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

[A Son of Liberty]

You are delirious. It does not violate self-ownership to stop someone from committing suicide. If I grab your hand when you are about to touch something that is going to hurt you, did you suddenly lose ownership of yourself, or did I just temporarily make it harder for you to carry out a decision to do something that you might regret? Sometimes people should be stopped, and it has nothing to do with the state.

Since aggression implies harm, the person would not be violating the person's rights by trying to save them. In any case, however, you cannot possibly justify murdering someone for saving your life. It would violate the NAP, whereas trying to prevent someone from killing themselves is simply a conflict of wills. Just because suicide is a grave decision, that does not mean it's ever the right one. If suicide is not a crime, then it is a gross imbalance to turn around and say saving someone from suicide IS a crime. In what freaky, messed up world is it completely legal and perhaps righteous to commit suicide, but saving someone from it makes you deserving of death?

Within the context to which I was responding, it most certainly does violate self-ownership for you to stop osan from committing suicide.

Additionally, your logical fails - because marijuana use is not a crime, it is not a gross imbalance to turn around and say "saving" someone from marijuana IS a crime, where "saving someone" implies direct physical intervention, as was suggested with osans original example.

Besides, where do you get off stopping someone from committing suicide in the circumstances as they've been described - a fully informed person making a conscious decision to end their life? You presume to know that there are no circumstances under which this person might reasonably have determined to have preferred ending his life to continue living? I can think of several without the least effort. osan's logic is correct, as is my elaboration that intervention in such a way is the seed of the state.

The road to hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

living opens up all possibilities. death means no second chance. everyone goes thru a lot of trauma. toughen up, don't surrender to the enemy, especially the ultimate enemy, death!

Unless it is your life you're considering, it isn't up to you... tho' I agree with everything you say, and I'd say the same to someone thinking of committing suicide, I recognize that each individual is the owner of his own life, and it is first, foremost and soley his to do with as he sees fit.

Would a suicide be a tragic loss of life? Perhaps. That's not up to me, however. I am not an estimator of the value of anyone's life but my own. The only life I'm capable of knowing fully is my own, as an objective consequence of the limitations of my own brain-pan. The essential details of the life of a human are necessarily shielded from me by the their skull, don't you see?

What if our supposed suicidist was taking his life to save someone else? Or, what if his pain was so immeasurable that he could not conceive of another second of sentience? What do you know of it? In terms of the knowledge required to make an informed opinion, absolutely nothing. Again, this is the essence of self-ownership.

 

[MelissaWV]

I believe most if not all states have Good Samaritan laws now.

I don't think you can sue someone whose intentions only were to help. (even if they caused further damage) IIRC the laws were brought about because someone became paralyzed after being moved from a car crash? Something like that. A person who was injured was moved and it caused further injury. The judge threw the case out because the good Samaritan's intentions weren't malevolent.

Those laws vary greatly from state to state.

To add to the confusion about these laws, in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, and Oregon, civilians who stop to help others don't have the same protection as people who have some type of medical training.

"They do act at their peril in coming to the aid," said Jordan. "They do not have the protection you would have if you were a professional physician or emergency responder."

Even though you may be trying to help someone, if you cause them serious or permanent injury, you could be sued.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

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).

False. Humans have no power to give or restore rights. Human rights exist because God has ordained them, or as a logical consequence of our rational nature, if you prefer.

Prior popular examples of your logical fallacy include such phrases as, "we had to destroy the village to save it"; and, "I had to destroy capitalism to save it'. Again, you're describing the quintessence of the state - the presumption of extra-human capacity. It, like the state, is a logical impossibility.

 

[judejin]

False. Humans have no power to give or restore rights. Human rights exist because God has ordained them, or as a logical consequence of our rational nature, if you prefer.

Prior popular examples of your logical fallacy include such phrases as, "we had to destroy the village to save it"; and, "I had to destroy capitalism to save it'. Again, you're describing the quintessence of the state - the presumption of extra-human capacity. It, like the state, is a logical impossibility.

sorry, there's no god in my dictionary. i'm atheist. to me, all rights are gone when life is terminated. to me, the hero not only saved the person's life but also restored all his rights at the same time. so saving a person can never be a crime.

as to someone commits suicide in order to save another one's life, that's the same as the hero who makes a suicidal attemp to save the life of another. again here the hero is exercisng a non-right.

now i see our difference, to you every action that deals with oneself is a right. that's false in my logic and world. in my logic, suicide is to terminate all rights, thus it is a NON-right, which anyone can intervene even by force!

