/liberty/ - Liberty

if you have no right to commit suicide then it means you dont really own your body

>>101248

Same with prostitution and ingestion of addictive drugs.

what are they gonna do if you do kill yourself? arrest you?

>>101241

We don't need this shit in the libertarian movement. Winning the ideological battle requires hope and courage, a blackpilled loser has neither. Committing suicide implies that you have nothing to lose, but if you have nothing to lose then you can dedicate your life to something infinitely greater than yourself, or at least you have the freedom to do whatever you want because you don't care anymore, but instead they throw their lives away out of spite because of some petty bullshit like not having a girlfriend.

>>101256

Yes, and?

Same with voluntary compensated slavery.

>>101264

This basically. You have a right to kill yourself, but if you're truly prepared to kill yourself, you could at least do the world a favor first lynching a politician or maxing out a credit card to give food to charities or something.

>>101264

suicidal people have nothing to lose, but also nothing to gain. society shitted on them so they have no reason to do anything for it. if you get shitty team in multiplayer game, you just leave to not waste any more time, this is similar, just not so easy to "disconnect from server"

>>101270

>He doesn't team kill when his teammates are shitters making him lose the game

>He doesn't fuck with people in an obviously lost match

Clearly they have something to gain, otherwise they'd give away their shit, get a few easy credit cards, and max them out partying it up before blowing their brains out.

>>101275

suicidal people couldn't give a less shit about money/parties/whatever. none of that stuff brings joy to them and they wan't to end it ASAP and forget.

>>101256

this

If you aren't sane enough to not engage in very harmful behaviour then you shouldn't have the right to decide what to do with your own body. Children don't have the right to do whatever they want because aren't developed, people that want to kill themselves have developed incorrectly.

>>101278

and i thought /liberty/ isn't full of faggots with need to tell people what to do and what to not do

>>101270

Reality is far more complex than getting a "shitty team in a multiplayer game". Stop attentionwhoring and fuck off with your shit thread, no one cares about your problems, you're obviously not here to get help, go bitch somewhere else.

>>101276

Bullshit. If they really wanted to just end it they'd off themselves and not debate whether they should, post about it online, etc. Clearly "suicidal" people (the ones that don't just kill themselves and get it over with) clearly have something they're living for. It's extremely easy to kill oneself if one wants to. The human jaw is strong enough to bite one's tongue and bleed to death if they literally have no other option and it's well documented (in old people) that your body will start shutting down completely if you want to die that badly.

>>101278

>If you aren't sane enough to not engage in very harmful behaviour then you shouldn't have the right to decide what to do with your own body.

Then tell me, who should? Who should have the right to unilaterally circumvent your wishes and do as they please with your own body?

>>101264

>some petty bullshit like not having a girlfriend.

When will you faggots learn that a life lived with no offspring is just a walking, talking 60+ year death?

Nice memes, by the way. "Hope," "courage," "losers," "infinitely greater" "greater than yourself". A veritable smorgasbord of memes.

>>101278

<Anyone who doesn't act as I like is, in actuality, property

I'd like it if you'd become suicidal. You're obviously an authoritarian of some stripe. You should spend more time lurking since you clearly don't understand dick about liberty or freedom.

>>101292

>just posted this to tell you I totally don't care about this thread

good job, now fuck off

>>101296

well if you're talking about these incels then yeah, these losers don't have balls to kill themselves, but not all suicidal people are like that. suicide should be allowed in libertarian society, otherwise it won't be libertarian

>>101299

No idea, but you obviously can't make decisions for yourself if your decisions end in your death. I wouldn't give a schizophrenic the same rights because they aren't sane, the same applies to someone that wants to kill themselves

>>101300

Freedom will be taken advantage of by those that have bad intentions, allowing people the freedom to kill themselves is your community rejecting their duty to you. Fascist by the way. I wouldn't let you kill yourself if you begged me, anon.

>>101325

Anon, by this logic, I wouldn't even let you drink tea with sugar, because it's unhealthy and you're taking an action that leads to your death. It's not freedom that is taken advantage of by those with bad intentions, it's security. Politicians will come up with all sorts of lies to justify that what they are doing to you is for your own good, even when it clearly isn't.

Of course, if my community cares enough about me, then they will help me or give me a kick in the ass when I need it, but never try to unite the community and the government into one and the same thing, it's the reason why we don't have closely-knit communities anymore.

>>101300

>reproduction is the only path to immortality

I bet you're a materialist.

>>101325

>but you obviously can't make decisions for yourself if your decisions end in your death

This is a bald assertion. Try substantiating your claims using logic.

Fascism rose because the engineering caste were enslaved successfully by people who broke them with corruption and criminality. Smart enough to tell the truth was eclipsed by smart enough to lie. Abusing the public predictably drove the leadership into suicidal misery, making predictable that they should be dying in power as fascists deserve!

>>101331

The argument is not that killing yourself doesn't go against your self-interest, it is that you have a right to kill yourself. If your claim is that an individual is unable to justly act in a manner contrary to their self-interest, you need to first demonstrate why we should believe that this claim is true.

>>101332

You're the one asserting that you have the right to kill yourself, you should defend that assertion.

