/liberty/ - Liberty

Unless you're attached to him with a rope or him jumping off will harm you, yes.

Oh m8,

>Someone is making a split decision which will have unfixable long term consequences for him and everyone will mourn the loss

>If I try to stop him I'll get talked to by a security officer at best

>>60052

…if /liberty/ can't agree that you own your own goddam body, then I know you're all a bunch of LINOs.

>>60054

The sad thing is that in our current society people would rather pull out their phones first in order to stream the splat on social media. Spooky.

>>60049

Good Samaritans and all that.

It's theoretically a violation, but if the man didn't warn anyone prior, one could claim they were being a good Samaritan by saving him. Plus the man is violating the NAP by dying on someone else's property, forcing them to clean up/dispose of the body as well as lowering their property values via suicide on that property.

>>60058

A better question is if a landlord commits suicide and doesn't leave behind a will for his properties/apartments, who owns the property?

>>60059

I would like to argue that it would either go to his closest living relative, and if one could not be found or it is explicitly forbidden in his will, his property would default as "unclaimed" and be once again open for grabs by anybody who gets there first and actively works towards making a legitimate claim. improving the property, claiming his intentions to own it, etc

>>60049

He can commit suicide somewhere else. There are other ways to kill yourself than making a huge scene.

>>60049

yes

>>60059

<BEING A LOLBERTARIAN

<STILL NOT UNDERSTANDING INTESTACY LAW

KEK

>>60093

>>60059

>>60058

>>60052

I don't think I want to be a libertarian anymore.

If you're using force yes, but you can always persuade your "friend" by non-physical means.

>>60148

If the realization that every person owns their body and agency to act, and can end their life whenever at will, is too much to handle, then so be it.

>>60153

Everyone I quoted is against people owning their own body and being able to end it when they wish.

>>60169

You can end your life, just not on my property.

>>60169

>Everyone I quoted

I just wanted to note that you're autistic. >>60052 obviously is trying to reason why you should be allowed to keep people form killing themselves.

>>60169

Go kill yourself, just not around me.

Theoretical NAP violation scenarios are stupid. NAP is the principal to start at but eventually you have to realize there's a lot of subjective shit in the world which is why even anarchists of all stripes believe in something akin to a court system faggot.

>>60148

cuck

>>60827

>There needs to be consequences

No there doesn't. There only needs to be consequences if the victim wants to seek retribution. Theoretically there are heaps of micro aggressions that technically violate the NAP but are too small for anyone to bother about. An example is pollution, and you could argue that by burning your toast you are polluting the atmosphere and violating the property rights of others, but the fact is that no one cares to seek compensation for this infinitesimally small violation of the NAP. The NAP isn't an absolute guide for moral behaviour, it's a general ethical principle for society so it can function peaceably. If you genuinely believe you are helping someone by braking the NAP that is justification for doing it, but if you were wrong then you must bear the consequences afterwards. Let's examine this situation for a moment: is it at all likely that the suicidee will try and seek retribution for having the NAP violated? Firstly, we would have to assume that the suicidee had permission from the property owner to kill himself in a public place - an absurd proposition - otherwise he'd be throwing stones in a glass house. If the guy was killing himself on his own property then trespassing is a bit more serious an offence. Secondly, if the suicidee was seeking retribution, we would assume that he had gotten over his suicidal tendencies and was effectively suing the guy for saving his life - also pretty absurd.

>>60825

does it break a NAP to fuck a corpse of dead person?

>>60862

>You can own a house if you build it

>You can't own your body even though you built it

Come on, it does. Unless that person allowed you to fuck your corpse, of course.

That was pretty simple.

>>60880

>a dead body owns itself

What?

>>60882

this xd

>>60882

A dead body owned itself back when it was still alive, so if a person gives permission (before they die) to do something to their body after they die, that permission is valid.

Whose property is the building and the ground? If it is my property I can stop as many jumpers as I want because I don't want property values to go down, go kill yourself on your own land you fuck. If it is his property it is his right to an hero all he wants and stopping him would be an NAP violation, also stopping him sets precedent for a whole pandora's box of "for your own good citizen" NAP violations

>>61100

If I can prevent someone from committing suicide I can also prevent them from living for their own good.

>>61100

>If it is his property it is his right to an hero all he wants and stopping him would be an NAP violation, also stopping him sets precedent for a whole pandora's box of "for your own good citizen" NAP violations

I don't see it that way, as long as you leave the suicidal person the chance to sue his rescuer. That would reassert his right of self-ownership, and put the rescuer in the position of the commissioner.

Something out of life, I had a friend who was a schizophrenic of the worst kind. She smashed her head against a wall so bad it put her in a coma for a month. Afterwards, she wasn't suicidal anymore. If someone had prevented that, I doubt she would've sued. And I believe anyone's first instinct would've been to restrain her. Rightly so, in hindsight, and not in my judgement but in hers.

>>61103

>What I worry about is if the NAP isn't consistently upheld by those who abide by it, it will lose its teeth.

That's a pretty good worry. Something like that is why I proudly belong to the extremist wing of libertarianism. Someone's gotta play devils advocate when principles are sacrificed for expediency.

>>61104

Kek, forgot to take my shitposting flag off.

>>61104

gute idee

>>60049

Is scaring the hiccups out of someone before they ask a violation of the NAP?

>>61546

Emotions don't matter in the NAP, so no.

What are you even going for?

>>60049

This is a violation of the man's self ownership; but it's somewhat rational that the courts would rule an exception, the man would choose not to press charges, etc. So the answer is really a maybe.

am i banned

>>64320

shadowbans dont real

as for the actual topic I would say yes, stopping someone from killing themselves is a violation of the nap if you do it by tackling them away from the ledge or something, but even so if there is no victim (in this case meaning that the potential jumper does not care to claim claim damages or retribution of some kind) then there is no crime

>>64349

sage for double post

a good example is there is a fire in you neighbors kitchen, they are out at work.

should you bust in and put it out you are trespassing, but it is unlikely that they would care to pursue this violation, and even if they did were the houses close enough a court might decide it was you defending your own property

>>64350

Most likely, a judge would assume you had their tacit consent or, if you didn't, that you didn't act with mal intent.