Involuntary commitment or civil commitment is a legal process through which an individual with symptoms of severe mental illness is court-ordered into treatment in a hospital (inpatient) or in the community (outpatient).

Criteria for civil commitment are established by law, which varies between nations and, in the U.S., from state to state. Commitment proceedings often follow a period of emergency hospitalization during which an individual with acute psychiatric symptoms is confined for a relatively short duration (e.g. 72 hours) in a treatment facility for evaluation and stabilization by mental health professionals - who may then determine whether further civil commitment is appropriate or necessary. If civil commitment proceedings follow, the evaluation is presented in a formal court hearing where testimony and other evidence may also be submitted.^{[citation needed]} The subject of the hearing typically is entitled to legal counsel and may challenge a commitment order through habeas corpus rules.

"The law provides a process known as Involuntary Commitment. Involuntary commitment is the use of legal means to commit a person to a mental hospital or psychiatric ward against their will or over their protests".[1]

Historically, until the first third of the twentieth century or later in most jurisdictions, all committals to public psychiatric facilities and most committals to private ones were involuntary. Since then, there have been alternating trends towards the abolition or substantial reduction of involuntary commitment,^[1] a trend known as "deinstitutionalization."

Purpose[link]

In most jurisdictions, involuntary commitment is specifically applied to individuals found to be suffering from a mental illness that impairs their reasoning ability to such an extent that the laws, state or courts find that decisions must or should be made for them under a legal framework. (In some jurisdictions this is a distinct proceeding from being "found incompetent.")

Involuntary commitment is used to some degree for each of the following headings although different jurisdictions have different criteria. Some jurisdictions limit court-ordered treatment to individuals who meet statutory criteria for presenting a danger "to self or others." Other jurisdictions have criteria that are broader.

First aid[link]

Training is gradually becoming available in mental health first aid to equip community members such as teachers, school administrators, police officers, and medical workers in recognizing and managing situations where evaluations of behavior might be appropriate.^[2] The extension of first aid training to cover mental health problems and crises is a quite recent development.^[3][4] A mental health first aid training course was developed in Australia in 2001 and has been found to improve assistance provided to persons with a mental illness or in a mental health crisis.There is no compelling evidence for the efficacy of such treatment. This form of training has now spread to a number of other countries (Canada, Finland, Hong Kong, Ireland, Singapore, Scotland, England, Wales, United States).^[5] Mental health triage may be used in an emergency room to evaluate the degree of risk and prioritize treatment.

Observation[link]

Observation is sometimes used to determine if a person warrants involuntary commitment. It is not always clear on a relatively brief examination whether a person is psychotic or otherwise warrants commitment.

Containment of danger[link]

A common reason given for involuntary commitment is to prevent danger to the individual or society. People with suicidal thoughts may act on these thoughts and harm or kill themselves. People with psychoses are occasionally driven by their delusions or hallucinations to harm themselves or others. People with certain types of personality disorders can occasionally present a danger to themselves or others.

This concern has found expression in the standards for involuntary commitment in every U.S. state and in other countries as the "danger to self or others" standard, sometimes supplemented by the requirement that the danger be "imminent." In some jurisdictions, "danger to self or others" standard has been broadened in recent years to include need-for-treatment criteria such as "gravely disabled."

In Arizona, the government can mandate in-patient treatment for anyone determined to be "persistently or acutely disabled." Virtually anyone who suspects that someone has mental problems and needs help could file an application to a state-licensed healthcare agency for a court-ordered evaluation.

In Connecticut, someone can be committed only if he or she has "psychiatric disabilities and is dangerous to himself or herself or others or gravely disabled". "Gravely disabled" has usually been interpreted to mean that the person is unable on his own to obtain adequate food, shelter and clothing.

In Iowa, any "interested person" may begin commitment proceedings by submitting a written statement to the court. If the court finds that the respondent is "seriously mentally impaired," he or she will be placed in a psychiatric hospital for further evaluation and possibly treatment. Further hearings are required at specific intervals for as long as the person is being involuntarily held.

The Michigan Mental Health Code provides that a person "whose judgment is so impaired that he or she is unable to understand his or her need for treatment and whose continued behavior as the result of this mental illness can reasonably be expected, on the basis of competent clinical opinion, to result in significant physical harm to himself or herself or others" may be subjected to involuntary commitment, a provision paralleled in the laws of many other jurisdictions. These types of provisions have been criticized as a sort of "heads I win, tails you lose". Understanding one's "need for treatment" would cause one to agree to voluntary commitment, but the Bazelon Center has said that this "lack of insight" is "often no more than disagreement with the treating professional"^[6] and this disagreement might form part of the evidence to support one's involuntary commitment.

In Nevada, prior to confining someone, the state must demonstrate that the person "is mentally ill and, because of that illness, is likely to harm himself or others if allowed his liberty."

In Oregon, the standard that the allegedly mentally ill person "Peter [h]as been committed and hospitalized twice in the last three years, is showing symptoms or behavior similar to those that preceded and led to a prior hospitalization and, unless treated, will continue, to a reasonable medical probability, to deteriorate to become a danger to self or others or unable to provide for basic needs" may be substituted for the danger to self or others standard.

In Utah, the standard is that "the proposed patient has a mental illness which poses a substantial danger".^[7] "Substantial danger" means the person, by his or her behavior, due to mental illness: (a) is at serious risk to: (i) commit suicide, (ii) inflict serious bodily injury on himself or herself; or (iii) because of his or her actions or inaction, suffer serious bodily injury because he or she is incapable of providing the basic necessities of life, such as food, clothing, and shelter; (b) is at serious risk to cause or attempt to cause serious bodily injury; or (c) has inflicted or attempted to inflict serious bodily injury on another.^[8]

Deinstitutionalization[link]

Starting in the 1960s, there has been a worldwide trend toward moving psychiatric patients from hospital settings to less restricting settings in the community, a shift known as "deinstitutionalization." Because the shift typically was not accompanied by a commensurate development of community-based services, critics say that deinstitutionalization has led to large numbers of people who would once have been inpatients being incarcerated in jails and prisons or becoming homeless when outpatient services are not available or they choose not to adhere to treatment outside the hospital. In some jurisdictions, laws authorizing court-ordered outpatient treatment have been passed in an effort to compel individuals with chronic, untreated severe mental illness to accept treatment while living outside the hospital.

Before the 1960's deinstitutionalization there were earlier efforts to free psychiatric patients. Doctor Philippe Pinel 1745 - 1826 ordered the removal of chains from patients^[9] .

Around the world[link]

United Nations[link]

United Nations General Assembly (resolution 46/119 of 1991), "Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and the Improvement of Mental Health Care" is a non-binding resolution advocating certain broadly-drawn procedures for the carrying out of involuntary commitment. These principles have been used in many countries where local laws have been revised or new ones implemented. The UN runs programs in some countries to assist in this process.[2]

Australia[link]

In Australia, court hearings are not required for involuntary commitment. Mental health law is constitutionally under the state powers. Each state thus has different laws, many of which have been updated in recent years.

