Gullible Skeptics; T. Szasz

Indeed, we could not go through life without being unskeptical about many things, accept ing them on "faith value"-for example, that diabetes is better treated with insulin than with aspirin. I want to show that although contemporary skeptics pride themselves on disbelieving the theology of traditional religions, most of them ardently believe the theology of the Therapeu tic State-the alliance of Medicine and the State-epitomized by Psychiatry. Although Thomas Szasz, MD., professor ofpsychiatry emeritus at SUNY Health Science Center in Syracuse, New York, is the author of many books including The Myth of Mental Illness and the forthcoming Fatal Freedom. 26 most educated people doubt what they regard as false claims, they do not call themselves "skeptics." Most self-styled or professional skeptics (Skeptics) are not only obsessed with agitating against what they regard as false religious claims but also act as if such doubt ing were a daring, modern attitude.

Actually, skepticism about religion is as old as religion itself. Adherence to religion A implies skepticism about religion B,and vice versa. Since the Enlightenment, the debunk ing of religion, especially Christianity, has been a veritable growth industry. Neverthe less, religious belief remains widespread. In the United States, support for religious belief as "truth" and as a political agenda is associ ated with the so-called Christian Right. Skeptics are best viewed as the Christian Right's dialogic partners and political adver saries. By targeting the Religious Right, the Skeptics ally themselves-sometimes tacitly, often explicitly-with the Psychiatric Left. The result is that Skeptics are among the lead ing supporters of the dominant "religious" fraud and oppression of our age, Psychiatry. The United States has a National Institute of Mental Health; but it has no National Insti tute of Religion. Every state has mental health laws, but none has religious health laws; indeed, none has physical health laws. Each year, hundreds of thousands of Americans are deprived of liberty on psychiatric grounds; not a single American is deprived of liberty on religious grounds. I will not belabor my view that mental illnesses, like ghosts, are non existent entities and that psychiatry, like slavery, rests on the state-sanctioned coercion of innocent individuals.

Persons engage in actions. There is no psy chiatry without psychiatric acts: the paradig matic psychiatric acts are civil commitment and the insanity defense, both euphemisms for depriving people of liberty. Civil commit ment is preventive detention of the innocent. The insanity defense or, more precisely, the insanity disposition, is the punitive detention of criminals classified as "mentally ill" in prisons called "mental hospitals." One need not be a devout skeptic to doubt that John W. Hinckley, Jr., is really innocent of attempting to assassinate President Reagan (although such is his official "diagnosis") or that he is really being treated for a bona fide illness (in a building "diagnosed" as a hospi tal). I submit that Hinckley'S nonexistent ill ness and psychiatric torture is emblematic of a large class of phenomena that Skeptics are not eager to be skeptical about. In the Thera peutic State, the person skeptical about reli gion is acclaimed as humane and scientifical ly enlightened, whereas the person skeptical about psychiatry is reviled as a heretic deny ing science and a cruel reactionary to boot.

As there is no psychiatry without psychi atric acts, so too there is no madness without mad acts. Acts we deem "mad" are either non criminal, like depression, in which case the Skeptic rationalizes imprisoning the person in a mental hospital as saving his mind (as the inquisitors rationalized burning the heretic as saving his soul); or such acts are criminal, like murder, in which case the Skeptic basks in self-approval by demanding that the offender be "treated," not punished. In short, the Skep tic clings to the idea that mental illnesses are "real diseases" that the "sufferers" would want treated if only they recognized their true interests. Why are so many Skeptics gullible about psychiatry? Mainly, I surmise, because psy chiatrists tend to support the Skeptics' claim that religion is an "illusion." Which raises the rhetorical question, Are Skeptics more inter ested in the differences between true and false 27 beliefs or the differences between consensual and coercive actions?

Psychiatry is an instrument of the coercive apparatus of the state. Separate Psychiatry and the State, and Psychiatry as we know it would melt like snow under the hot sun. Skep ticism about psychiatry would then become as politically correct as skepticism about reli gion is now. Consider the contrast between freedom of religion and unfreedom from psychiatry. Religion as false belief-religious relations between consenting adults-harms no one, except possibly the believer, who "deserves" to be helped or harmed by the exercise of his free choice of self-regarding religious conduct. Only Religion as political power-as violence against others masquerading as help (and the use of tax money to support Reli gion)-is dangerous to others. We have no religious health laws; hence, Religion is not a danger to anyone. Mutatis mutandis, Psychiatry as false belief-psychiatric relations between con senting adults-harms no one, except possi bly the believer, who "deserves" to be helped or harmed by the exercise of his free choice of self-regarding psychiatric conduct. Only Psy chiatry as political power (and the use of tax money to support Psychiatry)-as violence against others masquerading as help-is a danger to others. However stubbornly true believers in Psychiatry insist that "mental ill ness is like any other illness," the truth is that we have no physical health laws, but we do have mental health laws. Hence, Psychiatry is a danger to everyone.

Organized religion qua religion is separated from the American State by the Constitution as well as by custom. Organized psychiatry is not: Religion qua Psychiatry is the danger that now faces us. It is Psychiatry-not Christian ity-that is lavishly supported by the State and is empowered to use its coercive appara tus. It is Psychiatry-not Christianity-that is the grand deception of our age. It is Psychia try-not Christianity-that Skeptics ought to unmask, ridicule, condemn, and combat. D FriedrichA. Hayek: A CentenaryAppreciation by Richard M. Ebeling I n 1967, English economist Sir John Hicks published an essay titled "The Hayek Story" in which he said that: When the definitive history of economic analysis during the nineteen thirties comes to be written, a leading character in the drama (it was quite a drama) will be Pro fessor Hayek .... Hayek's economic writ ings ... are almost unknown to the modern student; it is hardly remembered that there was a time when the new theories of Hayek were the principal rival of the new theories of Keynes. Which was right, Keynes or Hayek?l In February 1931, Friedrich August von Hayek had arrived in England from Vienna, Austria, to deliver a series of lectures at the London School of Economics. The lectures created such excitement and sensation that he was invited to permanently join the faculty of the LSE.2 In the early fall of 1931 these lec tures appeared in book form under the title Prices and Production and began the "drama"