For my Libertarian friends

Being a modern Congresscritter seems pretty easy to me.  Pick a party, then just start parroting that party's rhetoric.  You don't even have to think.

I have another question. Maybe idiotic. Maybe not. Say you see a person in a car inhaling CO2 trying to commit suicide, or a person in the border of a bridge doing likewise. Would you attempt, even by force, to stop this person? Let's say you talk with him and he sounds like he's not psychotic and is not under the influence of anything, and he tells you he wants to do it. So you know his actual desire, his decision. Would you anyway forcefully try to stop him? 

The T wrote: I have another question. Maybe idiotic. Maybe not. Say you see a person in a car inhaling CO2 trying to commit suicide, or a person in the border of a bridge doing likewise. Would you attempt, even by force, to stop this person? Let's say you talk with him and he sounds like he's not psychotic and is not under the influence of anything, and he tells you he wants to do it. So you know his actual desire, his decision. Would you anyway forcefully try to stop him?

No I wouldn't. In fact, if someone forcibly stopped him I would attest that he[the person forcing him to stop] should be thrown in jail.


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - October 22 2010 at 15:25

Really, if you intervene in someone's suicide attempt it's only a matter of time before some lawyer will come a' knockin' at your door and eventually take everything from you.  I'm a live and let live (or die) sort.

The T wrote: I have another question. Maybe idiotic. Maybe not. Say you see a person in a car inhaling CO2 trying to commit suicide, or a person in the border of a bridge doing likewise. Would you attempt, even by force, to stop this person? Let's say you talk with him and he sounds like he's not psychotic and is not under the influence of anything, and he tells you he wants to do it. So you know his actual desire, his decision. Would you anyway forcefully try to stop him?

It's certainly not an idiotic question but you should know by now that these libertarians consider your life just another commodity like property rights i.e. if your life can be reduced to the concept of 'your property' then you have the right to destroy same (suicide) The same must be true for everything else like natural resources, which depending on which spin doctor you ask, either belong to everyone or no-one?

Suicide was illegal in the UK until 1961 (though I don't think there were too many cases come before the courts)
BTW they have decriminalised attempts on your own life that fail

Perhaps more interesting would be if a person committed suicide and had assets but had not made a will:
Under current laws in most countries their assets would pass automatically to the state. (which libertarians would clearly abhor)
Therefore, in this scenario is it just like natural resources i.e. finders keepers?

 

The T wrote:   Suicide illegal? Sorry, that's the ultimate stupidity. "Oh, you committed suicide, I'll send your corpse to jail". Or even worse "Oh, you tried to commit suicide, instead of helping you find a way in the darkness, I'll add to your worthlessness by putting you in jail". Revolting, disgusting.

Suicide attempts don't go to jail, they are forced to go into treatment, that's the whole point of making it illegal, as well as assisted suicide laws. I don't think anybody has ever gone to jail for a suicide attempt. 

France, that's where it's located.  And then it smells way on down...

The T wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: The T wrote: I have another question. Maybe idiotic. Maybe not. Say you see a person in a car inhaling CO2 trying to commit suicide, or a person in the border of a bridge doing likewise. Would you attempt, even by force, to stop this person? Let's say you talk with him and he sounds like he's not psychotic and is not under the influence of anything, and he tells you he wants to do it. So you know his actual desire, his decision. Would you anyway forcefully try to stop him?  It's certainly not an idiotic question but you should know by now that these libertarians consider your life just another commodity like property rights i.e. if your life can be reduced to the concept of 'your property' then you have the right to destroy same (suicide) The same must be true for everything else like natural resources, which depending on which spin doctor you ask, either belong to everyone or no-one? Suicide was illegal in the UK until 1961 (though I don't think there were too many cases come before the courts) BTW they have decriminalised attempts on your own life that fail Perhaps more interesting would be if a person committed suicide and had assets but had not made a will: Under current laws in most countries their assets would pass automatically to the state. (which libertarians would clearly abhor) Therefore, in this scenario is it just like natural resources i.e. finders keepers? Playing devil's advocate for a second, I really don't think libertarians consider life as a commodity. Actually, though I disagree with many libertarian views (mostly economical), I think they see life as less of a commodity than pure communists. Communists see life as work and as another means of production really, not for the individual benefit but for the collective's. Libertarians I would say see life as totally, well, LIFE, so-not-a-commodity that they think people can and should be allowed to do whatever people want with their lives. They don't assign a value on life other than being that, a life. And that's why they are so obsessed with anything that might enslave it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think I understand it like this.  Suicide illegal? Sorry, that's the ultimate stupidity. "Oh, you committed suicide, I'll send your corpse to jail". Or even worse "Oh, you tried to commit suicide, instead of helping you find a way in the darkness, I'll add to your worthlessness by putting you in jail". Revolting, disgusting.  The last question is interesting though I haven't given much thought.