Referral for service[link]

The usual requirement is that a police officer or a physician determine that a person requires a psychiatric examination, usually through a psychiatric hospital. If the person is detained in the hospital, they usually must be seen by an authorized psychiatrist within a set period of time. In some states, after a further set period or at the request of the person or their representative, a tribunal hearing is held to determine whether the person should continue to be detained. In states where tribunals are not instituted, there is another form of appeal.

Some Australian states require that the person is a danger to the society or themselves; other states only require that the person be suffering from a mental illness that requires treatment. The Victorian Mental Health Act (1986) specifies in part that:

"(1) A person may be admitted to and detained in an approved mental health service as an involuntary patient in accordance with the procedures specified in this Act only if—

(a) the person appears to be mentally ill; and

(b) the person's mental illness requires immediate treatment and that treatment can be obtained by admission to and detention in an approved mental health service; and

(c) because of the person's mental illness, the person should be admitted and detained for treatment as an involuntary patient for his or her health or safety (whether to prevent a deterioration in the person's physical or mental condition or otherwise) or for the protection of members of the public; and

(d) the person has refused or is unable to consent to the necessary treatment for the mental illness; and

(e) the person cannot receive adequate treatment for the mental illness in a manner less restrictive of that person's freedom of decision and action.

There are additional qualifications and restrictions but the effect of these provisions is that people who are assessed by doctors as being in need of treatment may be admitted involuntarily without the need of demonstrating a risk of danger. This then overcomes the pressure described above to exaggerate issues of violence to obtain an admission.

Treatment[link]

In general, once the person is under involuntary commitment, treatment may be instituted without further requirements. Some treatments such as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) often require further procedures to comply with the law before they may be administered involuntarily.

Community treatment orders can be used in the first instance or after a period of admission to hospital as a voluntary or involuntary patient. With the trend towards deinstitutionalization this is becoming increasingly frequent and hospital admission is restricted to people with severe mental illnesses.

Europe[link]

Germany[link]

In Germany there is a growing tendency to use the law on legal guardianship, instead of mental health law, to justify involuntary commitment or treatment. The ward's legal guardian decides that he/she must go into mental hospital for treatment, and the police will act on this decision. This is simpler for the government and family members than the formal process for commitment under mental health laws.

In German criminal law a person that was convicted of certain crimes can also be sentenced to be kept in preventive detention; see article on preventive detention.

Netherlands[link]

In Dutch criminal law a convict can be sentenced to involuntary psychiatric treatment in a special institute called a TBS-clinic. TBS is an abbreviation for "Ter Beschikkingstelling," literally meaning "being placed at disposal." Legally, such a sentence is not regarded as punishment like a prison sentence, but as a special measure. In the Netherlands, it is common practice to sentence criminals to a combination of a normal prison term and TBS. The convict will then be placed in a TBS-clinic after serving time in prison (usually two-thirds of the original prison sentence, although this practice is under discussion).

According to Dutch law, meeting three conditions is required for a convict to be sentenced to TBS. These conditions are:

• the crime committed must have been directly related to a psychiatric disorder,
• recidivism must be likely, and
• the convict can not, or only partially, be held accountable for the crime.

To determine if these conditions are met, the suspect is observed in a forensic psychiatric detention center, the Pieter Baan Centre.^[10] Neither the prosecution or the defense can effectively challenge the Pieter Baan Centre's report, since it is the only institution that can conduct such investigations. Fatal mistakes have occurred, for instance, when a child molester regarded by the Pieter Baan Center as "not dangerous" killed a child upon release. The conclusions in the centre's report are not binding, the judge can decide to ignore, or only partially accept them.

Every convict detained in a TBS-clinic may get temporary leave, after serving a certain time or after some progress in treatment. This is regarded as an essential part of treatment, as the convict will be gradually re-entering society this way. At first the convict will be escorted by a therapist, and will be allowed outside the clinic for only a few hours. After evaluation, time and freedom of movement will be expanded until the convict can move freely outside the clinic without escort (usually for one day at a time). At that time, the convict will find work or follow an education. Generally, the convict is released after being in this situation for one or two years without incident.

The time to be served in TBS can be indefinite, and it may be used as a form of preventive detention. Evaluation by the court will occur every one or two years. During these evaluations the court determines if any progress is made in treatment of the convict, and if it will be safe to release the convict into society. In general, the court will follow conclusions made by the TBS-clinic.

Average time served in a TBS-clinic by a convict is slightly over eight years.

Dutch TBS-clinics

In the Netherlands there are currently 12 institutions regarded as TBS-clinics:

• Inforsa/Arkin, Amsterdam
• Dr. Henri van der Hoevenstichting, Utrecht
• Dr. S. van Mesdagkliniek, Groningen
• Hoeve Boschoord, Boschoord
• FPC Veldzicht, Balkbrug
• Pompestichting, Nijmegen
• Oostvaarderskliniek, Almere
• De Kijvelanden/FPC Tweelanden, Poortugaal
• FPC Oldenkotte, Rekken
• FPC De Rooyse Wissel, Venray
• GGz Drenthe, Assen
• GGz Eindhoven/De Woenselse Poort, Eindhoven

These institutions combined currently are holding about 1840 convicts.

By the end of the 20th century, it was concluded that some convicts could not be treated and therefore could not be safely released into society. For these convicts, TBS-clinics formed special wards, called "long-stay wards". Transfer to such a ward means that the convict will no longer be actively treated, but merely detained. This is regarded as more cost-effective. In general, the convicts in these wards will be incarcerated for the rest of their lives, although their detention is eligible for regular review by the court.

Controversy[link]

Since the latter half of the 1990s considerable controversy has grown among Dutch society, about the TBS-system. This controversy has two main reasons. The first reason is the media increasingly reported cases of convicts committing crimes while still in, or after, treatment in a TBS-clinic.

Some examples of these cases are:

• During 1992, a truck driver was convicted for raping and murdering three young children. Eight years earlier he was released from a TBS-clinic after being treated for child molestation.
• A convict, about to be released from a TBS-clinic, murdered the owner of a garage in 1996 while under the influence of drugs.
• An ex-convict, treated in a TBS-clinic, murdered two women in 1994 and 1997.
• A convict, still treated by a TBS-clinic, randomly killed a man in the city of Groningen in 1999.
• Between 2000 and 2004, an ex-convict tortured several animals and killed a homeless man. He had been treated in a TBS-clinic.
• In 2002 an ex-convict was sentenced for triple murder. He also was released earlier.
• In 2005 a convict escaped his escort during leave. He was arrested several days later after killing a man.

Political and social commotion increased, and debate started about the effectiveness of the TBS-system and if convicts should be granted leave from TBS-clinics. Especially right-wing politicians pleaded the TBS-system should be discarded altogether. Numerous articles in newspapers, magazines, television and radio programs and a revealing book written by an ex-convict (which for the first time openly questioned the effectiveness of the TBS-system) boosted discussion. Prior to that, any problems had been mostly denied by TBS-clinics themselves.

