A possibility, one that would require much effort and setup cost, but might succeed is “protective custody” communities, supervised places where one would live and work, as in “perform some useful task”. Light manufacturing, farming, baking, sewing, apprentice work to plumbers, electricians, bricklayers, carpenters – these things would supply community needs and provide items to be sold. But more important is the fact that they would provide the work that is necessary to human flourishing and contributes to development of a sense of self.

The Department of Mental Health in Massachusets (there are probably others) has experimented with this idea on a small scale for both outpatient and inpatient care but though commendable these facilities cannot fulfill the human need for communal life in a place that recognizes the category of goodness as a human possibility of ultimate value and therefore makes sense.

I define liberals as those that believe that their duty to others is satisfied by outsourcing the obligation to others to the state, through political activity, first and foremost, in part because they believe the state is capable, resistant and or immune to corruption and error.

Conservatives believe that the duty of care, inheres to all individuals (even the poor can find someone poorer) and that duty is personal and not tranferrable. There is a consistent pattern (and I realize this is a poor approximation) of inquiries correlating charitable giving positively with polical conservatism.

I suppose a few radical libertarians believe there are no (positive) obligations that exist outside those created by voluntary contract, but that is a guess, unsupported by any serious evidence.

In this case, I would favor some state action, simply because before we deprive someone of their liberties-we need due process of law and ultimately, some folks need to be confined.

However, as in a trial, that “state action” cannot be a mere procedural pretext to a largely predecided outcome, that degenerates to something like the arbirary and capricious action that was portrayed by the librarian (Burgess Meredith) being declared obsolete in a famous “Twilight Zone” episode.

It’s worth noting that what constitutes a danger to the public is often considered by totalitarian regimes to be a danger to the state.

Otherwise, I find myself largely in agreement with Mr. Nickol’s premise that there is distinct possibility that eccentricity will be considered mental derangement. We aren’t very far from the stifling conformities of high school that brands the “band”, the “geeks” and others as a lowly and unworthy caste.

Worse, individuals with great minds often have “mental illness”. Churchill’s “black dogs” are widely considered to have been clinical depression. John Nash’s mathematical talents were accompanied by schizophrenia. Nikola Tesla may have been autistic. We can’t forget the possibility of pleiotropy.

If you think this is implausible. Consider the question of whether a “hoarder” is eccentric or mentally ill. The TV shows all portray them as beniggn lunatics. (As an aside, I consider hoarding a problem, but one that has spiritual dimensions as well)

Only if you believe that there is such a thing as “liberalism”. What is contemporarily referred to as liberalism (not at all what was generally proposed by Acton, Hume, Bastiat and the other great liberal thinkers) is in fact something wholly different.

It is statism. Statism succeeds by eliminating non-state mediating institutions and sewing disorder and disharmony (you will note the modern statist attacks on marriage, the family and the Church) to expose the individual to as much uncertainty and disorder as possible, in order to create a demand for the state order and the guarantees it offers.

The reality of Newtown is that humanity will always have in it’s midst, some that are sick or evil.

As an addendum, it is widely being presumed that the individual who committed this heinous act, is ill and it may be true that he was lacking in “mental hygiene”. There’s another possibility, one that in our time is difficult to uttter, because we are conditioned to disbelief.

There is the possibility that Lanza was just evil. He committed matricide and infanticide and there’s a reason we reserve special disdain for the people that do that.

His final act was self-immolation. In this, he resembled that paragon of evil, Adolph Hitler.

He slaughtered the innocent and then himself and nobody ever thinks of Him as mentally ill.

I am thrilled that more money will be spent to treat mental illness. (I’d suggest a 100% tax on guns, a 100% tax on gun permits, and a 200% tax on ammunition to start filling the coffers to fund such treatments.) But young men with an emerging psychotic disorder, groomed on violent video games, and with easy access to guns (through their own legal purchase or through their family), will escape treatment no matter how much $ is thrown at the mental health industry.

KM,

I couldn’t agree more. But Austin Ruse said, “. . . . where these hopeless cases could be committed, yes committed.” The emphasis on “committed” was his. And that means institutionalizing people against their will. I am not necessarily saying it would be the wrong thing to do, but it presents great problems.

And here’s another problem. Nobody wants homeless shelters, halfway houses, drug treatment facilities, and so on, to be located anywhere near where they live. Not in my backyard.

I would support spending more money on the homeless and the mentally ill. But even if you can get the money allocated, there are still significant problems to be solved. By all means, let’s allocate the money and solve the problems, but especially in this economic climate, let’s not pretend it is easy. It is difficult to do more in any area at all when the cry is for budget cuts and no increase in taxes.

Eccentricity doesn’t necessarily entail harm to self or others.