the right to commit suicide is not a RIGHT! - everyone should understand this!

[judejin]

thank you very much paul, you're doing all the heavy lifting for me. people are confused about properties rights and this non-right to terminate all rights. suicide is to terminate all rights, thus it is a non-right, the opposite to all rights. while saving someone is restoring all of his rights to life including all of his properties rights. i simply don't understand why people simply don't get this. sigh!

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Is anyone actually arguing that your rights are violated by attempting suicide? Maybe you should consider that before you argue against that viewpoint, or else it serves only to confuse things.

The Opening Poster did. He said that I have no right to commit suicide. But I do.

Now I, like you, believe it would be a terrible sin to do so. It would be wrong in a religious sense, God would disapprove, but in a political sense, libertarianism would say that I must be left free to do so, if I so choose.

So there must be no laws against suicide.

As a matter of practicality, I think the majority of people who commit suicide probably have major mental issues and may not be thinking clearly. They may not "really" want to commit suicide. And, if I am right and this is true, I think it would be legitimate -- that is, not aggressive -- for someone to prevent them from making this rash decision in a moment of depressive cloud, instability, and mental malfunction, especially if the intervener is a family member or friend.

What I am saying is that it is not a violation of anyone's rights to prevent them from committing suicide, indeed, not enough to justify exacting revenge on the person who might do such a thing.

In a situation like preventing a friend or family member from shooting himself until he can get help and counseling, I agree that is probably not usually a violation of his rights. If he really is bound-and-determined to commit suicide, though, with a lucid mind and understanding of the consequences, then ultimately he must be permitted to do so.

In the case of a stranger on a bridge about to jump, it would depend on social convention whether stopping him would be a violation of his rights. In today's society and culture, probably not. After all, there are more private ways to kill oneself, less likely to be stopped by intervention. Going to the bridge, he may be half-hoping to be stopped. Perhaps it's all an acceptable social ritual of sorts. And, just to add one more layer of solution to the problem: ultimately it's the bridge-owner's call. If he doesn't want people suiciding off his bridge (an attitude which would probably be common among bridge owners) then his bridge, his rules, and he can make the rule: "If you see anyone about to suicide, then you're well within your rights to tackle him. In fact, I require you to attempt to stop him."

I do agree with you that today's social conventions and sensibilities are definitely such that it could not be justified to exact revenge on the random bridge-tackler. He was not intending to aggress, but to assist. He, like me, was doubtless operating on the theory that this person was a victim of depression or adverse drug-reaction or whatever and did not truly want to end his life. Even if he is wrong, his mistake is minor. If the person is determined to commit suicide, he can simply do the deed another day, this time in the privacy of his own property.

 

[TheGrinch]

we really need to reevaluate our priorities when this is the longest thread on the first page of new posts.

It's one thing when they may be spreading disinfo that needs to be combatted, but when a premise is this so clearly ridiculous, let's not waste our time.

 

[judejin]

suicide is a non-right. anyone can intervene! you cannot sue the person who save you.

you are free to commit suicide when nobody is around, but this is not exercising your right, you're basically self-destructing, terminating all your rights by killing yourself!

i don't understand why ppl still dont get it!

 

[judejin]

The Opening Poster did. He said that I have no right to commit suicide. But I do.

Now I, like you, believe it would be a terrible sin to do so. It would be wrong in a religious sense, God would disapprove, but in a political sense, libertarianism would say that I must be left free to do so, if I so choose.

So there must be no laws against suicide.

As a matter of practicality, I think the majority of people who commit suicide probably have major mental issues and may not be thinking clearly. They may not "really" want to commit suicide. And, if I am right and this is true, I think it would be legitimate -- that is, not aggressive -- for someone to prevent them from making this rash decision in a moment of depressive cloud, instability, and mental malfunction, especially if the intervener is a family member or friend.

In a situation like preventing a friend or family member from shooting himself until he can get help and counseling, I agree that is probably not usually a violation of his rights. If he really is bound-and-determined to commit suicide, though, with a lucid mind and understanding of the consequences, then ultimately he must be permitted to do so.