>>101333

Do you recognize that in order to prove this right, all we need to do is prove self-ownership? >>101248

>>101334

People with mental disorders aren't capable of making informed decisions because their world view is skewed by whatever temporary emotion they're feeling. Do you ever think that theres something wrong with your ideology when it demands you do nothing while someone suffered and ends their own life?

>>101336

Are you asserting that those overcome by emotion have at that moment no just claim of ownership over their own body?

>>101337

Every person is capable of doing something they'd regret later. If they're alive afterwards they can change their mind, death is permanent.

>>101331

>Drinking a bit of sugar doesn't equal death,

Explain that to a politician. If you come up with a well-intentioned law to prevent people from killing themselves, then some cocksucker in the party will label sugar as a poison that causes diabetes and kills people. Every law can and will be abused. People should be allowed to make stupid mistakes at their own cost, this way you get a society based on responsibility, and not careless state-mandated degeneracy.

>There are reasons why communities don't exist and they are a result of policy, policy can reverse it if government are controlled by people that aren't ethnic enemies.

Communities existed before governments existed, they weren't just invented in the 20th century by modernist governments. Communities always form when people are allowed to self-organize, they don't exist anymore because they were replaced by government and public institutions, just like big families are needed anymore because there's welfare and government.

>>101338

And why do you consider it unjust for an individual to perform an action which they may regret later?

You seem to be operating off of the belief that some other party has a claim of ownership over individuals and that thus an individual killing themselves is an injustice to that hence undefined third party. Is this correct?

>>101339

>Explain that to a politician.

I'm on board with there not being politicians at least.

> this way you get a society based on responsibility, and not careless state-mandated degeneracy.

At the cost of great human suffering, which I'm not on board with, I'd hope muh community would refuse to sell cake to the 300 Ibs woman and she'd be socially shamed into losing weight.

>Communities existed before governments existed

I didn't say they didn't, I said government destroyed communities with policy, which is true. Government managed to not do this for a long time and (((for some reason))) they are doing it now.

>>101340

>And why do you consider it unjust for an individual to perform an action which they may regret later?

I didn't say that, you can't regret suicide later if you do it right. Stop trying to reduce things to autistic contracts and arguments about rights, someone killing themselves is bad and it shouldn't happen and people should be prevented from doing it wherever possible.

>>101341

>someone killing themselves is bad and it shouldn't happen

Not to the person who is actually choosing to kill themselves, obviously. It's myopic and selfish of you to act like everyone should do what you want and then refuse to defend your claims rationally.

Do you or do you not recognize that individuals own themselves? If you do, there is no reason to believe that they are doing anything unjust by destroying something that they own, and thus it is irrational to believe that you have a right to violate their self-ownership just because you disagree with how they are using it.

>>101342

>doing something horrible to yourself is fine because self ownership

Ignoring how ghoulish that is, how about if a hypothetical community gets everyone, when they are in a healthy state of mind, to voluntarily sign a contract that certain rights are voided when they make a decision to kill themselves. Hypothetically does this mesh with this robotic ideology?

Also, do you personally consider anything to be wrong if its a person doing it to themselves? If not, do you think you should reevaluate your positions?

>>101342

A separate question, do children have self ownership?

>>101344

It's fundamentally impossible for the right of self-ownership to be voided in the way that you're talking about. The nature of human existence means that an individual will always have the strongest claim of ownership over their own body. Even if you sign a contract saying that someone else now owns your body, there is no way of actually transferring ownership over to them, short of forcibly extracting your consciousness from it through death. As long as you are conscious, you are still are the final arbiter of control over your body, and thus the owner of it; someone can tell you to do some action or be tortured, but it is still ultimately up to you whether or not your body will perform the action or not.

It is possible to obtain consent to perform actions on a person, but the validity of the consent depends on how it was obtained.

>do you personally consider anything to be wrong if its a person doing it to themselves?

Depends on how you define "wrong". Is it destructive to the goal of self-actualization? Usually.

>>101345

If you can accurately describe them as an individual, they have a claim to self-ownership. Merely becoming emotional or hysterical or what have you doesn't deprive you of individuality. If, however, someone was sleepwalking and for some reason started killing themselves it would be acceptable to stop them, because at that moment it can truly be said that they have no conscious control over their body, and thus their ownership of their body is not being violated.

>>101346

So to sum up, you'd stand by and allow your own family or friends to kill themselves and you think children "who could be described as individuals" don't have to listen to their parents, is that about right?

>>101341

society pushed into your mind suicide is bad, but it isn't. the only reason suicide is actively fought against is because when someone kills himself, system doesn't have control over him anymore

also as stated, laws preventing suicide could be always twisted and abused because you cannot define exact state when person is doing harmful action to kill themselves and when not. smoking could be banned, because you're trying to kill yourself, same goes with unhealthy food, sports etc.

>>101347

>So to sum up, you'd stand by and allow your own family or friends to kill themselves

I would not violate their right of self-ownership to stop them.

>you think children "who could be described as individuals" don't have to listen to their parents

That is not what I said. Saying that one possesses their own body does not mean that they don't "have to" listen to anybody. Though I don't know what you mean by "have to".

>>101347

not the guy you're replying to but yes, it is their decision and although I love them, I can't forcibly hold them here knowing they're suffering, that would be selfish

Thanks for the screencaps guys. Its going to be a lot of help.