I was talking about this post: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/b5...
In the comment you say something about the rich benefit from gov't largesse. I agree with that. That's a big problem with gov't. It's worth everyone's time, rich or poor, to find a way to get money from the gov't. It's not worth everyone else's time to stop it, since each person pays a small amt-- plus they're getting their largesse too. I agree with you on that point.

I do not like how the article turns monetary policy into a class struggle. I agree with having a strong central bank that sets monetary policy. If it's done right, the Fed doesn't work for any political group, so it can piss off everyone as necessary to keep means of production from sitting idle and to keep the value of money predictable (i.e. losing 1-4 percent of its value a year).

So true...

Of which post were you speaking?

I expected to click on the comments and read people saying liberals are such a problem b/c they block efforts of ostensible Ayn Rand supporters to give the gov't powers to lock up anyone who the gov't believes *might* commit a crime in the future.

Instead you agree with liberals that we should be cautious about giving the gov't power to lock people up.

My point: Modern politics is stupid. We need to get away from the left/right narrative. In another posted article this morning, they try to turn monetary policy into a left/right class struggle issue. *We need freedoms the be respected universally without question.*

Perhaps. I would also agree with parents of minors being able to get the help they need when their kids have mental problems....right now it's nearly impossible for parents to get them hospitalized unless the police are involved or they've done something terrible first. The parents should be listened to..BEFORE something happens. Adults...that's a different deal. I also have a problem with schools having a hand in some of these things...depends though. If it was an either or question though...I'd say no to the whole thing because I don't trust people who can't handle power...and most can't.

Understandable. Now, what do we do with people whose own family expresses fear for the safety of their mentally ill family member or themselves? Or the people wandering the streets that a policeman finds presenting a clear danger? Or those who refuse to take their med's and end up in a mass shooting? Are these the circumstances you would make exception for?

Which is why I'm against institutionalizing people under most circumstances.

That is not good... :(

Excellent kh. You are right on both counts. Not sure how we should deal with the menatally ill. Probably needs to be dealt with on an individual basis. At the very least family members have to be vigilant and keep the mentally ill away from their firearms.

I'll admit Coulter does go off the deep end sometimes. I'll also admit that I can't always agree with what she writes. But to call her a neo-Nazi fascist really only underscores an irrational media-fed bias that is designed to prevent rational thinking.

A bocare appointed panel would decide. We may all be on that list already.

I have no problem with the institutionalization of those who present a clear danger to themselves or others. The question is: Who will decide and for how long one must be removed from society? I would suggest that it should be up to the states, or better yet the county officials to provide the infrastructure. The determination should not depend upon one psychiatrist's evaluation though. Two or perhaps three independent evaluations should be made before an order is given. Even then a patient should have the right to choose one of the licensed doctors for one of opinions if they so desire and there should be opportunity for appeal. We don't want innocent people incarcerated or institutionalized for illegitimate reasons...
I do remember when our local institutions were de-funded and many people were released to the streets without due consideration of the implications... it ended badly for some...

The contention of this article is a slippery slope.

Yes, I vehemently support the individual and hi/her right to self determination. However, when a person is mentally unstable should that not person be identified and made to receive help - if for no other reason than to not be a legitimate danger to others?

The terrifying aspect of this is in WHO determines if someone is mentally unstable? What measure defines mentally unstable from eccentric, quirky, or oddball? Should a government wield this power without strong opposition THEY can do anything they want to anyone who opposes them under the guise of him/her being mentally unstable and a danger to society. When contemporary society (government) determines that speaking out against what its doing must be insane, or the desire to own a weapon is insane, or opposing universal health care or welfare is insane, what will stop them from locking people away? Scary implications Ms. Coulter, I do wonder if you thought this out.

great points, AJ. I think it's best separated into two issues.
1. we do not handle the issue of mental illness in our country well. separate from:
2. owning a firearm. The question of safety would be easily answered by allowing people to be armed in more places, not fewer places or not at all. The best defense is a good offense! first time I've said that. true

Excellent point AJ. I think that is why we don't have these institutions any longer. Once you got in it was hard to get out. For me it would have to be a combination of illegal and unstable activity. Maybe as part of a punishment for a crime committed they would have to submit to some treatment. You are right about it being ripe for abuse. No easy answers.

Anything to distract from the REAL reason, the incitement of chaos in order to implement the executive orders which impose tyranny on America. Be ready and stand ready. It's coming.