THE LIMITATION OF LIBERTARIANISM

(and, of course, its implications for my theory of practice)

I am down with libertarianism. I get it. People want to rule themselves and don't want a large, faceless governmental agency imposing its own moral framework on them. I voted for Badnarik in 2004, Barr in 2008. But why is it still focused on the idea that small communities are the best way to govern? What's wrong with taking it one or two more levels down, and stating that the individual should be totally autonomous? Why are we afraid of exercising utter control over our own lives? Why should I not be able to make my own, personal laws and monitor my own behavior?

This all, somehow, fits in with my ideal model for clinical psychiatric work. My therapy will begin with the liberation from god, the idea that some supernatural force is controlling your life. But it's going to go much smaller, and it will draw upon Thomas Szasz's idea that the happiest people are the ones who have assumed the most amount of control over their lives. I am interested in the impact of the individual on the social system, and the system's impact on the individual, and this is why I am studying social work and not psychology, but I am ultimately most interested in the equivalent of the cell in systems theory (that is, the individual, and what it means to be a totally unique person in the face of larger constructs). These ideas are not all that new, and probably the model I will end up treating people in will have parallels to existential therapy, but I still think by the time I get around to actually turning my ideas into a workable model for practice it will be something that is pretty original. Libertarianism and its focus on individual responsibility will be central to this; I will encourage people to do the opposite of most mental health treatment, which is to give up control.

At a very basic level, we are all making the choice, with every second of our existence, not to kill ourselves. Albert Camus claims this is the only true philosophical question. I hope to help more people realize this, and my aim is that the more people realize that they are choosing to assert their existence with every breath they take, the less sad those I am treating will feel, and that they will choose to see themselves as happy. Because happiness is a choice. It is not some abstract or concrete thing that you arrive at. You are happy right now, in so much as happiness exists; you just choose not to acknowledge this happiness.

The final goal of my therapy will be to encourage people to write their own set of laws, and then petition the larger government (whatever it looks like 30, 40 years from now) to become their own state. An island onto themselves. The best government is that which governs least; therefore, it makes sense to think that the best government is no government whatsoever.

And this is why I will only be able to really practice on a tiny self-sustaining farm in Vermont.

something i wrote for class

(I had to do a journal entry type reaction type thing to reading the DSM-IV. I guess most of my classmates are only reading it for the first time? Anyway, I didn't bother reading it because I've had my copy for years now, but I did write a journal entry and wanted to post it somewhere so here it is.)

What bothers me about the DSM is that as I'm reading it, I realize more and more how it is so clearly not based on science. I think rather than empowering individuals with mental disorders, the medical model has taken power away from them and convinced them that strict medication regiments and adherence to psychiatrists is the only way to get better. The DSM has done wonders to get psychotherapy covered by health insurance plans, but it has also lead to an increasing focus on funding, monetary aspects of the therapeutic relationship, constant updates to insurance companies who should, truthfully, really have no knowledge of their consumer's diagnoses and problems. It seems to me this has cheapened or compromised the counselor/consumer relationship. I am not uncertain that a totally private agreement between counselor/consumer is not the ideal situation in which to carry out treatment. Treating therapy as something that someone invests money and time in, I think, may lead to the consumer feeling more fullfiled and more willing to put work in and effect change in his/her life, as it is not a privlege bestowed upon the patient by the faceless insurance company, but rather a professional relationship that the consumer buys into (literally and figuratively). I am interested in the DSM and its contents and I own a copy, but I let it sit on the shelf on my office like an untouched family Bible; mere decoration, a reminder of a world gone by which I never really bought into in the first place.

overheard from my office earlier today.

"Hey, you wanna go get sushi?"
"Dude. I eat, like, cheese sticks."

feeling nostalgic.

Do you remember going to see THE OMEN remake the night it came out, driving around the parking lot, hearing someone blasting Iron Maiden's "Number of the beast" and laughing, out loud and at length, because we both loved that song and it was June 6, 2006, and I was done undergrad and we still had plans to maybe take over the world together if we didn't end up resenting each other first. but that's all changed now and you've got a kid and I'm still in school and we talked on the phone the other day and you said you're still feeling anxious but the depression is getting worse, and all i can think is, I told you so. I told you to deal with these things and I tried to help you. but more than anything, you taught me that I can't help anyone and no one wants to be saved by anyone other than themselves. That's our legacy, just the lessons I learned and faded memories for an us that doesn't exist anymore, maybe never did in the first place.