Maybe, but if the person whose life you “save” then retaliates against your body and/or property in a way you surely won't like, and then checks out successfully, there will be nothing you can do about it.
Perhaps a deeper stripping away of noise elements is needed because this thread is going nowhere except into utter stupidity.
What do we mean when we say that we are "equal"? The answer as it applies to the use of the term at hand is nothing more and nothing less an an equal property claim to life itself. My claim to life is neither greater nor lesser than that of anyone else or of all humanity taken as a whole against my own. This is the Cardinal, Prime, or First Postulate and it is the foundation upon which all proper human relations are based. Without it, proper human relations cannot be formulated in a principled and logically reasoned manner except by accident, in which case it becomes impossible to demonstrate whether that at which one has arrived is in fact correct.
A "claim" in this sense of the term can only apply to property because the very conceptual fabric underlying it is that of
possession. My claim to life, being equal in conceptual and moral force to that of all others, taken separately or as a whole, must of necessity be a claim to property of some form. The object to which the claim is attached is my life and because it is claimed, it is therefore possessed and is thus property.
Having solidly established the property nature and status of my life to myself by virtue of my rightful claim thereto, it follows naturally, directly, necessarily, logically, intuitively, reasonably, axiomatically, and apodictically that I hold every authority, moral and otherwise, to keep or otherwise dispose of it as I may choose without unwelcome interference from outside parties.
QED
Thus demonstrated, I am able to further show that
any argument to the contrary, if accepted, leads in principle to, or otherwise necessitates the acceptance of, every imaginable tyranny. This cannot be avoided by any means whatsoever. This assertion is readily demonstrable against all contrary arguments, it's indomitable power residing in its very fabric vis-a-vis all others. It is obvious due to the fundamental logical structure of the relationship between this argument and all others, which is of the variety commonly known as "exclusive or". Another assertion I often quote of precisely the same structure is, "one is either free or is something else." In fundamental logic this is known as the principle of the exclusion of the middle. In computer science it is called the "exclusive or" (XOR). X is either X or it is not X.
My life is either mine or it is not. If it is not, whose is it? Is it mine partially? If so, who are the other owners and by what virtue do they stake claim to my life? Are their claims superior to mine? Are they equal? Are they inferior? How is this determined? Who determines it? By what authority do they make this determination? Are they sole owners of my life? If so, by what virtue? Who owns
their lives? And the litany of questions can grow virtually without end when one claims each man is not the sole proprietor of his own life.
Let us look at it from a slightly different perspective.
It is commonly understood that one holds the inalienable right to self defense. However, when we talk of "self defense", of what exactly do we speak? Certainly the defense of life and limb, and as far as that goes we are correct, but there is more to it - something of a more radical nature that is most often left undiscovered and therefore unsaid. When one defend's himself against mortal attack, for example, we all acknowledge he is defending his life from being taken from him (his property). But if we look at it with a bit more care we see that once again we are defending a property right, and arguably the most important one we possess. Our property rights subsume our lives and the integrity and health of our bodies. If I am justified in defending my property rights, then that justification must extend to any disposition of that property, whether it be to prevent it from being forcibly taken from me or forcibly retained. If I am justified in using deadly force to retain my life in the face of the dangers posed by unwanted third party interference, I am equally just in defending the same right as it applies to relinquishing that property. Therefore, if I am decided upon killing myself and another attempts to forcibly prevent me from relinquishing life, I am well within my rights to take whatever actions I may deem necessary and fit in retaliation against such interference and in defense of the most fundamental property claim that I hold.
Please God let this off-the-rails thread now be over.