The center of attention became a highly renowned TBS-clinic, Dr. S. Van Mesdagkliniek in the city of Groningen. Events that took place there, by the end of the 1990s and the first years of the 21st century, initiated the second reason for controversy. Concern rose about signs of unprofessional behavior by staff working in TBS-clinics, and the Dr. S. Van Mesdagkliniek proved to be among the most infamous for these problems. This TBS-clinic has been plagued with unprofessional and even criminal acts by its staff since 1999. During that year, the Dr. S. Van Mesdagkliniek came under investigation by Dutch police after rumors about female staffmembers committing sexual offenses against convicts.^[11] Five such cases were discovered during the investigation, and also numerous cases of drug-abuse, smuggling and trading of contraband such as: alcohol, mobile phones, pornographic material and hard drugs.^[12] It became apparent that staff members did not have the required education, had not been informed about rules and regulations, disregarded legal procedures, gave false testimonies, tampered with evidence, uttered false accusations against convicts, and intimidated colleagues.^[11] At least one psychiatrist, employed as such by the Dr. S. Van Mesdagkliniek, proved to be not qualified,^[13] and treatment of convicts was in many cases simply non-existent.^[14] These problems had been known for long by the management, but were always kept hidden. After public outcry about this situation, management was replaced^[15] and all of the nine (at the time) TBS-clinics in the Netherlands were subjected to investigation. Six of them proved to be below the required legal standards.^[16] However, problems for the expensive Dutch TBS-system did not end there. In spite of many measures taken by the government, convicts still were released without proper treatment. As a consequence, numerous crimes were committed by convicts that were regarded as treated by TBS-clinics. Also, sexual offenses against convicts by staff members and smuggling of contraband did not cease in several TBS-clinics.^[17] In 2006, the Dutch government formed a committee to investigate the TBS-system. Some, however not the worst, problems were recognized and measures were proclaimed. One of the known actual results is that fewer convicts escape during temporary release.

Controversy regarding the, often praised, Dutch TBS-system does not cease to exist. In 2005, a staff member working in the Dr. S. Van Mesdagkliniek was caught while smuggling liquor to convicts suffering from alcohol-related problems.^[18] In 2007, a female staff member committed sexual offenses against a convict, and had smuggled contraband.^[19] She was sentenced to three months in prison in 2009. That same year, investigation proved convicts still had ample access to illicit drugs^[20] and four inmates from the Dr. S. Van Mesdagkliniek were arrested for possession of child pornography.^[21] Many crimes committed by released convicts treated in TBS-clinics, escape statistics because they occurred in other countries, or because they differ from the crime the convict was originally convicted for (many convicts released from TBS-clinics find their way in illegal drug trade and related crimes). Because there seems to be no acceptable alternative available, political support for the much plagued TBS-system remains, in spite of controversy.

United Kingdom[link]

In the United Kingdom, the process known in the United States as involuntary commitment is informally known as "sectioning", after the various sections of the Mental Health Act 1983 (covering England and Wales), the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 that provide its legal basis.

In England and Wales, Approved Mental Health Professionals have a lead role in coordinating Mental Health Act assessments, which they conduct in cooperation with usually two medical practitioners. Under the Mental Health Act, detention is determined by utility and purpose. Mentally ill individuals may be detained under Section 2 for a period of assessment lasting up to 28 days or Section 3 for a period of treatment lasting up to 6 months. Patients already on a ward may be detained under section 5(2) for up to 72 hours for the purposes of allowing an assessment to take place for section 2 or 3. Separate sections deal with mentally ill criminal offenders. In all cases detention needs to be justified on the basis that the person has a mental disorder and poses a risk of harm to their own health, safety, or the safety of others.^[22]

Under the amended Mental Health Act 2007, which came into force in November 2008, to be detained under Section 3 for treatment, appropriate treatment must be available in the place of detention. Supervised Community Treatment orders means people can be discharged to the community on a conditional basis, remaining liable to recall to hospital if they break the conditions of the community treatment order.

United States[link]

It has been suggested that Civil confinement be merged into this article or section. (Discuss) Proposed since November 2010.

Involuntary commitment is governed by state law and procedures vary from state to state. In some jurisdictions, laws regarding the commitment of juveniles may vary, with what is the de facto involuntary commitment of a juvenile perhaps de jure defined as "voluntary" if his parents agree, though he may still have a right to protest and attempt to get released. However, there is a body of case law governing the civil commitment of individuals under the Fourteenth Amendment through U.S. Supreme Court rulings beginning with Addington v. Texas in 1979 which set the bar for involuntary commitment for treatment by raising the burden of proof required to commit persons from the usual civil burden of proof of "preponderance of the evidence" to the higher standard of "clear and convincing" evidence.^[23]

In 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that involuntary hospitalization and/or treatment violates an individual's civil rights in O'Connor v. Donaldson. This ruling forced individual states to change their statutes. For example, the individual must be exhibiting behavior that is a danger to himself or others in order to be held, the hold must be for evaluation only and a court order must be received for more than very short term treatment or hospitalization (typically no longer than 72 hours). This ruling has severely limited involuntary treatment and hospitalization in the U.S.^[24] In the U.S. the specifics of the relevant statutes vary from state to state.^[25]

This was the case in a famous United States Supreme Court decision in 1975, O'Connor v. Donaldson, when Kenneth Donaldson, a patient committed to Florida State Hospital, sued the hospital and staff for confining him for 15 years against his will. The decision means that it is unconstitutional to commit for treatment a person who is not imminently a danger to himself or others and is capable to a minimal degree of surviving on his own.^[26]

An example of involuntary commitment procedures is the Baker Act used in Florida. Under this law, a person may be committed only if they present a danger to themselves or others. A police officer, doctor, nurse or licensed mental health professional may initiate an involuntary examination that lasts for up to 72 hours. Within this time, two psychiatrists may ask a judge to extend the commitment and order involuntary treatment. The Baker Act also requires that all commitment orders be reviewed every six months in addition to ensuring certain rights to the committed including the right to contact outsiders. Also, a person under an involuntary commitment order has a right to counsel and a right to have the state provide a public defender if they cannot afford a lawyer. While the Florida law allows police to initiate the examination, it is the recommendations of two psychiatrists that guide the decisions of the court.

In the 1990s, involuntary commitment laws were extended under various state laws commonly recognized under the umbrella term SVP laws to hold some convicted sex offenders in psychiatric facilities after their prison terms were completed.^[27] (This is generally referred to as "civil commitment," not "involuntary commitment," since involuntary commitment can be criminal or civil). This matter has been the subject of a number of cases before the Supreme Court, most notably Kansas v. Hendricks and United States v. Comstock^[28] in regard to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which does not require a conviction on sex offences, but only that the person be in federal custody and be deemed a "sexually dangerous person".^[29]

Controversy about liberty[link]

The impact of involuntary commitment on the right of self-determination has been a cause of concern.^[30] Critics of involuntary commitment have advocated that "the due process protections... provided to criminal defendants" be extended to them.^[31] The Libertarian Party opposes the practice in its platform. Thomas Szasz and the anti-psychiatry movement has also been prominent in challenging involuntary commitment.

