The post about dangerous psychos sparked a surprisingly lively discussion, as well as a comparable number of likes and dislikes; therefore, there is something to discuss.

First, many expressed doubt about the idea that insurance companies would face customer demand for the treatment of insane offenders, instead of shooting them, harvesting their organs, feeding them to pigs, or exiling them (where to?)

Indeed, this is merely an assumption, an extrapolation of the current trend toward humanization, as well as the current trend toward a more complete understanding of the principles of consciousness and the causes of mental failures. Therefore, I assume that this treatment will become cheaper and more reliable. Thus, dangerous psychos will, in most cases, receive their treatment before it leads to a tragedy, and only in the rarest situations—when a clouding of the mind went unnoticed and led to murder—will the conversation turn to post-factum treatment; and only after successful treatment can the conversation about financial compensation begin. In the long term, such an approach remains quite profitable for insurance companies.

Secondly, of course, I count on the fact that if anyone, including a psycho, attacks anyone, they will be stopped by the power of weapons, and then both the holes in their body and their brain will be treated, after which a bill will be presented. So, the general alertness of the ancap community, where people are ready to personally defend their freedom and property, should also work to reduce the significance of the raised problem of violence by the insane.

Thirdly, the question of who guarantees that insurance companies will not begin preemptively treating healthy people for mental disorders caused disputes. It is clear that the roots of this question grow from the practice of punitive psychiatry by the state. Why does the state do this? To ensure that the subjects do not have any “little thoughts” about the forced termination of the social contract with the ruling regime. Why would insurance companies do this? Who the hell knows. Applying forced treatment to one’s own clients is fraught with lawsuits if the client was healthy. Applying forced treatment to other people’s clients is a very strange form of altruism, and even more fraught with lawsuits if the person was healthy. Forcibly treating the uninsured might prove to be a useful preventative measure to avoid waiting until they start attacking clients. Here, one must calculate the benefits/costs. But even here, the forced treatment of healthy people brings no benefit.