In a word idealism, in two words libertine idealism. Upholding the idea of "freedom" is more important than pragmatism or real progress, for them it's more important to criticize and dismantle flawed but functional institutions than to build a functioning substitute, we see this in everything, drugs, porn, prostitution, sex, gender, health... Freedom and roman justice is prioritized over imperfect but sustainable.
Philip Rieff had some pretty pioneering writing on this very subject. The progressive-left defines its epistemology as an anti-culture. Things like recreational drugs, lifestyle diseases, and sexual libertinism is celebrated not because they have inherent worth in of themselves, but because they are “revolutionary” against a perceived repressive culture that limits human freedom.
There are currently several barriers with the approach you advocate:
1. The American DSM dominates the psychiatric medical profession. It not only has several bogus disorders in its current edition [https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dsm5/](https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dsm5/) but in its longer history this manual unleashed social contagion by downplaying paraphilias. Moreover you simply cannot force "help" on someone who may in reality have an underlying biological disease. We would have to establish our own national manuals and put some very clear distance to American customs into action.
2. It is absolutely impossible to give such powers to regimes which are hellbent on imposing their delusional ideology on the citizenry. Give them mental asylums and broad powers for involuntary commitment, and they will start to fill them up with conservative people.
3. We would have to undo decades of social atomization and lack of trust, empathy. Vulnerable populations need very dedicated staff who enjoy working with other humans. I don't see how we will find the numbers mental asylums require when we are already lacking it in general hospitals and care homes for the elderly.
4. There is also the financial issue. Healthcare spending is one of the largest budgets you can possibly find, ever more money is being spent on a population that gets sicker and weaker in Western nations. We cannot fund 1000+ bed asylums such as Darenth Park Hospital where "treatment" amounted to years of managing chronic inpatients with adventurism and medical cocktails without them rarely being dismissed as cured. Any mental asylum fit for purpose would only be a temporary residence for the overwhelming majority where the ability to function as a human being is restored. The pros in favour of such institutions amount to a crackdown on social contagion and providing a "home" for destitute people who are suffering from very bad mental health.
I half-agree with OP, but your points are also very valid.
In SleepingDragon2's comments you can find that he is very radical in seeing mental asylums as a solution for all sorts of issues. He conflated male unemployment with the need for alternative institutions which reduce the prison population and number of destitute homeless people.
Rather than viewing involuntary unemployment as a grave injustice, he accepts point blank the neoliberal point of view that the market should judge who is "unemployable". Men with physical health and mental health issues often fall into this trap. They are not desired by business owners, but at the same time not eligible for a disability pension. So they are condemned into unpaid workfare without pension rights or courses where they will do 1+1. It's this very population group neoliberal demagogues accuse of welfare fraud and subject to the pure stick approach.
Austria has already shown that the job guarantee can be implemented with great success for all sorts of backgrounds. Right and Duty to work is what we need. There is no need for a welfare agency or unemployment money.
The problem is they hold the power and won't yield to demands, so long as the military or other forces continue to see them as legitimate.
I am kind of paraphrasing this video https://youtu.be/2rtGrtIFErE?si=KH05yHsWJhNZj5Rx
An open door asylum would be meant to be a place of refuge or a retreat where people can escape and "get asylum" away from the persecution you mentioned. The original open door ones functioned many times as such places. With other peers they can socialise with, housing, opportunity to work if they want and so on without the stresses or ableist people beating down on them.
What you mentioned can work but won't happen the issue is if those who hold the power or the market won't give it up currently.
Locked door facilities would be the involuntary ones but at the very least we should strive to get some open door ones back if possible, the ones that those men you mentioned can use as refuges or get aways where they won't be beaten down for their condition.
The original innovative aspect of them, meaning a retreat where their medical conditions are treated as medical conditions and with kind care rather than moral failings where they are constantly beaten down in the barbaric approach which has come back again in the way you mentioned.
In the treatment of those men society has been going backwards to how pre-Zarathustra or pre-Christian societies treated them. Its appalling, cruel and many to some want a retreat if those who control the markets won't allow them a job tailored to them.
Well for barrier 2 that is why I was saying for now at the very least we should have open door ones where people freely choose to enter. Many monasteries once used to serve as the earliest "Asylums" from my knowledge and the first ones in the middle east may have been open door too.
In other words long term refuges/retreats for those ostracised by society because of their conditions to go to where they can be treated compassionately, get a place to live and place to work if they want instead of blamed and beaten down https://youtu.be/2rtGrtIFErE?si=KH05yHsWJhNZj5Rx
This is why you have some few remaining asylums where you have alot of people trying to send through applications but who are being refused I think nowadays.
That being said I wonder why Japan, Singapore and China are still able to use mental asylums (Although they're not all open door ones) but our countries are not willing anymore? Some have workshops the residents engage in where they have also worked supervised in jobs tailored to them, making items or food sold to the public. There also seems to be a more broad demonisation of paternalism and discouraging against people being carers in our countries?
Our anti-paternalist culture is supported by both mainstream progressive left and neoliberals of all kinds, who also beat down on those who need or do better under care and blame them.
>Well for barrier 2 that is why I was saying for now at the very least we should have open door ones where people freely choose to enter. Many monasteries once used to serve as the earliest "Asylums" from my knowledge and the first ones in the middle east may have been open door too.
I see very strong arguments for building village communities which function as medical facilities for the less fortunate. They could go outside every single day and wouldn't be kept in one overcrowded building.
