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

[Dr.3D]

If you want to commit suicide, just call the police about a prowler and then confront them with a butter knife when they show up.

 

[jllundqu]

Why would anyone want to stop or interfere with someone who genuinely wanted to end their life? THAT'S the violation of rights, right there.

 

[phill4paul]

If you want to commit suicide, just call the police about a prowler and then confront them with a butter knife when they show up.

Or wear one of these costumes....

 

[Dr.3D]

Or wear one of these costumes....

I was thinking about that too.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

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.

That seemed to me like more of a side-issue. The crux of the matter, really, is that the state should not be involved in any way and people should be allowed to prevent you from committing suicide without fear of retribution or backlash. The right to attempt suicide and the right of people to stop you do not interfere, ideologically.

The second half of your post, however, I completely agree with. The fact that the OP may not really know exactly when rights end isn't that important to the central debate, which is that both suicide and interference are permissible within a libertarian ideology.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

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.

Oh my God, forgive me for not having enough imagination to interact with you. You're just way over everyone's head, in a league of your own. That totally explains it because here I was thinking we were both adults who should strive to understand each other but it was me all along who simply couldn't comprehend the arguments you were putting forth from the abstract thought patterns you employed. Forgive me.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

That seemed to me like more of a side-issue.

It seems to be the central issue for the OP.

The crux of the matter, really, is that the state should not be involved in any way and people should be allowed to prevent you from committing suicide without fear of retribution or backlash. The right to attempt suicide and the right of people to stop you do not interfere, ideologically.

Basically true, except in the case of a property owner who wishes to have his property be a safe haven for suiciders. "Singapore's Top Building to Jump Off Of", tagline: "why go out with a whimper, when you can go out with a bang?" On such a property, any interlopers would be disturbing the peace, breaking the rules, and could justly be punished.

Or, more realistically, a scenario that could actually take place in real life: an assisted-suicide clinic. People go there to get a lethal injection and die. I think such an establishment would be morally in the same kind of situation as the Suicide Skyscraper. To respect the property rights of the owner, we would have to let the clinic and its clients be. Certainly non-violent social pressure of all kinds could be brought to bear. But by performing or receiving assisted suicide, no one would be violating anyone's rights, as far as I can tell. So we have to permit it, legally.

 

[Christian Liberty]

You should bear in mind also that a human life generally has a limited shelf life anyway. It, unlike the English estate, cannot generally endure for hundreds or thousands of years. It is fragile. And so much of what we do in it could be considered suicidal. If you do an activity that has a 99% chance of killing you, like going over Niagara Falls, are you committing an offense against... against whom, by the way? Whose rights are violated? Anyway, are you committing an offense against the nebulous ether of anti-suicideness? What if you are not, in fact, committing suicide? What if you think you can make it? Is that not a right? (Assuming you own the falls or get permission, etc., etc.)

Well, it does hurt the family and basically anyone else that knows the suicidal person. Its not aggression, so it shouldn't be illegal, but it does harm other people...

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Well, it does hurt the family and basically anyone else that knows the suicidal person. Its not aggression, so it shouldn't be illegal, but it does harm other people...

Agreed. And good for you for the distinction between "harm" and "aggression". I agree totally.

 

[Christian Liberty]

It seems to be the central issue for the OP.



Basically true, except in the case of a property owner who wishes to have his property be a safe haven for suiciders. "Singapore's Top Building to Jump Off Of", tagline: "why go out with a whimper, when you can go out with a bang?" On such a property, any interlopers would be disturbing the peace, breaking the rules, and could justly be punished.

Or, more realistically, a scenario that could actually take place in real life: an assisted-suicide clinic. People go there to get a lethal injection and die. I think such an establishment would be morally in the same kind of situation as the Suicide Skyscraper. To respect the property rights of the owner, we would have to let the clinic and its clients be. Certainly non-violent social pressure of all kinds could be brought to bear. But by performing or receiving assisted suicide, no one would be violating anyone's rights, as far as I can tell. So we have to permit it, legally.

Yeah, I'd say legally a place specifically created as a haven for suiciders is a little different than just jumping off a random public bridge. In the former case, you shouldn't even really be there unless your intent is to cause suicide.

Now, another thing about the suicidal, if somebody really, REALLY wants to commit suicide, they'll do it eventually. I've been very clear during this thread that I'm against constantly following them around or locking them up or anything like that.

But if someone is just going to jump off a bridge, how do you really know that they are determined?