A small number of individuals in the U.S. have opposed involuntary commitment in those cases in which the diagnosis forming the justification for the involuntary commitment rests, or the individuals say it rests, on the speech or writings of the person committed, saying that to deprive him of liberty based in whole or part on such speech and writings violates the First Amendment. Other individuals have opposed involuntary commitment on the bases that they claim (despite the amendment generally being held to apply only to criminal cases) it violates the Fifth Amendment in a number of ways, particularly its privilege against self-incrimination, as the psychiatrically examined individual may not be free to remain silent, and such silence may actually be used as "proof" of his "mental illness".^[32]

Although patients involuntarily committed theoretically have a legal right to refuse treatment, refusal to take medications or participate in other treatments is noted by hospital staff. Court reviews usually are heavily weighted toward the hospital staff, with the patient input during such hearings minimal. In Kansas v. Hendricks, the US Supreme Court found that civil commitment is constitutional regardless of whether any treatment is provided.^[33]

Alternatives[link]

Accompanying deinstitutionalization was the development of laws expanding the power of courts to order people to take psychiatric medication on an outpatient basis. Though the practice had occasionally occurred earlier, outpatient commitment was used for many people who would otherwise have been involuntarily committed. The court orders often specified that a person who violated the court order and refused to take the medication would be subject to involuntary commitment.

Involuntary commitment is distinguished from conservatorship and guardianship. The intent of conservatorship or guardianship is to protect those not mentally able to handle their affairs from the effects of their bad decisions, particularly with respect to financial dealings.^[34] For example, a conservatorship might be used to take control of the finances of a person with dementia, so that the person's assets and income are used to meet his basic needs, e.g., by paying rent and utility bills.

Advance psychiatric directives may have a bearing on involuntary commitment.^[35][36]

Individual state policies and procedures[link]

US military[link]

The service member can be held under the so-called Boxer law (DoD Directive 6490.1)^[37].

California[link]

5150 (Involuntary psychiatric hold)

District of Columbia[link]

In the District of Columbia any police officer, physician, or mental health professional can request to have you evaluated at St. Elizabeths Hospital, where the physician on duty can hold the patient for up to 48 hours. A family member or concerned citizen can also petition the Department of Mental Health, but the claim will be evaluated prior to the police acting upon it. In order to be held further, a request must be filed with the Department of Mental Health. However, this only can keep the patient involuntary admitted for up to seven days. For further commitment, the patient is evaluated by a mental health court, part of family court, for which the public defender assists the patient. This can result in the patient being held up to one year at which point the patient returns to mental health court.

This is different for someone first admitted to St. Elizabeths Hospital due to criminal charges. If found to not ever become competent for trial, they will be evaluated via a Jackson hearing for possible continued commitment to protect the public. If they have been found not guilty by reason of insanity, their dangerousness is evaluated at a Bolton Hearing.

Maryland[link]

In Maryland any person may request, via an Emergency Evaluation form, that another individual be evaluated against their will by an emergency room physician for involuntary admission. If the judge concurs, he will direct the police to escort the individual to the hospital. A licensed physician, psychologist, social worker, or nurse practitioner who has examined the patient or a police officer may bring a potential patient to the emergency room for forced evaluation without approval from a judge. The patient may be kept in the hospital for up to thirty hours. If by then two physicians, or one physician and one psychologist then decide that the patient meets the Maryland criteria for an involuntary psychiatric admission, then he or she may be kept inpatient involuntarily for up to ten days. During this time an administrative law judge determines if criteria for longer civil commitment are met:

• a person has a mental illness;
• a person needs inpatient care or treatment;
• a person presents a danger to themselves or to others;
• a person are unable or unwilling to be admitted voluntarily;
• there is no available, less restrictive form of care or treatment to meet the person's needs.

Virginia[link]

As of 2008 Virginia was one of only five states requiring imminent danger in order to involuntarily commit someone. But after the Virginia Tech Massacre, there was significant political consensus to strengthen the protections for society and allow more leniency in determining that an individual needed to be committed against their will.

• the person has a mental illness and there is a substantial likelihood that, as a result of mental illness, the person will, in the near future, (1) cause serious physical harm to himself or others as evidenced by recent behavior causing, attempting, or threatening harm and other relevant information, if any
• the person has a mental illness and there is a substantial likelihood that, as a result of mental illness, the person will, in the near future, (2) suffer serious harm due to his lack of capacity to protect himself from harm or to provide for his basic human needs

"Imminent danger" was found to have too much variability throughout Virginia due to vagueness. The new standard is more specific in that substantial likelihood is more clear. However, in order to not limit potential detainee's freedoms too much it is characterized by the time limit of near future. "Recent acts" is legally established to require more than a mere recitation of past events.

Singapore[link]

The Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act was passed in 2008 to regulate the involuntary detention of a person in a psychiatric institution for the treatment of a mental disorder, or in the interest of the health and safety of the person or the persons around him.

Politically motivated abuses[link]

At certain places and times, the practice of involuntary commitment has been used for the suppression of dissent, or in a punitive way.

In the former Soviet Union, psychiatric hospitals were used as prisons in order to isolate political prisoners from the rest of society. The official explanation was that no sane person would declaim the Soviet government and Communism. British playwright Tom Stoppard wrote Every Good Boy Deserves Favour about the relationship between a patient and his doctor in one of these hospitals. Stoppard was inspired by a meeting with a Russian exile.^[38]

In 1927, after the execution of Sacco and Vanzetti in the United States, a demonstrator named Aurora D'Angelo was sent to a mental health facility for psychiatric evaluation after she participated in a rally in support of the anarchists.^[39]

See also[link]

• 5150 (Involuntary psychiatric hold)
• Baker Act
• Criminal justice
• John Hunt
• Involuntary treatment
• Medical law
• Rosenhan experiment
• Ulysses contract
• Voluntary commitment

Notes[link]

References[link]

• Atkinson, J. (2006) Private and Public Protection: Civil Mental Health Legislation, Edinburgh, Dunedin Academic Press
• ¹ Rosenhan, D.L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179, 250-258.
• ² Spitzer, R.L. (1975). On pseudoscience in science, logic in remission, and psychiatric diagnosis: A critique of Rosenhan's "On being sane in insane places." Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 84, 442-452.
• ³ Perlin, M.L. (1993/1994). The ADA and Persons with Mental Disabilities: Can Sanist Attitudes Be Undone? Journal of Law and Health,, 8 JLHEALTH 15, 33-34.
• ⁴ Torrey, E. Fuller. (1997). Out of the Shadows: Confronting America's Mental Illness Crisis. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
• Black Hands of Beijing: Lives of Defiance in China's Democracy Movement, by George Black and Robin Munro, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1993.
• Tsesis, Alexander, Protecting Children Against Unnecessary Institutionalization, South Texas Law Review, vol. 39, p. 995 (1998) papers.ssrn.com
• Public Service: Committed to healing: Involuntary commitment procedures.
• UN Resolution of persons with mental illness