Teo is right here. We don't view life as a commodity. Your life is very precious. Therefore, you should be able to run it how you see fit. Should I stop you from taking hang-gliding lessons because you might kill yourself? Should I stop you from smoking cigarettes?
If I personally witnessed an attempted suicide, I would advise the person to think it over carefully and not be rash. I would disagree with his decision, but ultimately it is his decision. Not mine.

The T wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: The T wrote: I have another question. Maybe idiotic. Maybe not. Say you see a person in a car inhaling CO2 trying to commit suicide, or a person in the border of a bridge doing likewise. Would you attempt, even by force, to stop this person? Let's say you talk with him and he sounds like he's not psychotic and is not under the influence of anything, and he tells you he wants to do it. So you know his actual desire, his decision. Would you anyway forcefully try to stop him?  It's certainly not an idiotic question but you should know by now that these libertarians consider your life just another commodity like property rights i.e. if your life can be reduced to the concept of 'your property' then you have the right to destroy same (suicide) The same must be true for everything else like natural resources, which depending on which spin doctor you ask, either belong to everyone or no-one? Suicide was illegal in the UK until 1961 (though I don't think there were too many cases come before the courts) BTW they have decriminalised attempts on your own life that fail Perhaps more interesting would be if a person committed suicide and had assets but had not made a will: Under current laws in most countries their assets would pass automatically to the state. (which libertarians would clearly abhor) Therefore, in this scenario is it just like natural resources i.e. finders keepers? Playing devil's advocate for a second, I really don't think libertarians consider life as a commodity. Actually, though I disagree with many libertarian views (mostly economical), I think they see life as less of a commodity than pure communists. Communists see life as work and as another means of production really, not for the individual benefit but for the collective's. Libertarians I would say see life as totally, well, LIFE, so-not-a-commodity that they think people can and should be allowed to do whatever people want with their lives. They don't assign a value on life other than being that, a life. And that's why they are so obsessed with anything that might enslave it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think I understand it like this.  Suicide illegal? Sorry, that's the ultimate stupidity. "Oh, you committed suicide, I'll send your corpse to jail". Or even worse "Oh, you tried to commit suicide, instead of helping you find a way in the darkness, I'll add to your worthlessness by putting you in jail". Revolting, disgusting.  The last question is interesting though I haven't given much thought.

thellama73 wrote: jammun wrote: And now a more ethical question:   My cat has just killed a bird (well, maybe it's dead).  The bird is so big that, in cat's mouth, I'm not sure cat can see where he's going.  I'll be left to clean up whatever mess is left regardless.   Appropriate response is?   1.  Kill cat.  Understand, cat has already successfully survived run-in with coyote, so is no stranger to violence in the back yard, both on the giving and receving end.  So on this one there are mitigating factors. 2.  Bury bird, or what's left of it.  Hey, it's dead anyway. 3.  Enact legislation that makes it illegal for cats to kill birds.  Hold cat owner responsible, and fine the bejeezus outta them (me).  For what it's worth, I willingly license the cat at no small cost yearly. 4.  Let it be.  sh*t happens.   You should applaud your cat for its hunting ability. Birds are stupid anyway.