, that he determines some act of violence is warranted. And of course there are those that have some such condition like PTSD for whatever reason, where they seem to have control of themselves until something triggers them. And then again, there could always be someone out there who is completely unable to control themselves, restrained by the watchful eye of a family member perhaps, until that guardian makes a mistake and that individual gets loose and/or ahold of a weapon.

 

 

That's the thing, they don't become public until its too late. Disregarding what is possible makes as much sense as never having any money saved up, or any food kept at your house. You are going to need these things some time, it is wise to have a buffer zone between you and the next event. As far as deranged individuals are concerned, if there is an entity actively looking to prevent one of these individuals from a traumatic event, it could save the rest of us a lot of time spent, and heartache. Otherwise theres no reason for people like Steph to attempt to talk about things like child abuse, to prevent it. 

 

 

 

What does too late mean? That you're having trouble accepting reality? An asteroid might fall on your head. You might be struck by lightning. Someone might jump out of a car and shoot you in the back of the head whilst walking your dog in the park and listening to headphones. This can happen in a free society or a drunken cop might do it.

 

And once again, if this person does exist, peaceful parenting didn't work, carry a fuckin .45, best of luck to you. If they don't, then why are we talking about it?

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

You could just let them play assassin's creed. Kill evil in high places 24/7 blazing, also sometimes statists get in the way, much pleasure.

 I think some may really like the game.

[Snafui]

I am a 100% disabled vet diagnosed with Bipolar, PTSD, and have some issues with paranoia; I abhor actual violence. Most that I have met with mental issues do so as well.

You are searching for a very small number of violent aggressors. Were they to point a weapon in a free society they would find more than 99,999 guns pointed at them. That is being conservative with the numbers of how rare mentally disturbed people are homicidal because they actually far more suicidal. What is witnessed in the MSM is way out of proportion to reality and this is why you see so many jump to an assumption of conspiracies so quickly.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

MSM

?

[Snafui]

MSM = Mainstream Media

[utopian]

Were they to point a weapon in a free society they would find more than 99,999 guns pointed at them. That is being conservative with the numbers of how rare mentally disturbed people are homicidal because they actually far more suicidal. What is witnessed in the MSM is way out of proportion to reality and this is why you see so many jump to an assumption of conspiracies so quickly.

 

Hmm... I disagree about guns being pointed back at them, in cases like mass shootings, it was one guy verses a lot of people who could have had guns but did not. Until the cops showed up. Although I suppose you can argue America is not exactly the freest society. 

 

Perhaps it is true what you see on TV is a minority. But then again also, we do have quite a lot of people locked up in the US these days, to the point where the prison system is overflowing. 

[AncapFTW]

Hmm... I disagree about guns being pointed back at them, in cases like mass shootings, it was one guy verses a lot of people who could have had guns but did not. Until the cops showed up. Although I suppose you can argue America is not exactly the freest society. 

 

Perhaps it is true what you see on TV is a minority. But then again also, we do have quite a lot of people locked up in the US these days, to the point where the prison system is overflowing. 

You mean mass shootings which almost always happen in a gun-free zone?  Even the ones on military bases count because they aren't allowed to have guns in most cases, only the MP can have guns.

 

Most of the people in prison are in there for non-violent, often victimless crimes.