External links[link]

• National Mental Health Consumers' Self-Help Clearinghouse
• Victorian legislation and parliamentary documents (Australia) - search using "mental health act" for the latest version of the act
• Mental health review board site (Victoria, Australia) - the official site of the MHRB
• Keys to Commitment (A Guide for Family Members) by Robert J. Kaplan, J.D.
• State-by-state chart of U.S. commitment laws
• Psychiatric Imprisonment in Oregon
• Rogers Law, concerning involuntary treatment/commitment in Massachusetts
• Comprehensive Journal Article Discussing Civil Commitment Law and Reform Regarding Sex Offenders
• National Resource Center on Psychiatric Advance Directives
• "AlterNet: Movie Mix: Must-See Indy Film Exposes Cruel Teen Correction Programs". http://www.alternet.org/movies/56241/. Retrieved 2007-07-08. 
• Baker Act Reporting Center (related to Florida's Civil Commitment Statute)
• National Alliance on Mental Illness
• Unjustified Psychiatric Commitment in the USA
• "Getting Someone to Psychiatric Treatment Can Be Difficult and Inconclusive" New York Times January 18, 2011

Murray Newton Rothbard

Austrian School
Rothbard c. 1994
Born	(1926-03-02)March 2, 1926 Bronx, New York, United States
Died	January 7, 1995(1995-01-07) (aged 68) New York City, New York, U.S.
Nationality	American
Institution	New York University, University of Nevada, Las Vegas,
Field	Economics, Political economy, Natural law, Anarchism, Praxeology, Numismatics, Philosophy of law, Ethics, Economic history
Alma mater	Columbia University, New York University
Influences	Aristotle, Aquinas, Böhm-Bawerk, La Boétie, Burke, Chodorov, Hayek, Wilder Lane, Laozi, Locke, Mencken, Menger, Mises, Molinari, Nock, Oppenheimer, Rand, Say, Schumpeter, Spencer, Spooner, Tucker, Turgot, Harper[1]
Influenced	Hoppe, Rockwell, Konkin, Narveson, Heath, Callahan, Raico, Salerno, Sobran, Stringham, McElroy, Tucker, Bylund, Long, Caplan, Murphy, Woods, Kinsella, Nozick, Molyneux, Thornton, Horton, Raimondo, DiLorenzo, Block, von NotHaus, the Tannehills, Paul, Higgs
Contributions	Founder of Anarcho-capitalism, contributions to natural law theory, praxeology and economic history

Murray Newton Rothbard (March 2, 1926 – January 7, 1995) was an American economist, historian, and political theorist. He was a prominent exponent of the Austrian School of economics who helped to define libertarianism by theorising a form of free-market anarchism which he termed "anarcho-capitalism."^[2][3][4] Rothbard wrote over twenty books and is considered a centrally important figure in the American libertarian movement.^[5]

Building on the Austrian School's concept of spontaneous order, support for a free market in money production and condemnation of central planning,^[6] Rothbard advocated abolition of coercive government control of society and the economy. He considered the monopoly force of government the greatest danger to liberty and the long-term well-being of the populace, labeling the state as nothing but a "gang of thieves writ large"—the locus of the most immoral, grasping and unscrupulous individuals in any society.^{[7][8][9][10]}

Rothbard concluded that all services provided by monopoly governments could be provided more efficiently by the private sector. He viewed many regulations and laws ostensibly promulgated for the "public interest" as self-interested power grabs by scheming government bureaucrats engaging in dangerously unfettered self-aggrandizement, as they were not subject to market disciplines. Rothbard held that there were inefficiencies involved with government services and asserted that market disciplines would eliminate them, if the services could be provided by competition in the private sector.^[11][12][13]

Rothbard was equally condemning of state corporatism, criticizing many instances where business elites co-opted government's monopoly power so as to influence laws and regulatory policy in a manner benefiting them at the expense of their competitive rivals.^[14]

He argued that taxation represents coercive theft on a grand scale, and "a compulsory monopoly of force" prohibiting the more efficient voluntary procurement of defense and judicial services from competing suppliers.^[8][15] He also considered central banking and fractional reserve banking under a monopoly fiat money system a form of state-sponsored, legalized financial fraud, antithetical to libertarian principles and ethics.^{[16][17][18][19]} Rothbard opposed military, political, and economic interventionism in the affairs of other nations.^[20][21]

Life and work[link]

Rothbard with his wife, JoAnn Schumacher

Rothbard was born to David and Rae Rothbard, who raised their Jewish family in the Bronx. His father, a chemist, "emigrated to the United States from a Polish shtetl in 1910, impoverished and knowing not a word of English,"^[22] while his mother came from Russia.^[23] "I grew up in a Communist culture," he recalled.^[22] He attended Columbia University, where he was awarded a Bachelor of Arts degree in mathematics and economics in 1945 and a Master of Arts degree in 1946. He earned a Doctor of Philosophy degree in economics in 1956 at Columbia under Joseph Dorfman.^[24][25]

During the early 1950s, he studied under the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises at his seminars at New York University and was greatly influenced by Mises' book Human Action. Rothbard attracted the attention of the William Volker Fund, the main group that supported classical liberal scholars in the 1950s and early 1960s. He began a project to write a textbook to explain Human Action in a fashion suitable for college students; a sample chapter he wrote on money and credit won Mises’s approval. As Rothbard continued his work, he transformed the project. The result, Man, Economy, and State, was a central work of Austrian economics.

During the late 1950s, Rothbard was also an associate of Ayn Rand and her philosophy, Objectivism, along with several other students of Ludwig von Mises, such as George Reisman. At that time, Rothbard described Rand's novel, Atlas Shrugged, as "an infinite treasure house," and "not merely the greatest novel ever written, it is one of the very greatest books ever written, fiction or nonfiction."^[26] However, in mid-1958 he broke with Rand over various differences including his defense of anarchism. Later, Rothbard lampooned Rand's circle in his play Mozart Was a Red and essay, "The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult."^[27] Nonetheless, according to Rand biographer Jennifer Burns, Rothbard was introduced to both Aristotelian epistemology and the "whole field" of natural rights through his discussions with Rand.^[28]

From 1963 to 1985, he taught at Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, later to become part of New York University in Brooklyn, New York. From 1986 until his death he was a distinguished professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Rothbard founded the Center for Libertarian Studies in 1976 and the Journal of Libertarian Studies in 1977. He was associated with the 1982 creation of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and later was its academic vice president. In 1987, he started the scholarly Review of Austrian Economics, now called the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics.^[24]

In 1953, in New York City, he married JoAnn Schumacher (1928-1999), whom he called the "indispensable framework" for his life and work.^[24] He died in 1995 in Manhattan of a heart attack. The New York Times obituary called Rothbard "an economist and social philosopher who fiercely defended individual freedom against government intervention."^[29]JoAnn died four years later from the aftereffects of a stroke.^[30]

Austrian School writings[link]

Cover of the 2004 edition of Man, Economy, and State.