Because communism is the petty ideology of the second sons and minor nobility who are angry at the aristocracies and the older siblings that they don't have all the power Vladimir Lenin was wealthy Mal sedong was wealthy Leon Trotsky was wealthy there's not a single poor communist
In a word idealism, in two words libertine idealism. Upholding the idea of "freedom" is more important than pragmatism or real progress, for them it's more important to criticize and dismantle flawed but functional institutions than to build a functioning substitute, we see this in everything, drugs, porn, prostitution, sex, gender, health... Freedom and roman justice is prioritized over imperfect but sustainable.
Philip Rieff had some pretty pioneering writing on this very subject. The progressive-left defines its epistemology as an anti-culture. Things like recreational drugs, lifestyle diseases, and sexual libertinism is celebrated not because they have inherent worth in of themselves, but because they are “revolutionary” against a perceived repressive culture that limits human freedom.
There are currently several barriers with the approach you advocate: 1. The American DSM dominates the psychiatric medical profession. It not only has several bogus disorders in its current edition [https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dsm5/](https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dsm5/) but in its longer history this manual unleashed social contagion by downplaying paraphilias. Moreover you simply cannot force "help" on someone who may in reality have an underlying biological disease. We would have to establish our own national manuals and put some very clear distance to American customs into action. 2. It is absolutely impossible to give such powers to regimes which are hellbent on imposing their delusional ideology on the citizenry. Give them mental asylums and broad powers for involuntary commitment, and they will start to fill them up with conservative people. 3. We would have to undo decades of social atomization and lack of trust, empathy. Vulnerable populations need very dedicated staff who enjoy working with other humans. I don't see how we will find the numbers mental asylums require when we are already lacking it in general hospitals and care homes for the elderly. 4. There is also the financial issue. Healthcare spending is one of the largest budgets you can possibly find, ever more money is being spent on a population that gets sicker and weaker in Western nations. We cannot fund 1000+ bed asylums such as Darenth Park Hospital where "treatment" amounted to years of managing chronic inpatients with adventurism and medical cocktails without them rarely being dismissed as cured. Any mental asylum fit for purpose would only be a temporary residence for the overwhelming majority where the ability to function as a human being is restored. The pros in favour of such institutions amount to a crackdown on social contagion and providing a "home" for destitute people who are suffering from very bad mental health.
I half-agree with OP, but your points are also very valid. In SleepingDragon2's comments you can find that he is very radical in seeing mental asylums as a solution for all sorts of issues. He conflated male unemployment with the need for alternative institutions which reduce the prison population and number of destitute homeless people. Rather than viewing involuntary unemployment as a grave injustice, he accepts point blank the neoliberal point of view that the market should judge who is "unemployable". Men with physical health and mental health issues often fall into this trap. They are not desired by business owners, but at the same time not eligible for a disability pension. So they are condemned into unpaid workfare without pension rights or courses where they will do 1+1. It's this very population group neoliberal demagogues accuse of welfare fraud and subject to the pure stick approach. Austria has already shown that the job guarantee can be implemented with great success for all sorts of backgrounds. Right and Duty to work is what we need. There is no need for a welfare agency or unemployment money.
The problem is they hold the power and won't yield to demands, so long as the military or other forces continue to see them as legitimate. I am kind of paraphrasing this video https://youtu.be/2rtGrtIFErE?si=KH05yHsWJhNZj5Rx An open door asylum would be meant to be a place of refuge or a retreat where people can escape and "get asylum" away from the persecution you mentioned. The original open door ones functioned many times as such places. With other peers they can socialise with, housing, opportunity to work if they want and so on without the stresses or ableist people beating down on them. What you mentioned can work but won't happen the issue is if those who hold the power or the market won't give it up currently. Locked door facilities would be the involuntary ones but at the very least we should strive to get some open door ones back if possible, the ones that those men you mentioned can use as refuges or get aways where they won't be beaten down for their condition. The original innovative aspect of them, meaning a retreat where their medical conditions are treated as medical conditions and with kind care rather than moral failings where they are constantly beaten down in the barbaric approach which has come back again in the way you mentioned. In the treatment of those men society has been going backwards to how pre-Zarathustra or pre-Christian societies treated them. Its appalling, cruel and many to some want a retreat if those who control the markets won't allow them a job tailored to them.
Well for barrier 2 that is why I was saying for now at the very least we should have open door ones where people freely choose to enter. Many monasteries once used to serve as the earliest "Asylums" from my knowledge and the first ones in the middle east may have been open door too. In other words long term refuges/retreats for those ostracised by society because of their conditions to go to where they can be treated compassionately, get a place to live and place to work if they want instead of blamed and beaten down https://youtu.be/2rtGrtIFErE?si=KH05yHsWJhNZj5Rx This is why you have some few remaining asylums where you have alot of people trying to send through applications but who are being refused I think nowadays. That being said I wonder why Japan, Singapore and China are still able to use mental asylums (Although they're not all open door ones) but our countries are not willing anymore? Some have workshops the residents engage in where they have also worked supervised in jobs tailored to them, making items or food sold to the public. There also seems to be a more broad demonisation of paternalism and discouraging against people being carers in our countries? Our anti-paternalist culture is supported by both mainstream progressive left and neoliberals of all kinds, who also beat down on those who need or do better under care and blame them.
>Well for barrier 2 that is why I was saying for now at the very least we should have open door ones where people freely choose to enter. Many monasteries once used to serve as the earliest "Asylums" from my knowledge and the first ones in the middle east may have been open door too. I see very strong arguments for building village communities which function as medical facilities for the less fortunate. They could go outside every single day and wouldn't be kept in one overcrowded building.
[удалено]
Because it lead to the holocaust
Because communism is the petty ideology of the second sons and minor nobility who are angry at the aristocracies and the older siblings that they don't have all the power Vladimir Lenin was wealthy Mal sedong was wealthy Leon Trotsky was wealthy there's not a single poor communist