 

[judejin]

to those who think saving a person is violating his rights, when i pose the question: so we just look on when someone tries to commit suicide?

these people will then respond: well, it depends. if the person is mentally ill...blah.blah.

so what is your exact response to "is saving a person violating his rights?" how can we be sure the person is sane when he's on the edge of a building? so we conduct a on-site psycho evaluation to decide whether we save him or not? then what about if we discover if after someone already hang himself? how can we make sure whether he did it when he was sane? so next time when we discover a hanged man, should we assume that he did it in a sane mind or assume he was not sane???

to those who still insist that saving a person is violating his rights, your logic is very flawed and not consistent!

 

[judejin]

the reality is whenever we discover a hanged man, we ALWAYS try to resurrect him!

then to those who insist saving a person is violating his rights, i'd pose another question: so you found out that the man hanged himself when he was sane, should you gave back the rope and leave him alone to let him try hanging himself again?

i will never allow myself to do that to the man!

if you answered yes to my question, your libertarian ideas amounts to cruelty, screw your libertarian ideas!

but since i know you have the flawed and logically inconsistent version of libertarian ideas, i'll stick to my version of libertarian ideas which proves that suicide is a NON-right, anyone can intervene!

 

[judejin]

let's imagine someone tries to make a suicidal attempt to save the life of another, but his friend stops him from doing that. is his rights violated? can he sue his friend for violating his rights? his friends definitely will plead innocent because he's saving him!

we have this kind of scenario in a lot of movies. when a person is in an inferno of fire, a relative rushes to save but was stopped by another relative/friend to stop him from entering the inferno of fire.

 

[redmod79]

sorry, there's no god in my dictionary. i'm atheist. to me, all rights are gone when life is terminated. to me, the hero not only saved the person's life but also restored all his rights at the same time. so saving a person can never be a crime.

Please go away. You're giving us decent atheists a bad name. Shoo, git!

 

[Pericles]

And just what do you propose to do to or for someone who violates his or her own right to life (by committing suicide)?

If the violation (suicide attempt) is successful, then:
(1) the violator is beyond any possibility of being held liable, and
(2) the violatee is beyond any possibility of retributive or restitutional justice.

Pontless assertion of rights is pointless ...

Be that as it may, had I the opportunity to prevent my GFs death, I would have taken the opportunity to do so. I liked having her around, and as GFs go, she was a good one.

 

[judejin]

Hmm, that is a very good point. It's a Catch 22!

The exception I can think of would be if the desire for suicide was time-sensitive. If the man needs to commit suicide right now, today, in order that his wife currently in the Emergency Room can get the insurance money and be able to pay for an expensive surgery that will save her life. And now it's too late, she died, and the interferer messed up everything.

But that certainly would not be a very realistic nor common scenario (I don't think most life insurance covers suicide anyway) and assuming the interferer is reasonable, he and the jumper could sit down and the jumper could explain the situation and then he would understand and say "OK, you do whatever you think you have to do."

let's imagine that someone messed up this person's plan and this person sue the hero who saved him. what does the plaintiff say in court? "because the defendant messed up my plan to die, i didn't die. so my wife didn't get the insurance money, so my wife died, so the defendant is liable to my wife's death."

the defendant's lawyer would say "when my client rushed in to save your life, he didn't know about your intertwined scheme. anyone besides my client would have done the same thing to you, saving your life. so i don't think my client committed any crime against you. as to the indirect consequences, you yourself should be responsible for that. why? your wife died because you son of bitch cannot come up with a better plan to save her!!"

 

[helmuth_hubener]

to those who think saving a person is violating his rights, when i pose the question: so we just look on when someone tries to commit suicide?

these people will then respond: well, it depends. if the person is mentally ill...blah.blah.

Let me answer, then: yes, we just look on.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

sorry, there's no god in my dictionary. i'm atheist. to me, all rights are gone when life is terminated. to me, the hero not only saved the person's life but also restored all his rights at the same time. so saving a person can never be a crime.

as to someone commits suicide in order to save another one's life, that's the same as the hero who makes a suicidal attemp to save the life of another. again here the hero is exercisng a non-right.

now i see our difference, to you every action that deals with oneself is a right. that's false in my logic and world. in my logic, suicide is to terminate all rights, thus it is a NON-right, which anyone can intervene even by force!

Whether you believe in God or not is inconsequential, and the fact that you believe human beings have the power and authority to restore rights to other human beings is to a great extent illustrative of your problem. I suggested a situation in which one person was taking his life to save another to illustrate that forcibly restraining one person from exercising their self-ownership through suicide assumes, to borrow Hayek's phrase, a pretense of knowledge about a person and/or their situation.

You and I do not have "different logic"; there is the logical, and there is the illogical. Ending one's life is an act of self-ownership, in that if a person has determined that he no longer wants to live, it is his right as owner of his life to stop living. Intervening with force is to deny him of his right to make that decision, effectively forcing him to live when he had determined that he wished not to live any longer.