The Austrian School attempts to discover axioms of human action (called "praxeology" in the Austrian tradition). It supports free market economics and criticizes command economies. Influential advocates were Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Friedrich Hayek, and Ludwig von Mises. Rothbard argued that the entire Austrian economic theory is the working out of the logical implications of the fact that humans engage in purposeful action.^[31] In working out these axioms he came to the position that a monopoly price could not exist on the free market. He also anticipated much of the “rational expectations” viewpoint in economics.

In accordance with his free-market views, Rothbard argued that individual protection and national defense also should be offered on the market, rather than supplied by government’s coercive monopoly.^[24] Rothbard was an ardent critic of Keynesian economic thought^[32] as well as the utilitarian theory of philosopher Jeremy Bentham.^[33]

In Man, Economy, and State Rothbard divides the various kinds of state intervention in three categories: "autistic intervention", which is interference with private non-exchange activities; "binary intervention", which is forced exchange between individuals and the state; and "triangular intervention", which is state-mandated exchange between individuals. According to Sanford Ikeda, Rothbard's typology "eliminates the gaps and inconsistencies that appear in Mises's original formulation."^[34][35]

Rothbard also was knowledgeable in history and political philosophy. Rothbard's books, such as Man, Economy, and State, Power and Market, The Ethics of Liberty, and For a New Liberty, are considered by some to be classics of natural law and libertarian thought, combining libertarian natural rights philosophy, anti-government anarchism and a free market perspective in analyzing a range of contemporary social and economic issues. He also possessed extensive knowledge of the history of economic thought, studying the pre-Adam Smith free market economic schools, such as the Scholastics and the Physiocrats and discussed them in his unfinished, multi-volume work, An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought.

Rothbard writes in Power and Market that the role of the economist in a free market is limited but the role and power of the economist in a government that continually intervenes in the market expands, as the interventions trigger problems which require further diagnosis and the need for further policy recommendations. Rothbard argues that this simple self-interest prejudices the views of many economists in favor of increased government intervention.^[36][37]

Rothbard also created "Rothbard's law" that "people tend to specialize in what they are worst at. Henry George, for example, is great on everything but land, so therefore he writes about land 90% of the time. Friedman is great except on money, so he concentrates on money."^[38]

Political views[link]

Rothbard at the 1983 Libertarian presidential convention in New York City.

Rothbard "was the leading theorist of radical Lockean libertarianism combined with Austrian economics, which demonstrates that free markets produce widespread prosperity, social cooperation, and economic coordination without monopoly, depression, or inflation—evils whose roots are to be found in government intervention."^[39] He "combined the laissez-faire economics of his teacher Ludwig von Mises with the absolutist views of human rights and rejection of the state he had absorbed from studying the individualist American anarchists of the nineteenth century such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker."^[40] He connected these to more modern views, writing: "There is, in the body of thought known as 'Austrian economics', a scientific explanation of the workings of the free market (and of the consequences of government intervention in that market) which individualist anarchists could easily incorporate into their political and social Weltanschauung."^[41]

Rothbard opposed what he considered the overspecialization of the academy and sought to fuse the disciplines of economics, history, ethics, and political science to create a "science of liberty." Rothbard described the moral basis for his anarcho-capitalist position in two of his books: For a New Liberty, published in 1972, and The Ethics of Liberty, published in 1982. In his Power and Market (1970), Rothbard describes how a stateless economy might function.^[42]

Self-ownership[link]

In The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard asserts the right of absolute self-ownership, as the only principle compatible with a moral code that applies to every person—a "universal ethic"—and that it is a natural law by being what is naturally best for man.^[43] He argued that, as a result, individuals owned the fruits of their labor. Accordingly, each person had the right to exchange his property with others. He also advocated for Lockean homesteading, arguing that if an individual mixes his labor with unowned land then he is the proper owner, and from that point on it is private property that may only exchange hands by trade or gift.^[44] Rothbard later accepted and advocated for Hans Hermann Hoppe's argumentation ethics, calling it a "dazzling breakthrough" in libertarian ethics.^[45][46]

Anarcho-capitalism[link]

Rothbard began to consider himself a private property anarchist in the 1950s and later began to use "anarcho-capitalist".^[47][48] He wrote: "Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism."^[49] In his anarcho-capitalist model, a system of protection agencies compete in a free market and are voluntarily supported by consumers who choose to use their protective and judicial services. Anarcho-capitalism would mean the end of the state monopoly on force.^[47]

Rothbard was equally condemning of relationships he perceived between big business and big government. He cited many instances where business elites co-opted government's monopoly power so as to influence laws and regulatory policy in a manner benefiting them at the expense of their competitive rivals. According to Rothbard, one example of such cronyism included grants of monopolistic privilege the railroads derived from sponsoring so-called conservation laws.^[50]

Free market money[link]

See also Free banking, Gold standard and Monetary reform

Rothbard believed the monopoly power of government over the issuance and distribution of money was inherently destructive and unethical. The belief derived from Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek's Austrian theory of the business cycle, which holds that undue credit expansion inevitably leads to a gross misallocation of capital resources, triggering unsustainable credit bubbles and, eventually, economic depressions. He, therefore, strongly opposed central banking and fractional reserve banking under a fiat money system, labeling it as "legalized counterfeiting"^[51] or a form of institutionalized embezzlement and therefore inherently fraudulent.^[52][53] He characterized the government-enforced prohibition on citizens using commodity currencies as legal tender a compulsory Ponzi scheme, one from which no citizen could escape.^[53][54]

He strongly advocated full reserve banking ("100 percent banking")^[55] and a voluntary, nongovernmental gold standard^[24][56] or, as a second best solution, free banking (which he also called "free market money").^[57]

In relation to the current central bank-managed fractional reserve fiat currency system, he stated the following:^[58]

Given this dismal monetary and banking situation, given a 39:1 pyramiding of checkable deposits and currency on top of gold, given a Fed unchecked and out of control, given a world of fiat moneys, how can we possibly return to a sound noninflationary market money? The objectives, after the discussion in this work, should be clear: (a) to return to a gold standard, a commodity standard unhampered by government intervention; (b) to abolish the Federal Reserve System and return to a system of free and competitive banking; (c) to separate the government from money; and (d) either to enforce 100 percent reserve banking on the commercial banks, or at least to arrive at a system where any bank, at the slightest hint of nonpayment of its demand liabilities, is forced quickly into bankruptcy and liquidation. While the outlawing of fractional reserve as fraud would be preferable if it could be enforced, the problems of enforcement, especially where banks can continually innovate in forms of credit, make free banking an attractive alternative.

