He was an asshole who spent sixty years shitting over real science to promote his politics, and you're an asshole for trying to promote his politics at a digital wake.
my problem with Szasz though is different. He seems to accept the basic assumptions of mental illness that our society does, and therefore never frees himself from the problems of those assumptions. There is no scientific basis for these assumptions, as they form, effectively, the threshold questions under which one can try to make neurochemical inquiry into mental health. These assumptions are:
1. Mental illness, to the extent it exists, is objective and quantifiable.
2. Social context is irrelevant to mental health.
3. Therefore mental health is an individual issue.
Of course a libertarian will accept these assumptions because they are based on the assumptions of personhood behind that movement. But what if both of the first two are wrong? What if mental health is very much subjective and what if social context is an important factor in mental health? If so, then, not only is the science based on bad assumptions but so is Szasz's rebuttal to it, and mental health becomes more an art than a science.
None of this reaches the question of coercive therapy. The fundamental questions are who, when, and how (both regarding the coercion and the therapy). Obviously there are times when this is needed. But we should not ignore the dark side this has had throughout history.
> 2. Social context is irrelevant to mental health.
> 3. Therefore mental health is an individual issue.
None of those are positions Szasz holds. The first two are just kind or ridiculous – he said contrary things, a lot. They are pretty opposite to his actual positions. For the third, he is pro-individualist but the "therefore" is wrong, and also the topic "mental health" includes things like the insanity defense which aren't just an individual issue.
Your supposed anti-libertarian insights are basically correct – but Szasz already knew them and wrote about them.
Of course what is labelled "mentally ill" depends on the social context, rather than being objective. That was a major point Szasz made. Have you read his books?
> Obviously there are times when this is needed.
Here, where you advocate coercion, you have an actual disagreement with me and Szasz. This, not your points 1-3, is your basic disagreement with Szasz. It's the standard disagreement most people have: they favor coercion, he and I do not.
> In 1938, Szasz moved to the United States, where he attended the University of Cincinnati for his Bachelor of Science in medicine, and received his M.D. from the same university in 1944.[7]
Pretty much this. Having just heard about him today, it's clear his [Szasz] statements reflect technological limitations of yesteryear combined with intense personal bias.
Why anyone would still espouse the concepts this guy put forward is beyond me.
Szasz was indeed a deeply unpopular man, but progress often depends upon such people.
For instance, did you know that he was the first psychiatrist to claim publicly that homosexuality is not a disease? (In 'Sexual Inversion: The Multiple Roots of Homosexuality', ed. by Judd Marmor, Basic Books, 1965)
