/liberty/ - Liberty

Yes, however if someone you don't know or haven't interacted with, is about to commit suicide if you try to stop him you do break the NAP, but depending on the community you live in you might get called a hero or a criminal and get sued by the guy who tried to kill himself(like in Japan).

>>65723

Depends. Did you break the NAP in the process, or was it limited to mean words? In the latter case, you're not committing a crime, you're just an asshole. You also likely won't cause anyone to commit a suicide, unless they're already extremely neurotic and close to the edge.

One important thing to keep in mind is that many teens that commit suicide have been bullied in school. What schools? Public schools, where they were locked in a room for eight hours each day and at worst forced to deal with juvenile delinquents and sadistic teachers. Then they commit suicide, and somehow, "bullying" and "the internet" is to blame. Seldom is someone specific mentioned, like a classmate or a teacher or, God behold, the asshole in charge of the damn school or of the education system.

>>65727

>however if someone you don't know or haven't interacted with, is about to commit suicide if you try to stop him you do break the NAP

Not necessarily, or at least not necessarily with malicious intent. If someone who is clearly out of his mind tries to cut his own head off, then you're not violating any of his rights if you restrain him until he's lucid again.

No, of course it isn't. Words aren't an aggression unless you violate their property rights in some way, like vandlizing their property with the words "kill your self" or attacking them physically(i.e. bullying). You've done nothing wrong (NAP wise, the moral question here is debatable but imo that's not wrong either).

>>65737

Forgot to include this but, my point is, they have the agency to make their own decisions, and it's their life to take, you are at worse an accomplice in something that is also not a violation of the NAP, it was their body to kill, and they made the decision to kill it, whether you had an impact on it or not.

This is different from if you were to have convinced them to hurt someone else, in which you'd be an accomplice to something that is a violation of the NAP.

>>65723

no

>>65750

>should Rezső Seress (the writer of the song) have been arrested for what he wrote?

Libertarians on this board have not been able to answer my reply to the "Communication is a two way street" problem, which was,

"What if the cases were determined by discovering whether the person meant to offend"?

So I shall repost it here.

No but it's very rude

>>65723

It is if you violate his choice to be left alone, through: bullying, stalking, private property violation etc.

Psychological trauma still damage, just like physical trauma.

>>65723

No, but it's still immoral.

>stopping someone from pushing people to suicide is not okay

>preventing a suicide is a violation of the NAP

So libertarians just want people to kill themselves. Can't wait for lolberts to wipe themselves out by suicide and then whine, "not muh libertarianism".

>>65843

>so libertarians just want people to kill themselves.

Yea, the violent outbreak of unobstructed suicide attempts will lead to the end of society as we know it. Because leaving people alone means you want them to die and suffer.

>>65843

And once again, you ignore the posts that would vitiate your propaganda:

>>65730

>>65820

You also ignored the reasoning in all other posts entirely.

>>65737

It's never just words, nobody kills himself because of that.

The cause is either fucking with someone's means to live, or undue ostracism. The former is clear aggression, and the latter only applies if you're in a situation where you can't leave.

Dismantle forced socialization places like public schools, allow people to keep the profits from their work, allow people to choose who they associate with, give them working courts that they stand a chance in, don't stress them out with dystopian police state shit, and you'll see suicides drop all the way back to "freak accident" levels.

>>65843

lolberts are mentally strong

You can't force someone to freely do something. If it's suicide it's not a problem. If you shot his dog and put a large amount of dissociatives in his water supply then that's a different story.

>>65843

I don't want people to kill themselves, just you filthy leftists.

>>65727

This is dumb, does the NAP not apply when one or both members of the party are being irrational, or immoral, as is the case in suicide?

>>66094

>are being irrational

Debatable but probably not

>or immoral

Where the fuck did you read that?

>>66094

it applies

>>66094

There is nothing irrational with suicide, and it's only immoral if you are a chrisitan, as it it considered an instant-go-to-hell card.

>>66094

“They tell us that Suicide is the greatest piece of Cowardice… That Suicide is wrong; when it is quite obvious that there is nothing in this world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person.”

>>66263

Well, it is egotistic and cowardly. There's a reason almost only crazy neurotics commit suicide.

>>66266

>lol only cowards commit suicide

>what, are you too afraid to commit suicide? pathetic

make up your mind

>>66337

>what, are you too afraid to commit suicide? pathetic

Not sure if anyone on this board ever said that, but it sure as hell wasn't me. That he had my flag doesn't mean anything, we got at least three more regulars that use exactly this flag.

>>66258

>there is nothing irrational about suicide

it is irreversible, to suicide is to reduce your options to zero where as to live on always leaves you with the option of committing suicide at a later point

>>66457

so?

>>66043

>undue ostracism

sounds like /liberty/'s version of hate speech laws

>>66631

Hate speech is fun speech.

>>66266

>egoistic as sth bad

XD

>>66629

You have to maximize your choices to be happy even if you don't want to because you're miserable, otherwise you're irrational

>>67105

>maximizing choices

what does it mean?

>>67177

Nothing

>>65727

>get sued by the guy who tried to kill himself(like in Japan).

sounds interesting

i would like to read more about it

>>66631

I don't think that post is an accurate reflection of the majority opinion around here.

>>67105

Please take your positive liberty bullshit elsewhere. Saving people from suicide is a violation of bodily autonomy. It sounds noble when it's someone stopping a friend from jumping off a bridge, but not so much when MILLBOT 3000 forces immortality upon its subjects - more choices is better, right? - and prevents them from killing themselves to escape the eternal ennui of existence.