In the case of a stranger on a bridge about to jump, it would depend on social convention whether stopping him would be a violation of his rights. In today's society and culture, probably not. After all, there are more private ways to kill oneself, less likely to be stopped by intervention. Going to the bridge, he may be half-hoping to be stopped. Perhaps it's all an acceptable social ritual of sorts. And, just to add one more layer of solution to the problem: ultimately it's the bridge-owner's call. If he doesn't want people suiciding off his bridge (an attitude which would probably be common among bridge owners) then his bridge, his rules, and he can make the rule: "If you see anyone about to suicide, then you're well within your rights to tackle him. In fact, I require you to attempt to stop him."

I do agree with you that today's social conventions and sensibilities are definitely such that it could not be justified to exact revenge on the random bridge-tackler. He was not intending to aggress, but to assist. He, like me, was doubtless operating on the theory that this person was a victim of depression or adverse drug-reaction or whatever and did not truly want to end his life. Even if he is wrong, his mistake is minor. If the person is determined to commit suicide, he can simply do the deed another day, this time in the privacy of his own property.

a lot of people who want to jump off a building claim they are perfectly lucid and ask the police to leave them alone. should we leave him alone? if the police saved him, can he sue the police??

 

[judejin]

the saved person can never sue the hero. the court will either throw out the case immidiately or reply gently to the saved person: " if not for the hero who saved you , you'll be a dead body now. you may win your case and go ahead do whatever you wanna do. but we won't punish the hero! but next time when you want to commit suicide, do it when nobody is around!"

 

[judejin]

So... THIS is your argument that suicide is okay? Or am I misunderstanding you? Help me out here.

paul, very few people get this simple suicide issue right. do you still think ppl can get more complicated issues right?

 

[judejin]

we really need to reevaluate our priorities when this is the longest thread on the first page of new posts.

It's one thing when they may be spreading disinfo that needs to be combatted, but when a premise is this so clearly ridiculous, let's not waste our time.

check your premises and check your logic. double check!

 

[judejin]

Actually, F, they can.

a saved person can sue the hero who saved him? for what damage? what's the punishment for the hero? if you were the judge, what do you want the punishment to be?

if i were the lawyer defending the hero, i'd simply argue "if not for my client, the plaintiff is already a dead body! my client is not guilty of anything. this case should be dismissed immediately! by saving the plaintiff's life, my client actually restored all of his rights. my client doesn't want any thanks, but my client at least doen't deserve to be sued! and for what!? for saving the plaintiff??"

 

[helmuth_hubener]

suicide is a non-right. anyone can intervene! you cannot sue the person who save you.

you are free to commit suicide when nobody is around, but this is not exercising your right, you're basically self-destructing, terminating all your rights by killing yourself!

i don't understand why ppl still dont get it!

Dead is Different from Not-Dead: Once you are actually dead, then and only then do all your rights terminate. Actually, even then they do not, because all your contracts must still be fulfilled. So you still have the right to, for instance, dispose of all your property and possessions in very specific ways pleasing to you, even if everyone else on the planet disagrees with your preferences, and even though you are dead.

But anyway, while you are still alive, you still have your right to act with your own body as you choose. It is only after you die that that right goes away, due to your not being able to conduct any more actions with that body. The moment of death is the cut-off point for what you are talking about. A still-live person still has his rights. He has still not terminated all his rights. Would you agree, judejin?

That being the case, while alive, the man has the right to own a gun. Is this correct? Do you agree so far, judejin? The man also has a right to bear that arm, that is, to carry it. Agreed? He has the right to point that gun at himself. Still agreed? And finally, he has the right to move his finger to depress the trigger. None of these actions violate anyone else's rights. Thus, philosophically, in the absence of any mitigating factors, any force used against him absolutely cannot be defensive. It would be aggressive. As Libertarians, we can't be aggressive. Using force aggressively is wrong.

Mitigating Factor: Now, as I said, there is a mitigating factor: mental illness (or whatever you want to call it). There are a lot of people alive today who were prevented by someone from committing suicide and are grateful that that person prevented them. At least this is my impression, perhaps someone can correct me with real data. If true, that indicates a large proportion of people attempting suicide do not really, "deep in the heart" or whatever, want to commit suicide. And so help may be justified.