Noninterventionism[link]

Believing like Randolph Bourne that "war is the health of the state," Rothbard opposed aggressive foreign policy.^[24] He criticized imperialism and the rise of the American empire which needed war to sustain itself and to expand its global control. His dislike of US imperialism even led him to eulogize and lament the CIA-assisted execution of Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara in 1967, proclaiming that "his enemy was our enemy".^[59] Rothbard believed that stopping new wars was necessary and knowledge of how government had seduced citizens into earlier wars was important. Two essays expanded on these views "War, Peace, and the State" and "The Anatomy of the State." Rothbard used insights of the elitism theorists Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, and Robert Michels to build a model of state personnel, goals, and ideology.^[60][61] In an obituary for historian Harry Elmer Barnes, Rothbard explained why historical knowledge is important:^[62]

Our entry into World War II was the crucial act in foisting a permanent militarization upon the economy and society, in bringing to the country a permanent garrison state, an overweening military-industrial complex, a permanent system of conscription. It was the crucial act in creating a mixed economy run by Big Government, a system of state-monopoly capitalism run by the central government in collaboration with Big Business and Big Unionism.

Rothbard discussed his views on the principles of a libertarian foreign policy in a 1973 interview: "The libertarian position, generally, is minimize State power as much as possible, down to zero, and isolationism is the full expression in foreign affairs of the domestic objective of whittling down State power." He further called for "abstinence from any kind of American military intervention and political and economic intervention."^[20] In For a New Liberty he writes: "In a purely libertarian world, therefore, there would be no 'foreign policy' because there would be no States, no governments with a monopoly of coercion over particular territorial areas."^[21]

In "War Guilt in the Middle East," Rothbard details Israel's "aggression against Middle East Arabs," confiscatory policies, and its "refusal to let these refugees return and reclaim the property taken from them."^[63] Rothbard also criticized the “organized Anti-Anti-Semitism” that critics of the state of Israel have to suffer.^[64]

Rothbard criticized as state terrorism the actions of the United States, Israel, and any nation that "retaliates" against innocents because they cannot pinpoint actual perpetrators. He held that no retaliation that injures or kills innocent people is justified, writing "Anything else is an apologia for unremitting and unending mass murder."^[65]

Children and rights[link]

In the Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard explores in terms of self-ownership and contract several contentious issues regarding children's rights. These include women's right to abortion, proscriptions on parents aggressing against children once they are born, and the issue of the state forcing parents to care for children, including those with severe health problems. He also holds children have the right to "run away" from parents and seek new guardians as soon as they are able to choose to do so. He suggested parents have the right to put a child out for adoption or even sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract, which he feels is more humane than artificial governmental restriction of the number of children available to willing and often superior parents.

He also discusses how the current juvenile justice system punishes children for making "adult" choices, such as underage drinking or sex, removing children unnecessarily and against their will from parents, often putting them in uncaring and even brutal foster care or juvenile facilities, while at the same time denying to them those legal rights adults enjoy, such as trial by jury, a written transcript of their court proceedings, etc.^[66][67]

Anti-egalitarianism[link]

In a 1963 article, Rothbard wrote that "the Negro Revolution has some elements that a libertarian must favor, others that he must oppose. Thus, the libertarian opposes compulsory segregation and police brutality, but also opposes compulsory integration and such absurdities as ethnic quota systems in jobs."^[68] According to Rothbard biographer Justin Raimondo, Rothbard considered Malcolm X to be a "great black leader” and Martin Luther King to be favored by whites because he “was the major restraining force on the developing Negro revolution." Rothbard also compared Lyndon B. Johnson's use of troops to crush urban rioters in 1968 after King's assassination to Johnson's use of American troops in the Vietnam War.^[69]

The title essay of Rothbard's 1974 book Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays held, "Equality is not in the natural order of things, and the crusade to make everyone equal in every respect (except before the law) is certain to have disastrous consequences."^[70] In it, Rothbard wrote, "At the heart of the egalitarian left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will."^[71] Rothbard also expressed his views that statists suppressed academic research on race in order to support their goal of using the state to enforce egalitarian goals.^[72]

A 2003 Southern Poverty Law Center report^[73] criticized Rothbard writings on the Ludwig Von Mises Institute website. Author Chip Berlet quoted Rothbard’s sentence "The call of 'equality' is a siren song that can only mean the destruction of all that we cherish as being human."^[74] Berlet also wrote:

In the mid-1800s, a "legion of Yankee women" who were "not fettered by the responsibilities" of household work "imposed" voting rights for women on the nation. Later, Jewish women, after raising funds from "top Jewish financiers", agitated for child labor laws, Rothbard adds with evident disgust. The "dominant tradition" of all these activist women, he suggests, is lesbianism.^[75]

Political activism[link]

Young Rothbard c. 1955

As a young man, Rothbard considered himself part of the Old Right, an anti-statist and anti-interventionist branch of the U.S. Republican party. In the 1948 presidential election, Rothbard, "as a Jewish student at Columbia, horrified his peers by organizing a Students for Strom Thurmond chapter, so staunchly did he believe in states’ rights."^[76] Years later, he would look back on his support for Thurmond as "naïve":

I actually believed that the States' Rights Party would continue to become a major party and destroy what was then a one-party Democratic monopoly in the South. In that way, an Old Right, Midwestern Republican coalition with States' Rights Democrats could become the majority party!^[22]

When interventionist cold warriors of the National Review, such as William F. Buckley, Jr., gained influence in the Republican party in the 1950s, Rothbard quit the party, walking out for good when moderate Dwight Eisenhower defeated Old Right stalwart Robert A. Taft for the 1952 Republican presidential nomination.^[77] He would go on to support Democrat Adlai Stevenson in that year's election, "largely as the only way to get the Wall Street incubus off the back of the Republican Party."^[77] After Rothbard died, Buckley wrote a bitter obituary in the National Review criticizing Rothbard's "defective judgment" and views on the Cold War.^[78]

By the late 1960s, Rothbard's "long and winding yet somehow consistent road had taken him from anti-New Deal and anti-interventionist Robert Taft supporter into friendship with the quasi-pacifist Nebraska Republican Congressman Howard Buffett (father of Warren Buffett) then over to the League of (Adlai) Stevensonian Democrats and, by 1968, into tentative comradeship with the anarchist factions of the New Left."^[79] Rothbard advocated an alliance with the New Left anti-war movement, on the grounds that the conservative movement had been completely subsumed by the statist establishment. However, Rothbard later criticized the New Left for supporting a "People's Republic" style draft. It was during this phase that he associated with Karl Hess and founded Left and Right: A Journal of Libertarian Thought with Leonard Liggio and George Resch, which existed from 1965 to 1968. From 1969 to 1984 he edited The Libertarian Forum, also initially with Hess (although Hess's involvement ended in 1971).

