by Cledwyn Bulbs » Sat Dec 27, 2014 8:18 pm
Insofar as is understood by the term, "anti-social", one who disregards the rights of others, then, at least in my country, where almost all psychiatry is centralized, and where almost each and every one of them is bound by the mental health act to imprison and assault those who fall within the orbit of the psychiatrist qua agent of social control, then yes, absolutely, they must be counted amongst the most anti-social people, at least in my society.
Yet the label "anti-social" is strictly reserved, like psychiatric labels, for those in the lowermost socio-economic strata, les miserables, unless, that is, someone of a higher status voluntarily seeks out a psychiatrist himself.
Men of a certain station are mercifully spared such labels. The psychiatrist's position confers exemption from real scrutiny of their behavior, which is largely why, despite the fact that the violence they commit collectively as a group greatly preponderates over that of their victims, it is always the violence of the mental patient (rare as it is) that commands the attention of the media, and by extension, that of society.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
As Szasz said, whereas in the jungle the law is kill or be killed, in the human jungle it is define or be defined. Psychiatrists ultimately define what is anti-social, and the immense imbalance of power on this issue, tilted overwhelmingly as it is in their favor, ensures that they don't get defined.
-- Sat Dec 27, 2014 8:19 pm --
In the way of something of an addendum to the foregoing remarks, I would say; long live the phantom of justice!