Life is an Alienable Right: But ultimately, suicide is a right. In the case of someone of someone in their right mind, they must be permitted to pull that trigger if they are determined to do so. For someone to persistently, repeatedly forcibly prevent them from doing so would be an act of aggression, and as such the preventor should be restrained.

 

[judejin]

Dead is Different from Not-Dead: Once you are actually dead, then and only then do all your rights terminate. Actually, even then they do not, because all your contracts must still be fulfilled. So you still have the right to, for instance, dispose of all your property and possessions in very specific ways pleasing to you, even if everyone else on the planet disagrees with your preferences, and even though you are dead.

But anyway, while you are still alive, you still have your right to act with your own body as you choose. It is only after you die that that right goes away, due to your not being able to conduct any more actions with that body. The moment of death is the cut-off point for what you are talking about. A still-live person still has his rights. He has still not terminated all his rights. Would you agree, judejin?

That being the case, while alive, the man has the right to own a gun. Is this correct? Do you agree so far, judejin? The man also has a right to bear that arm, that is, to carry it. Agreed? He has the right to point that gun at himself. Still agreed? And finally, he has the right to move his finger to depress the trigger. None of these actions violate anyone else's rights. Thus, philosophically, in the absence of any mitigating factors, any force used against him absolutely cannot be defensive. It would be aggressive. As Libertarians, we can't be aggressive. Using force aggressively is wrong.

Mitigating Factor: Now, as I said, there is a mitigating factor: mental illness (or whatever you want to call it). There are a lot of people alive today who were prevented by someone from committing suicide and are grateful that that person prevented them. At least this is my impression, perhaps someone can correct me with real data. If true, that indicates a large proportion of people attempting suicide do not really, "deep in the heart" or whatever, want to commit suicide. And so help may be justified.

Life is an Alienable Right: But ultimately, suicide is a right. In the case of someone of someone in their right mind, they must be permitted to pull that trigger if they are determined to do so. For someone to persistently, repeatedly forcibly prevent them from doing so would be an act of aggression, and as such the preventor should be restrained.

my simple answer to you is the person who save you is not violating your non-right to kill yourself. by saving you, he's restoring all of your rights. killing oneself is terminating all rights, thus suicide is a non-right. one can commit suicide alone when nobody is around. but as soon as anyone discovers you, he can intervene with immunity. the hero can never be punished for saving someone else(in a friendly environment. excluding hostile environment when bring one back to life is to torture more and interrogate).

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Dead is Different from Not-Dead: Once you are actually dead, then and only then do all your rights terminate. Actually, even then they do not, because all your contracts must still be fulfilled. So you still have the right to, for instance, dispose of all your property and possessions in very specific ways pleasing to you, even if everyone else on the planet disagrees with your preferences, and even though you are dead.

But anyway, while you are still alive, you still have your right to act with your own body as you choose. It is only after you die that that right goes away, due to your not being able to conduct any more actions with that body. The moment of death is the cut-off point for what you are talking about. A still-live person still has his rights. He has still not terminated all his rights. Would you agree, judejin?

That being the case, while alive, the man has the right to own a gun. Is this correct? Do you agree so far, judejin? The man also has a right to bear that arm, that is, to carry it. Agreed? He has the right to point that gun at himself. Still agreed? And finally, he has the right to move his finger to depress the trigger. None of these actions violate anyone else's rights. Thus, philosophically, in the absence of any mitigating factors, any force used against him absolutely cannot be defensive. It would be aggressive. As Libertarians, we can't be aggressive. Using force aggressively is wrong.

Mitigating Factor: Now, as I said, there is a mitigating factor: mental illness (or whatever you want to call it). There are a lot of people alive today who were prevented by someone from committing suicide and are grateful that that person prevented them. At least this is my impression, perhaps someone can correct me with real data. If true, that indicates a large proportion of people attempting suicide do not really, "deep in the heart" or whatever, want to commit suicide. And so help may be justified.

Life is an Alienable Right: But ultimately, suicide is a right. In the case of someone of someone in their right mind, they must be permitted to pull that trigger if they are determined to do so. For someone to persistently, repeatedly forcibly prevent them from doing so would be an act of aggression, and as such the preventor should be restrained.