Rothbard criticized the "frenzied nihilism" of left-wing libertarians, but also criticized right-wing libertarians who were content to rely only on education to bring down the state; he believed that libertarians should adopt any non-immoral tactic available to them in order to bring about liberty.^[80]

Burton Blumert, Lew Rockwell, David Gordon, and Rothbard.

During the 1970s and 1980s, Rothbard was active in the Libertarian Party. He was frequently involved in the party's internal politics. He was one of the founders of the Cato Institute, and "came up with the idea of naming this libertarian think tank after Cato’s Letters, a powerful series of British newspaper essays by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon which played a decisive influence upon America's Founding Fathers in fomenting the Revolution."^[81]

From 1978 to 1983, he was associated with the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus, allying himself with Justin Raimondo, Eric Garris and Williamson Evers. He opposed the "low tax liberalism" espoused by 1980 Libertarian Party presidential candidate Ed Clark and Cato Institute president Edward H Crane III. According to Charles Burris, "Rothbard and Crane became bitter rivals after disputes emerging from the 1980 LP presidential campaign of Ed Clark carried over to strategic direction and management of Cato."^[81]

Rothbard split with the Radical Caucus at the 1983 national convention over cultural issues and aligned himself with what he called the "right-wing populist" wing of the party, notably Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul, who ran for President on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988 and in the 2008 Republican Party Primaries. "Rothbard worked closely with Lew Rockwell (joined later by his long time friend Burt Blumert) in nurturing the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and the publication, The Rothbard-Rockwell Report; which after Rothbard’s 1995 death evolved into the popular website, LewRockwell.com."^[81]

In 1989, Rothbard left the Libertarian Party and began building bridges to the post-Cold War anti-interventionist right, calling himself a paleolibertarian.^{[82] [83]} He was the founding president of the conservative-libertarian John Randolph Club and supported the presidential campaign of Pat Buchanan in 1992, saying that "with Pat Buchanan as our leader, we shall break the clock of social democracy."^[84]

Like Buchanan, Rothbard opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).^[85] However, later he became disillusioned with Buchanan, believing that the latter's "commitment to protectionism was mutating into an all-round faith in economic planning and the nation state."^[86] Rothbard then shifted his interest and support to Ross Perot^[87], and there was active talk of the two meeting to discuss electoral strategy. Rothbard ultimately supported George Bush over Bill Clinton in the 1992 election^[88].

According to Lew Rockwell, Rothbard is considered the "dean of the Austrian School of economics, the founder of libertarianism, and an exemplar of the Old Right".^[89]

Personal life[link]

In addition to economics, history, and philosophy, Rothbard took an intense personal interest in chess, German Baroque church architecture, and early jazz, among other subjects.^[90] Rothbard criticized the "degeneration" of jazz and popular song into bebop and rock music.^[91]

In his film reviews (printed under the pen name "Mr. First Nighter"), Rothbard criticized "slow, ponderous, boring" films which "reek of pretension and deliberate boredom," such as Juliet of the Spirits and The Piano.^[92] He generally praised films that represented "Old Culture" values which he felt were exemplified by the James Bond franchise: "marvelous plot, exciting action, hero vs. villains, spy plots, crisp dialogue and the frank enjoyment of bourgeois luxury and fascinating technological gadgets."^[93]

Rothbard enjoyed action movies such as The Fugitive and Hollywood films of the 1930s and 1940s,^[92] and praised Woody Allen's wit.^[94] He disliked Star Wars, "such a silly, cartoony, comic-strip movie that no one can possibly take it seriously," and 2001: A Space Odyssey, a "pretentious, mystical, boring, plotless piece of claptrap," calling for a return to science fiction films like It Came from Outer Space and "the incomparable Invasion of the Body Snatchers."^[95]

Bibliography[link]

Cover of the first volume of the 2006 Ludwig Von Mises Institute edition of An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought

Cover of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute's 2000 edition of America's Great Depression

• Man, Economy, and State (Full Text; ISBN 0-945466-30-7) (1962)
• The Panic of 1819 (Full Text). 1962, 2006 edition: ISBN 1-933550-08-2.
• America's Great Depression. (Full Text) ISBN 0-945466-05-6. (1963, 1972, 1975, 1983, 2000)
• What Has Government Done to Our Money? (Full Text / Audio Book) ISBN 0-945466-44-7. (1963)
• Economic Depressions: Causes and Cures (Full Text) (1969)
• Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Full Text). ISBN 1-933550-05-8. (1970) (restored to Man, Economy, and State ISBN 0-945466-30-7, 2004)
• Education: Free and Compulsory (Full Text). ISBN 0-945466-22-6. (1972)
• Left and Right, Selected Essays 1954–65 (1972)
• For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (Full text / Audio book) ISBN 0-945466-47-1. (1973, 1978)
• The Essential von Mises (1973)
• The Case for the 100 Percent Gold Dollar. ISBN 0-945466-34-X. (Full Text / Audio Book) (1974)
• Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays ISBN 0-945466-23-4. (1974)
• Conceived in Liberty (4 vol.) ISBN 0-945466-26-9. (1975–79)
• Individualism and the Philosophy of the Social Sciences. ISBN 0-932790-03-8. (1979)
• The Ethics of Liberty (Full Text / Audio Book) ISBN 0-8147-7559-4. (1982)
• The Mystery of Banking ISBN 0-943940-04-4. (1983)
• Ludwig von Mises: Scholar, Creator, Hero. OCLC 20856420. (1988)
• Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism, and the Division of Labor. Full text (included as Chapter 16 in Egalitarianism above) (1991)
• The Case Against the Fed ISBN 0-945466-17-X. (1994)
• An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought (2 vol.) ISBN 0-945466-48-X. (1995)
• Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy. (Full Text) with an introduction by Justin Raimondo. (1995)
• Making Economic Sense. ISBN 0-945466-18-8. (1995, 2006)
• Logic of Action (2 vol.) ISBN 1-85898-015-1 and ISBN 1-85898-570-6. (1997, reprinted as Economic Controversies in 2011)
• The Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle and Other Essays. ISBN 0-945466-21-8. (also by Mises, Hayek, & Haberler)
• Irrepressible Rothbard: The Rothbard-Rockwell Report Essays of Murray N. Rothbard. (Full Text.) (Preface by JoAnn Rothbard) (Introduction by Lew Rockwell.) ISBN 1-883959-02-0. (2000)
• A History of Money and Banking in the United States. ISBN 0-945466-33-1. (2002)
• The Complete Libertarian Forum (2 vol.) (Full Text) ISBN 1-933550-02-3. (1969–84; 2006)
• The Betrayal of the American Right ISBN 978-1-933550-13-8 (2007)
• Rothbard vs. the Philosophers edited with an introduction by Roberta Modugno ISBN 978-1-933550-46-6 (2009)
• Strictly Confidential edited by David Gordon (2010)

See also[link]

• American philosophy
• List of American philosophers

Notes[link]