[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
My question is thus: Does the government have the right to forcibly prevent you from taking your own life? If so, the idea that we are free men is null.[/quote]
The right? No-no such right can possibly exist. Will the state use its superior force to prevent you from doing so? Absolutely. Will the state send people wearing ridiculous costumes to force you to be evaluated? Absolutely. If you resist the attempt of those people to take you captive, will they bring more costumed folks to take you captive? Yes. Is there a good chance the enforcers will kill you if you attempt to employ a force equalizer, such as a firearm? Yes. I’ve read plenty of your posts, and you are far too intelligent to believe we are free.[/quote]
Well, I don’t know how it is in China or Russia or wherever you are, but in the United States it’s not that bad. Any free society needs a certain degree of authority or there will be chaos and anarchy. Call it a necessary inconvenience.
[/quote]
-Please point out the falsehoods in my post.
[/quote]
There are laws allowing for doctors to involuntarily detain people and take away their shoelaces and belts. I’m sure you’re familiar with the procedure.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
My question is thus: Does the government have the right to forcibly prevent you from taking your own life? If so, the idea that we are free men is null.[/quote]
The right? No-no such right can possibly exist. Will the state use its superior force to prevent you from doing so? Absolutely. Will the state send people wearing ridiculous costumes to force you to be evaluated? Absolutely. If you resist the attempt of those people to take you captive, will they bring more costumed folks to take you captive? Yes. Is there a good chance the enforcers will kill you if you attempt to employ a force equalizer, such as a firearm? Yes. I’ve read plenty of your posts, and you are far too intelligent to believe we are free.[/quote]
Well, I don’t know how it is in China or Russia or wherever you are, but in the United States it’s not that bad. Any free society needs a certain degree of authority or there will be chaos and anarchy. Call it a necessary inconvenience.
[/quote]
-Please point out the falsehoods in my post.
[/quote]
There are laws allowing for doctors to involuntarily detain people and take away their shoelaces and belts. I’m sure you’re familiar with the procedure.
[/quote]
Again, please point out the falsehoods in my original post. I was merely answering cwill’s question. He did bring up a good point. If the state is allowed to forcibly take custody of its citizens, for the purpose of mental evaluations, there is no way the citizens can be called ‘free.’ If you do not even get to control your own life, how can you possibly be free? I understand, although I disagree with(at least when it comes to socialized roads), those who believe speed limits, etc. are justified, due to the possibly increased chance that one will harm another by traveling at a high speed, etc., but granting the state the power to forcibly take custody of one who only poses a danger to himself is another matter altogether. There is no way that a society which permits such action is a free one.
Perhaps you don’t want to be free, and that is fine, but don’t pretend that we are. Human history shows that people prefer peaceful slavery to dangerous freedom, so it is what it is, and there’s no reason to sugarcoat it.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
My question is thus: Does the government have the right to forcibly prevent you from taking your own life? If so, the idea that we are free men is null.[/quote]
The right? No-no such right can possibly exist. Will the state use its superior force to prevent you from doing so? Absolutely. Will the state send people wearing ridiculous costumes to force you to be evaluated? Absolutely. If you resist the attempt of those people to take you captive, will they bring more costumed folks to take you captive? Yes. Is there a good chance the enforcers will kill you if you attempt to employ a force equalizer, such as a firearm? Yes. I’ve read plenty of your posts, and you are far too intelligent to believe we are free.[/quote]
Well, I don’t know how it is in China or Russia or wherever you are, but in the United States it’s not that bad. Any free society needs a certain degree of authority or there will be chaos and anarchy. Call it a necessary inconvenience.
[/quote]
-Please point out the falsehoods in my post.
[/quote]
There are laws allowing for doctors to involuntarily detain people and take away their shoelaces and belts. I’m sure you’re familiar with the procedure.
[/quote]
Again, please point out the falsehoods in my original post. I was merely answering cwill’s question. He did bring up a good point. If the state is allowed to forcibly take custody of its citizens, for the purpose of preventing them from taking their own lives, there is no way the citizens can be called ‘free.’ If you do not even get to control your own life, how can you possibly be free? I understand, although I disagree with(at least when it comes to socialized roads), those who believe speed limits, etc. are justified, due to the possibly increased chance that one will harm another by traveling at a high speed, etc., but granting the state the power to forcibly take custody of one who only poses a danger to himself is another matter altogether. There is no way that a society which permits such action is a free one.
Perhaps you don’t want to be free, and that is fine, but don’t pretend that we are. Human history shows that people prefer peaceful slavery to dangerous freedom, so it is what it is, and there’s no reason to sugarcoat it.[/quote]
Unless someone is insane or incompetent they should have no trouble killing themselves. It’s not really an issue.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Again, please point out the falsehoods in my original post. I was merely answering cwill’s question. He did bring up a good point. If the state is allowed to forcibly take custody of its citizens, for the purpose of mental evaluations, there is no way the citizens can be called ‘free.’ If you do not even get to control your own life, how can you possibly be free? I understand, although I disagree with(at least when it comes to socialized roads), those who believe speed limits, etc. are justified, due to the possibly increased chance that one will harm another by traveling at a high speed, etc., but granting the state the power to forcibly take custody of one who only poses a danger to himself is another matter altogether. There is no way that a society which permits such action is a free one.
