3 ms·

> just torpedoed more wealth than many people could ever imagine for his family You know, I believe that Kanye may have significant mental illness, but... An

by mlyle 4y ago

> just torpedoed more wealth than many people could ever imagine for his family You know, I believe that Kanye may have significant mental illness, but... An argument primarily from an economic angle makes me uncomfortable. On paper, I am not maximizing economic value right now-- but I'm pretty sure I'm well adjusted and happy with my (seemingly economically irrational) choices.

lazide 4y ago
I agree, however the family court in California doesn’t agree. He’s on the hook for ‘expected future earnings’, and voluntary actions to decrease them don’t get him out of it. It’s from case law where someone quit their highly lucrative (but stressful) job to become a priest. The court ruled, ‘nah bro, you’re still on the hook’. One could argue having a mental breakdown and destroying your career is not voluntary - but if it is not voluntary, then the whole argument about personal freedom goes out the window doesn’t it?
- mlyle 4y ago
  > I agree, however the family court in California doesn’t agree. I think what you describe is completely orthogonal to what we were discussing-- whether seemingly acting in one's economic interest can be a measure on one's mental well being and used to judge whether someone is using their autonomy appropriately. If we use outside economic tests, we become pretty fascist and authoritarian really-quick-like.
  - asveikau 4y ago
    Being able to support yourself is actually a point that psychiatrists can use. Eg. A lot of people can have symptoms of a psychotic disorder but they are still "productive" and functioning. On the other hand a lot of people with bipolar disorder go through "manic spending sprees" which leaves them in huge debt. Or, people start to be unable to hold a job or keep up with studies. They might quit their job impulsively persuing a delusion, or make unwise investments while manic. This can be a proxy for how they are doing with the illness. Someone with this type of issue who is very wealthy kind of makes that kind of argument fall apart. Kanye can blow a lot of money and still survive. A more normal person with bipolar disorder would hit rock bottom from a financial standpoint much sooner.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      > Being able to support yourself is actually a point that psychiatrists can use. Yes, and Kanye may have various financial and business problems, but by any sane metric is able to support himself. > Kanye can blow a lot of money and still survive. Yes, which makes the behavior less obviously irrational. This is why diagnostic criteria have phrases like "cause marked impairment in social or occupational functioning" --- and meeting diagnostic criteria alone is not generally sufficient for involuntary commitment. There, we reach the legal system, and definitions that generally include a pretty strict definition of danger-to-self-or-others-or-gravely-disabled, which wouldn't include this kind of thing.
      - lazide 4y ago
        If he was poor, he’d be crazy. Since he’s rich (still provably?) he’s just eccentric. I agree, though it’s not clear if you’re talking 5150 or conservatorship. IMO, a pretty clear argument could be made (if someone had standing and wanted to do so) for conservatorship, at least of the estate, and possibly for him individually, in Kanye’s case. I don’t see anything even hinting at a justification for 5150 WIC, even without considering the de-facto loosening of when it’s applied, which is I’m guessing what you’re referring to. Hell, even if you’re lunging at someone with knife while talking about killing your self, it seems like most jurisdictions won’t do it. (Especially SF). If particularly public safety minded at the moment, they might take away your knife if they don’t shoot you first. Budget reasons. As to where it would go, god knows.
        mlyle 4y ago
        > If he was poor, he’d be crazy. Plenty of poor people say messed up things, alienate people around them, and screw up their employment. They generally don't end up with involuntary mental treatment. Even if the root cause is because of mania or something. > I don’t see anything even hinting at a justification for 5150 WIC, even without considering the de-facto loosening of when it’s applied, which is I’m guessing what you’re referring to. Well, the whole context we're talking about things in is in the context of involuntary treatment.
  - lazide 4y ago
    I’m quite confident that a great many men would consider family court fascist and authoritarian hah. Not disagreeing with you. Noting that such a system does exist, is currently active, alive, and ‘doing well’, and applicable when someone’s decisions impact the economic well-being of others in a certain situation.

by mlyle 4y ago

lazide 4y ago

I agree, however the family court in California doesn’t agree. He’s on the hook for ‘expected future earnings’, and voluntary actions to decrease them don’t get him out of it. It’s from case law where someone quit their highly lucrative (but stressful) job to become a priest. The court ruled, ‘nah bro, you’re still on the hook’. One could argue having a mental breakdown and destroying your career is not voluntary - but if it is not voluntary, then the whole argument about personal freedom goes out the window doesn’t it?

mlyle 4y ago
> I agree, however the family court in California doesn’t agree. I think what you describe is completely orthogonal to what we were discussing-- whether seemingly acting in one's economic interest can be a measure on one's mental well being and used to judge whether someone is using their autonomy appropriately. If we use outside economic tests, we become pretty fascist and authoritarian really-quick-like.
- asveikau 4y ago
  Being able to support yourself is actually a point that psychiatrists can use. Eg. A lot of people can have symptoms of a psychotic disorder but they are still "productive" and functioning. On the other hand a lot of people with bipolar disorder go through "manic spending sprees" which leaves them in huge debt. Or, people start to be unable to hold a job or keep up with studies. They might quit their job impulsively persuing a delusion, or make unwise investments while manic. This can be a proxy for how they are doing with the illness. Someone with this type of issue who is very wealthy kind of makes that kind of argument fall apart. Kanye can blow a lot of money and still survive. A more normal person with bipolar disorder would hit rock bottom from a financial standpoint much sooner.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > Being able to support yourself is actually a point that psychiatrists can use. Yes, and Kanye may have various financial and business problems, but by any sane metric is able to support himself. > Kanye can blow a lot of money and still survive. Yes, which makes the behavior less obviously irrational. This is why diagnostic criteria have phrases like "cause marked impairment in social or occupational functioning" --- and meeting diagnostic criteria alone is not generally sufficient for involuntary commitment. There, we reach the legal system, and definitions that generally include a pretty strict definition of danger-to-self-or-others-or-gravely-disabled, which wouldn't include this kind of thing.
    - lazide 4y ago
      If he was poor, he’d be crazy. Since he’s rich (still provably?) he’s just eccentric. I agree, though it’s not clear if you’re talking 5150 or conservatorship. IMO, a pretty clear argument could be made (if someone had standing and wanted to do so) for conservatorship, at least of the estate, and possibly for him individually, in Kanye’s case. I don’t see anything even hinting at a justification for 5150 WIC, even without considering the de-facto loosening of when it’s applied, which is I’m guessing what you’re referring to. Hell, even if you’re lunging at someone with knife while talking about killing your self, it seems like most jurisdictions won’t do it. (Especially SF). If particularly public safety minded at the moment, they might take away your knife if they don’t shoot you first. Budget reasons. As to where it would go, god knows.
      - mlyle 4y ago
        > If he was poor, he’d be crazy. Plenty of poor people say messed up things, alienate people around them, and screw up their employment. They generally don't end up with involuntary mental treatment. Even if the root cause is because of mania or something. > I don’t see anything even hinting at a justification for 5150 WIC, even without considering the de-facto loosening of when it’s applied, which is I’m guessing what you’re referring to. Well, the whole context we're talking about things in is in the context of involuntary treatment.
- lazide 4y ago
  I’m quite confident that a great many men would consider family court fascist and authoritarian hah. Not disagreeing with you. Noting that such a system does exist, is currently active, alive, and ‘doing well’, and applicable when someone’s decisions impact the economic well-being of others in a certain situation.