Again, depending upon the circumstances, I may well implore such a person to change their mind but, ultimately, it is his life and I have no right to force him to make a decision I prefer him to make.

 

[judejin]

Whether you believe in God or not is inconsequential, and the fact that you believe human beings have the power and authority to restore rights to other human beings is to a great extent illustrative of your problem. I suggested a situation in which one person was taking his life to save another to illustrate that forcibly restraining one person from exercising their self-ownership through suicide assumes, to borrow Hayek's phrase, a pretense of knowledge about a person and/or their situation.

You and I do not have "different logic"; there is the logical, and there is the illogical. Ending one's life is an act of self-ownership, in that if a person has determined that he no longer wants to live, it is his right as owner of his life to stop living. Intervening with force is to deny him of his right to make that decision, effectively forcing him to live when he had determined that he wished not to live any longer.

Again, depending upon the circumstances, I may well implore such a person to change their mind but, ultimately, it is his life and I have no right to force him to make a decision I prefer him to make.

you got the definition of rights wrong!

rights are all the actions and the titles to one's body and properties in order to LIVE!

suicide is to DIE!
so suicide is not a RIGHT!
suicide is a NON-RIGHT, self-destruction.

this is why someone trying to save you is not violating your rights, instead he's stopping you from self-destruction.

you can burn down your house for some purpose, but someone who try to put out the fire is not violating your rights either. you can of course insist with a gun in hand that this person leave your house alone. in that case, nobody would intervene.

just like if someone have a gun in hand and insist to shoot anyone who tries to prevent him from shooting himself, in this case nobody would try to stop him. but as soon as he fired the shot into his head, people will still rush to his side to try to see whether he missed the shot and whether he can be saved!!! and even in the slightest chance he was alive and saved, the person who saved him is NOT violating his rights either!

GOD! i'm amazed that so many people got the wrong definition of rights without realizing it!

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Suicide, as we are discussing it, is a decision and act to end one's life. As an owner of my life, it is mine and mine alone to do with as I please up to and including ending it. No one knows better than me what is right and best for my life, including whether or not I should go on living it. You have no right to force to me to live.

Rights in no way exist simply to sustain life as you suggest... you certainly have offered no proof of that whatsoever.

Again I just want to make clear that I'm not defending suicide per se; I'm defending self-ownership. And again that, I believe, is what osan was expressing and the reason for his very visceral response.

 

[PSYOP]

Three words. Private property rights.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Be that as it may, had I the opportunity to prevent my GFs death, I would have taken the opportunity to do so. I liked having her around, and as GFs go, she was a good one.

I have no idea what that has to do with anything I said.

 

[otherone]

suicide is to DIE!
so suicide is not a RIGHT!
suicide is a NON-RIGHT, self-destruction.
GOD! i'm amazed that so many people got the wrong definition of rights without realizing it!

Rights ONLY exist in regards to an individual's interaction with others. If, for example, you were the last man on earth...what Rights would you have? Would it matter?
You do understand that self-censorship does not violate one's freedom of speech, right?

 

[Ender]

Suicide, as we are discussing it, is a decision and act to end one's life. As an owner of my life, it is mine and mine alone to do with as I please up to and including ending it. No one knows better than me what is right and best for my life, including whether or not I should go on living it. You have no right to force to me to live.

Rights in no way exist simply to sustain life as you suggest... you certainly have offered no proof of that whatsoever.

Again I just want to make clear that I'm not defending suicide per se; I'm defending self-ownership. And again that, I believe, is what osan was expressing and the reason for his very visceral response.

Uh... WRONG.

IF YOU ARE DEPRESSED AND MENTALLY UNSTABLE, YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU.

Suicide also hurts those around you- sometimes beyond repair.

 

[Occam's Banana]

IF YOU ARE DEPRESSED AND MENTALLY UNSTABLE, YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU.

Given that "not knowing what is best for oneself" - as judged by other people - is very often the basis for (or a significant part of) other people coming to conclusions such as that one is "depressed and mentally unstable," there is a very distinct danger or running around in circles with this justification for forcibly intervening in the decisions of others (and not just in the matter of suicide). "You apparently do not know what is best for you because you are deemed to be depressed and mentally unstable - but you are deemed to be depressed and mentally stable because you apparently do not know what is best for you" ...

Suicide also hurts those around you- sometimes beyond repair.

So does excessive drinking (of alcohol). Or being a philanderer. Or being a jerk. Or being an irresponsible "dreamer." Or being any number of other things.

Just as you have no right to force other people to stop doing or being those things, you have no right to force the would-be-suicide to live.