Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: October 23 2010 at 11:42
ExittheLemming wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
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.
It's only a commodity in the sense that you own it and thus can do anything with it so long as it does not interfere with others.
That's what I meant. When you say 'interfere' does that stretch to the critters who might feel a health and safety obligation to bury you? I know your remarks usually exclude the sphere of ethics, but don't we all have a duty to be there for the people we love and who love us? I agree that no-one can be forced to continue living if that is not their wish (and the history of Rock'n'Roll is littered with such instances) But compared to pissing off a loved one in an argument, bereavement surely interferes with others? (Yes I know that sounds very woolly but you get my drift)
I morally condone suicide also, not just legally. If you kill yourself leaving your wife alone to care for two kids, I would say that makes you a poor person, but I'm don't see any legal entitlement you owe to her necessarily.
You don't have a duty to do any such thing. You don't force survivors to bury you. It doesn't interfere with another's rights in any way. If it did you would be implying that somebody owned you or some part of you.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
^ You say that killing yourself is not immoral yet provide circumstances where you clearly deem it would be immoral (a wife left alone with children to raise by herself) Perhaps my use of the word 'duty' was inflammatory as it carries connotations applicable to taxes. I agree with the remainder of your post but would be guilty of a gross misunderstanding if I read 'I morally condone irresponsibility' from the first part?
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: October 24 2010 at 00:40
ExittheLemming wrote:
^ You say that killing yourself is not immoral yet provide circumstances where you clearly deem it would be immoral (a wife left alone with children to raise by herself) Perhaps my use of the word 'duty' was inflammatory as it carries connotations applicable to taxes. I agree with the remainder of your post but would be guilty of a gross misunderstanding if I read 'I morally condone irresponsibility' from the first part?
I'm not sure I understand your criticism. I admit that there are circumstances which would make it immoral, but my point is that the act itself in a vacuum is not necessarily wrong.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
^ You say that killing yourself is not immoral yet provide circumstances where you clearly deem it would be immoral (a wife left alone with children to raise by herself) Perhaps my use of the word 'duty' was inflammatory as it carries connotations applicable to taxes. I agree with the remainder of your post but would be guilty of a gross misunderstanding if I read 'I morally condone irresponsibility' from the first part?
I'm not sure I understand your criticism. I admit that there are circumstances which would make it immoral, but my point is that the act itself in a vacuum is not necessarily wrong.
OK, that's maybe where we differ in that I think our individual actions can never be isolated in this manner
Erm...the act of suicide itself wouldn't be necessary 'in a vacuum'
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: October 25 2010 at 12:03
Yup. The only other person who has a key in my dad. Who was at work at the time.
I just read an article that our township is cracking down on school bus "violators" to raise revenue. I guess that means they're going to write a bunch of tickets and hope people pay them.
This sh*t is fraud. It's criminal.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Posted: October 25 2010 at 12:38
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Yup. The only other person who has a key in my dad. Who was at work at the time.
I just read an article that our township is cracking down on school bus "violators" to raise revenue. I guess that means they're going to write a bunch of tickets and hope people pay them.
This sh*t is fraud. It's criminal.
Wow, yeah, that is absolutely appalling. I would also be enraged if I had to take off work to deal with that garbage.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: October 25 2010 at 12:54
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Yup. The only other person who has a key in my dad. Who was at work at the time.
I just read an article that our township is cracking down on school bus "violators" to raise revenue. I guess that means they're going to write a bunch of tickets and hope people pay them.
This sh*t is fraud. It's criminal.
It is disgusting. But it's an error (if you were sleeping) that could also happen, I guess, if these kind of things were in private hands.
So the point would be to eliminate penalties like that one. But then there will be idiots who will run by school buses being unloaded...
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: October 25 2010 at 14:34
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Yup. The only other person who has a key in my dad. Who was at work at the time.
I just read an article that our township is cracking down on school bus "violators" to raise revenue. I guess that means they're going to write a bunch of tickets and hope people pay them.
This sh*t is fraud. It's criminal.
It is disgusting. But it's an error (if you were sleeping) that could also happen, I guess, if these kind of things were in private hands.
So the point would be to eliminate penalties like that one. But then there will be idiots who will run by school buses being unloaded...
I don't believe it was an error. I don't see how something like that occurs erroneously.
The point would be to penalize someone when they do something wrong. The point is not to use these things to collect taxes while disguising them as safety.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: October 25 2010 at 14:57
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I just got a citation in the mail for a $450 violation.
Apparently I passed a school bus with its lights on while I was sleeping two days ago.
Now, again, I have to take a day off from work with no pay to go fight this because someone decided the township needed some extra cash.
Well if you were sleeping the citation was thoroughly deserved.
Equality. What do you mean? What were you fined for? (Can you translate this)
I guess he was at home sleeping. So no way he could be the one driving by the bus. But they cited him. So it's an error. And a stupid and big one at that. 450$ it's no joke plus the time off-work. Also, even if it was 10$ it would be a horrible error.
Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
Posted: October 25 2010 at 15:16
The T wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I just got a citation in the mail for a $450 violation.
Apparently I passed a school bus with its lights on while I was sleeping two days ago.
Now, again, I have to take a day off from work with no pay to go fight this because someone decided the township needed some extra cash.
Well if you were sleeping the citation was thoroughly deserved.
Equality. What do you mean? What were you fined for? (Can you translate this)
I guess he was at home sleeping. So no way he could be the one driving by the bus. But they cited him. So it's an error. And a stupid and big one at that. 450$ it's no joke plus the time off-work. Also, even if it was 10$ it would be a horrible error.
Thanks. It was what had he done wrong that I didn't understand. But I think from your post that it must be against the law to overtake a School Bus while it is letting off children? (Or picking them up)
It could be someone has copied/ cloned his number plates ?
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: October 25 2010 at 15:30
akamaisondufromage wrote:
^ Ok I understand that bit! Although we only have his word for it.
Is it against the law in the USA to overtake a school bus?
If it's stopped and with the STOP signs on, yes... Here buses have two STOP signs on both sides... When they stop to let a child out, both signs open like wings till they face drivers.... Cars driving in the same direction as the bus have to stop behind the bus till it closes the signs again. Drivers driving the opposite direction can keep on going if there's an aisle dividing both ways or have to slow down or even stop if there's no physical aisle. I might be wrong in a detail or two but this is hw it works
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.551 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
For my Libertarian friends
Topic Options
Padraic wrote:
)
to bury you? I know your remarks usually exclude the sphere of ethics, but don't we all have a duty to be there for the people we love and who love us? I agree that no-one can be forced to continue living if that is not their wish (and the history of Rock'n'Roll is littered with such instances) 
Ok I understand that bit! Although we only have his word for it.