Honestly, if the person tries to sue you, and DOESN'T kill himself, that proves that he wasn't really determined in the first place. He has no grounds whatsoever.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Honestly, if the person tries to sue you, and DOESN'T kill himself, that proves that he wasn't really determined in the first place. He has no grounds whatsoever.

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."

 

[PaulConventionWV]

It seems to be the central issue for the OP.



Basically true, except in the case of a property owner who wishes to have his property be a safe haven for suiciders. "Singapore's Top Building to Jump Off Of", tagline: "why go out with a whimper, when you can go out with a bang?" On such a property, any interlopers would be disturbing the peace, breaking the rules, and could justly be punished.

Or, more realistically, a scenario that could actually take place in real life: an assisted-suicide clinic. People go there to get a lethal injection and die. I think such an establishment would be morally in the same kind of situation as the Suicide Skyscraper. To respect the property rights of the owner, we would have to let the clinic and its clients be. Certainly non-violent social pressure of all kinds could be brought to bear. But by performing or receiving assisted suicide, no one would be violating anyone's rights, as far as I can tell. So we have to permit it, legally.

I completely agree.

 

[Christian Liberty]

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."

Yeah, assuming somehow a given life insurance did cover suicide, and this extreme case happened, and then the wife died, I'd agree that the formerly suicidal man could logically sue without killing himself. But that's an extreme, bizarre scenario. I think in most cases my comment would apply.

Agreed. And good for you for the distinction between "harm" and "aggression". I agree totally.

I also think its immoral to harm people in the way that suicide does even if it isn't strictly illegal aggression.

Both because of Christianity and also because of basic human decency.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

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."

I have heard of them being covered before, such as in the famous case of Bud Dwyer, the first politician to blow his brains out on national TV (and hopefully not the last . His wife received insurance money, but it seems like something that agencies wouldn't normally cover. In any case, I don't know if life insurance can even be time sensitive.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I have heard of them being covered before, such as in the famous case of Bud Dwyer, the first politician to blow his brains out on national TV (and hopefully not the last . His wife received insurance money, but it seems like something that agencies wouldn't normally cover. In any case, I don't know if life insurance can even be time sensitive.

Most politicians deserve legal execution anyway, at least at the Federal Level. So that's probably a different paradigm entirely...

 

[erowe1]

If I saw somebody in the process of committing suicide, I absolutely would stop them and have no qualms about it. And if I ever had an opportunity to stop someone from committing suicide and didn't, I would forever regret it.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

If I saw somebody in the process of committing suicide, I absolutely would stop them and have no qualms about it. And if I ever had an opportunity to stop someone from committing suicide and didn't, I would forever regret it.

+rep

This is an attitude that many liberty-minded folk don't seem to understand. It's all cut-and-dry "mind your own business" but they fail to differentiate between the use of force as an abuse of power and the use of force as a means of aide from another human being. There is no power structure involved in one human stopping another from doing something they might regret. If I saw my girlfriend, dad, mom, brother, or a dear friend getting in a car absolutely smashed drunk, I would absolutely force them to stop.

There is no obligation for an individual to allow someone to make stupid decisions unless you really believe this type of behavior hurts the gene pool, which I think is bogus. This is how humans have survived, by helping each other, even if that help is sometimes unwelcomed. There is absolutely no reason to think that one individual helping another is some sort of violation of libertarian principles since no authority is ever invoked.

 

[Christian Liberty]

+rep

This is an attitude that many liberty-minded folk don't seem to understand. It's all cut-and-dry "mind your own business" but they fail to differentiate between the use of force as an abuse of power and the use of force as a means of aide from another human being. There is no power structure involved in one human stopping another from doing something they might regret. If I saw my girlfriend, dad, mom, brother, or a dear friend getting in a car absolutely smashed drunk, I would absolutely force them to stop.

There is no obligation for an individual to allow someone to make stupid decisions unless you really believe this type of behavior hurts the gene pool, which I think is bogus. This is how humans have survived, by helping each other, even if that help is sometimes unwelcomed. There is absolutely no reason to think that one individual helping another is some sort of violation of libertarian principles since no authority is ever invoked.

I do think that the situation matters though. Smoking a cigarette is not nearly as serious as jumping off a bridge. I also think it matters whether this "Help" is a one time thing or a continual means of controlling another person, if that makes sense.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I do think that the situation matters though. Smoking a cigarette is not nearly as serious as jumping off a bridge. I also think it matters whether this "Help" is a one time thing or a continual means of controlling another person, if that makes sense.

Which is for the individual and that other person to decide amongst themselves.

 

[Keith and stuff]

As long as someone kills oneself in a way that doesn't cost other people money, someone is certainly within their right to end their own life.