Homesteading the ill of mind?

Economics Political Theory
1

So I’m writing something of a rebuttal against state intervention in providing programs for those ill of mind when I start wondering if it’s possible to homestead someone whose irrational in the same manner as it is to homestead a child. Now obviously you can’t homestead someone potential of action in the same manner that you can homestead a parcel of land. By homesteading someone potential of action you don’t gain ownership over them, but rather the status of being the caretaker. If you fail to constantly homestead the potential person of action then it is possible for others to attempt to homestead the PPA and become their caretakers (foster parents in the case of children). So forth, so forth; this is the train of thought I followed until I came to the conclusion that the entire inquiry is fruitless since I hadn’t established that the mentally ill are PPAs.Silly me!

I then continued thinking and pondering until I came to the conclusion that the mentally ill have the same right to their bodies as any other acting person. Their means might not be rational, but their ends are. If I was to say that someone is lowered of their status as acting persons to potential persons of action simply because their means aren’t rational then not only would the alleged mentally ill be prone to being homesteading, but almost anyone (as anyone is prone to making a mistake or being ignorant of a portion of crucial knowledge and so acting ‘irrationally’ to a given situation) .

And so onto why I’m here.

[1] Am I missing anything in my conclusion that the mentally ill have full ownership of their bodies and are not in the same potential persons of action category as babies? I’m a novice in these affairs, so I’m sure I missed something here or there.

[2] Assuming that my conclusion is correct, any advice on how to shape it into something that someone who couldn’t phantom a non-existent (or even a minimal) state could understand? My goal being to try to dismiss the idea that the mentally ill can’t fend for themselves without the aid of the state.

Any and all help is greatly appreciated. Please and thank you.

2

Please, please don’t imply that the mentally ill are a parcel of land to be homesteaded, especially if this is a proposal to be forwarded to an NGO. Please reconsider your terminology!

As someone with family member suffering from mental illness, you have to take into consideration that their ends are not always rational. I am thinking specifically of self-harm. Suicide may be permissible under libertarian ethics, but in the case of a mentally ill person they may be experiencing an episode where they lose self control. This is the same as if they had a heart attack or something near fatal, and it is justifiable to use force to restrain them until help can arrive.

I personally believe that there is some place for the state in mental health care and so cannot help with point 2, but I am glad to see that this is an issue being taken up from a libertarian angle. Very few people want to touch these issues with a 40ft pole.