I believe that many of those that attempt suicide are crying out for help. From my experience (several in my close circle doing it successfully), those that really want to do it and have made up their minds, are almost always successful. There may be several attempts before they have completely made up their mind in which they do something that is close to the edge, or that gives other around a way to stop it (knowing that they will). Most of those that I know (5 or 6 close) that did do it gave no opportunity for others to stop it, they were alone with a shotgun.

edit: I think that sometimes, they have made up their mind, but are going to give someone a short time to convince them for a reason not to, a very short time, such as jumpers. Maybe they want to live, but cannot handle the pain and just need to find a way if someone can just tell them something.

 

[judejin]

even if some are not thankful, the hero can never be punished for saving him because suicide is not a non-right. one can only be guilty and punished when one violates the rights of another. saving someone is restoring all of his rights.

suicide is to terminate life and terminate all rights. to terminate all rights is a NON-RIGHT!

with me? helmuth_hubener

 

[judejin]

ClydeCoulter, even in the case when the person has really really made up his mind and succesfully kill himself. let's unwind and imagine somehow another person finds him and saved him, is the hero guilty of anything?
of course NOT!

 

[helmuth_hubener]

a lot of people who want to jump off a building claim they are perfectly lucid and ask the police to leave them alone. should we leave him alone? if the police saved him, can he sue the police??

Who owns the building? What does that owner say?

If his building is a suicide haven -- maybe he's wanting to be a morbid tourist attraction -- then he caters to the suiciders, guaranteeing them a pleasant, interference-free experience.

If his building is a suicide-free zone, then he caters to the interferes and perhaps he himself will interfere, with security guards, locks and other anti-jumping measures, nets, etc.

 

[jllundqu]

I call BS. ANYONE who wants to end their own life, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others, has the right to do so.

I know that I sure as hell will not 'die slowly in America' letting my life savings and children's inheritance be sucked away by the oligarchical government insurance companies.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

ClydeCoulter, even in the case when the person has really really made up his mind and succesfully kill himself. let's unwind and imagine somehow another person finds him and saved him, is the hero guilty of anything?
of course NOT!

I would not call the person a hero. And I don't think everything can be put into terms of legal vs illegal. Some things just are. The person saved, may loose their nerve to ever try again, but live a life of pure misery. I don't see a win or a hero there.

 

[osan]

You were not that exact. You didn't mention the "horrible pain" part.[p/quote]

Try using your brain for more than a hat rack, for God's sake. I explicitly wrote that I would never choose to end my life for casual reasons. That implies there is something really serious afoot in my circumstance and horrible pain could be one of a million possibilities. Is it really that difficult to employ a little common sense and imagination? You cannot be that stupid, so I can only conclude you are being intentionally obtuse.

I'm done with this one.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

even if some are not thankful, the hero can never be punished for saving him because suicide is not a non-right. one can only be guilty and punished when one violates the rights of another. saving someone is restoring all of his rights.

You're just repeating the same thing over and over. You think an alive person owns their life? That ownership right is not being respected unless the right to dispose of their property -- their life -- is respected. If you can't sell it, you don't really own it! If you can't throw it away, you don't really own it!

suicide is to terminate life and terminate all rights. to terminate all rights is a NON-RIGHT!

with me? helmuth_hubener

Where? That is the question.

Suicide is a type of activity. Preventing suicide is a type of activity. Ultimately, property owners decide what types of activities to allow on their property.

 

[osan]

Intervening implies that one knows what it best for the individual about to kill himself. That presumption is the root of all intervention, which is the subversion of individual sovereignty. Either one owns his life, or he does not.

Without putting words in his mouth and for the sake of discussion, I don't think osan would brutally attack a person who implored him to alter his decision; but to physically prevent him from carrying out his decision is to deny him of his right to self-ownership. It is the birth of the state, essentially; and the state is the great evil against humanity. That, I believe, is why osan would be within his rights to attack such an individual.

Now you see? Here is a person who read what I wrote and applied just a smidge of care and intelligence to come to the correct assessment of my position.

I think some people just get a kick out of yanking chains. It is an emotional disorder.