Suicide.. The ultimate freedom?

[SAK]

I propose the death penalty for 1st degree suicide offenders 

[powerchuter]

Just yesterday we were talking about a case where police were called to "check the welfare" of a person that a relative or friend thought was suicidal.  They went to the home and proceeded to "claim" to have jurisdiction over the person...and when that person refused to give "jurisdiction" to them...they shot him dead...

Go figure...

It's way past time Claire!

[eques]

I don't know if I've been clear on this or not.

I've been suicidal.  I needed help, sure.  But the kind of help I needed wasn't to have somebody run around, rounding off sharp edges.

I can't speak for every joker wishing to off themselves, but I can speak from my own experience that such "compassion" might have just pissed me off, ZAP notwithstanding.  I can also say that it was much more about a shift in perspective, and this was only achieved through time and the occasional spot of good advice I got from people who took the time to listen and had the courage to say what I needed to hear.

However, before I started taking good advice seriously, I lived off of other people's pity.  I am sad to say that I probably wanted pity more than I wanted to feel better.  So I might have been simultaneously pissed off and grateful for the shower of pity obtained by a mother hen, clucking over knives and drugs and whatnot.

I've emphasized that this was my own experience.  I know that other people have it much harder than I did, but it happens all too often that I see somebody who complains about depression or whatever, and I see that they're doing it to themselves much more than any other influence.

All of this comes down to what I've observed over my brief tenure on the planet: individuals wrap themselves up in chains, lock themselves in cellars, and close their eyes and ears.  Only they are able to open their eyes, listen with their ears.  Only they have the keys with which to unlock the chains and open the cellar doors.

NB: I realize, yes, there are people with severe mental disorders out there, ones that require an advanced level of assistance.  Even then, progress requires effort on the part of the individual and cannot come from without.

[EJinCT]

But I wouldn't call it "the ultimate freedom" either.  Freedom implies life.  Once life is gone, there is no freedom because there is no ability to make choices.

I disagree. To me, freedom implies choice. As long as one draws breath one should enjoy the freedom of making those choices no matter where they ultimately lead.

My personal beliefs also dictate that there is existance beyond that of physical incarnation and as such there is no end to "life", nor loss of ability to make choices.

[MaineShark]

This is why I find myself moving more and more away from the individualist anarchist approach; in reality, it is as "rule based" as the current law is.

A single rule ("it is never just to initiate force against another person"), which can be logically derived from reality, is as silly as the legal system with all its insane laws and rules?  Come on, now...

The guys who are holding Russell can't make a distinction between Russell and a drunk driver.  I know this, because I talked to the Lt. myself.  In his mind, the whole system of rules and regulations ad infinitum are designed to prevent drunk driving, and thus, Russell removing himself from that whole system is a danger to his system.  It isn't *people* based, it's rule based.

That might be what he tells himself, so he can sleep at night, but his system is actually designed simply to destroy individuality and use people for power.

The goal of any prohibition is to protect a person against unwarranted aggression.  There are times, however, when a person presents a danger to himself.  I've lived with a suicidal person.  Trust me, it's not a lot of fun. I've hid weapons, knives, anything sharp.  I've dumped medicine down the toilet. I've taken car keys with me so that she couldn't use the car to kill herself. All these things were, by the most technical application of ZAP, immoral.  I disagree with that because it overlooks the spirit of ZAP, which is to *protect* life and property. 

Please understand, I'm not advocating a system to draw up rules and regulations. But I'm talking about direct personal interaction between people who care about each other. That is the foundation of all Society.

What, pray tell, gives you the authority to decide?

The ZAP is purely negative in nature.  It is not designed to "protect life and property."  I am under no obligation to pick up your newspaper if you leave it out in the rain, nor am I under any obligation to prevent you from killing yourself.  It's your decision, and who am I to prevent you from making your own choices?

Look at the case of terminally ill folks who are in constant pain and choose not to suffer any longer.  Are you going to interfere with someone in that situation?

Joe

[Caleb]

What, pray tell, gives you the authority to decide?

The ZAP is purely negative in nature.  It is not designed to "protect life and property."  I am under no obligation to pick up your newspaper if you leave it out in the rain, nor am I under any obligation to prevent you from killing yourself.  It's your decision, and who am I to prevent you from making your own choices?

Look at the case of terminally ill folks who are in constant pain and choose not to suffer any longer.  Are you going to interfere with someone in that situation?

Joe

I suppose the answer is that *love* gives me the authority to decide.  As you will notice, I have mentioned this prerogative only in a situation of a caring relationship between two people (eg, mother/children, wife/husband, brother/sister, friend/friend).

You have it right.  The ZAP is only negative.  But love is positive; it doesn't merely refrain from acting, it sometimes acts.

I would agree that violence is always wrong.  But the ZAP applies the concept of violence to theft of property, which I do not believe is violence under certain circumstances.  Let me give you another example:  I see a friend in an epileptic fit.  I grab a pillow to put under her head, but since she is bleeding from the mouth, her pillow is ruined.  When she recovers, is she going to blame me for the destruction of her property and demand restitution? If the property is used to prevent a greater tragedy befalling someone, I don't see how that is theft.

Would I interfere in a terminally ill person destroying themselves? Possibly, if it was my grandmother and I thought that there was some possibility of recovery.

[MaineShark]

I suppose the answer is that *love* gives me the authority to decide.  As you will notice, I have mentioned this prerogative only in a situation of a caring relationship between two people (eg, mother/children, wife/husband, brother/sister, friend/friend).

What about if you love someone, and that person doesn't love you?  Do you still get to decide?

I would agree that violence is always wrong.  But the ZAP applies the concept of violence to theft of property, which I do not believe is violence under certain circumstances.  Let me give you another example:  I see a friend in an epileptic fit.  I grab a pillow to put under her head, but since she is bleeding from the mouth, her pillow is ruined.  When she recovers, is she going to blame me for the destruction of her property and demand restitution? If the property is used to prevent a greater tragedy befalling someone, I don't see how that is theft.

It is theft, and she could demand restitution.  It would be silly of her, because she might have another bout of epilepsy, and you might not act to saver her on that occasion, but it would certainly be her choice to demand resitution if she liked.

Would I interfere in a terminally ill person destroying themselves? Possibly, if it was my grandmother and I thought that there was some possibility of recovery.

Okay, let's try some others.  What if your grandmother smokes?  Does love give you the right to take her cigarettes?  They are, after all, harmful.

What if she wants to get a tattoo, because she always wanted one and never had the guts, but you think her friends will laugh at her when she gets it?  Does love give you the right to take her money so she can't pay a tattoo artist?

Once you start on this "love gives me the right to do what I like" road, it never ends.

Joe

[Lloyd Danforth]

Once you get into anecdotes, it never ends

[eques]

Love/compassion must be checked against rationality.  A feeling of compassion may spur you to an action, but then you must consider if that action violates that person's rights.  Consider how many political programs are justified as being "compassionate."  Sure, the politicians probably aren't fooled, but what of your neighbor?

And isn't there a song or something that says that sometimes, love is about letting go?

[aries]

suicide isn't illegal

"In the U.S. suicide has never been treated as a crime nor punished by property forfeiture or ignominious burial. (Some states listed it on the books as a felony but imposed no penalty.) Curiously, as of 1963, six states still considered attempted suicide a crime--North and South Dakota, Washington, New Jersey, Nevada, and Oklahoma. Of course they didn't take matters as seriously as the Roman emperor Hadrian, who in 117 AD declared attempted suicide by soldiers a form of desertion and made it--no joke this time--a capital offense."