Perhaps you don’t want to be free, and that is fine, but don’t pretend that we are. Human history shows that people prefer peaceful slavery to dangerous freedom, so it is what it is, and there’s no reason to sugarcoat it.[/quote]
You’re right, but at the same time, there are plenty of instances where someone who was mentally unstable did end up hurting not only themselves, but others. If the woman in the story had gone on some sort of a shooting bender, people would be up in arms that another mentally ill plebeian slipped through the cracks.
Such a policy legally exists in Illinois. I cannot speak for other states, but it sounds like that’s also the case in Wisconsin based on the statute mentioned in the story. It’s possible to find some middle ground whereby exigent circumstances need to exist and, in most cases save for a bona fide emergency, a judge must issue a court ordered decree that the person can be taken for an evaluation, after scrutinizing the evidence. Either that, or we accept an all or nothing: the state does not have this authority because it can be abused or the state has blanket emergency authority to act as necessary and hopefully it doesn’t get abused for political purposes. Option A is one of those situations were you sacrifice some security to maintain liberty. The libertarian side of me tends to favor A, but the pragmatic side of me says B has worked pretty well in most cases. It cannot really go both ways.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
My question is thus: Does the government have the right to forcibly prevent you from taking your own life? If so, the idea that we are free men is null.[/quote]
The right? No-no such right can possibly exist. Will the state use its superior force to prevent you from doing so? Absolutely. Will the state send people wearing ridiculous costumes to force you to be evaluated? Absolutely. If you resist the attempt of those people to take you captive, will they bring more costumed folks to take you captive? Yes. Is there a good chance the enforcers will kill you if you attempt to employ a force equalizer, such as a firearm? Yes. I’ve read plenty of your posts, and you are far too intelligent to believe we are free.[/quote]
They weren’t dressed in costumes; that’s just a symptom of your illness. They were there to help you. No one is trying to hurt you. You’ve got to keep taking your medication and do what the doctors say. If you stop taking your meds you’ll start hearing the voices again and you’ll have to go back to the ward.
[/quote]
Do you work in mental health or in a field related to it?
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
My question is thus: Does the government have the right to forcibly prevent you from taking your own life? If so, the idea that we are free men is null.[/quote]
The right? No-no such right can possibly exist. Will the state use its superior force to prevent you from doing so? Absolutely. Will the state send people wearing ridiculous costumes to force you to be evaluated? Absolutely. If you resist the attempt of those people to take you captive, will they bring more costumed folks to take you captive? Yes. Is there a good chance the enforcers will kill you if you attempt to employ a force equalizer, such as a firearm? Yes. I’ve read plenty of your posts, and you are far too intelligent to believe we are free.[/quote]
They weren’t dressed in costumes; that’s just a symptom of your illness. They were there to help you. No one is trying to hurt you. You’ve got to keep taking your medication and do what the doctors say. If you stop taking your meds you’ll start hearing the voices again and you’ll have to go back to the ward.
[/quote]
Do you work in mental health or in a field related to it?
[/quote]
No, but I’m surrounded by crackpots wherever I turn.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Again, please point out the falsehoods in my original post. I was merely answering cwill’s question. He did bring up a good point. If the state is allowed to forcibly take custody of its citizens, for the purpose of mental evaluations, there is no way the citizens can be called ‘free.’ If you do not even get to control your own life, how can you possibly be free? I understand, although I disagree with(at least when it comes to socialized roads), those who believe speed limits, etc. are justified, due to the possibly increased chance that one will harm another by traveling at a high speed, etc., but granting the state the power to forcibly take custody of one who only poses a danger to himself is another matter altogether. There is no way that a society which permits such action is a free one.
Perhaps you don’t want to be free, and that is fine, but don’t pretend that we are. Human history shows that people prefer peaceful slavery to dangerous freedom, so it is what it is, and there’s no reason to sugarcoat it.[/quote]
You’re right, but at the same time, there are plenty of instances where someone who was mentally unstable did end up hurting not only themselves, but others. If the woman in the story had gone on some sort of a shooting bender, people would be up in arms that another mentally ill plebeian slipped through the cracks.
Such a policy legally exists in Illinois. I cannot speak for other states, but it sounds like that’s also the case in Wisconsin based on the statute mentioned in the story. It’s possible to find some middle ground whereby exigent circumstances need to exist and, in most cases save for a bona fide emergency, a judge must issue a court ordered decree that the person can be taken for an evaluation, after scrutinizing the evidence. Either that, or we accept an all or nothing: the state does not have this authority because it can be abused or the state has blanket emergency authority to act as necessary and hopefully it doesn’t get abused for political purposes. Option A is one of those situations were you sacrifice some security to maintain liberty. The libertarian side of me tends to favor A, but the pragmatic side of me says B has worked pretty well in most cases. It cannot really go both ways.
[/quote]
Option A is infinitely preferable. Option B Leads only one way, be it ever so slowly.
Option A is infinitely preferable. Option B Leads only one way, be it ever so slowly.[/quote]
It appears we already have option B legislated as a legal procedure in most states, so unless you rescind those statutes, this power already exists. I have not heard of widespread abuse for political purposes, even though I would agree the slow threat exists.
I’m aware of that, and I would rather rescind. I would preferably not have to make any distinction but itis inevitable. I would much rather not approach the pit than approach it slowly. I do not know of any widespread political abuse of this either.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Again, please point out the falsehoods in my original post. I was merely answering cwill’s question. He did bring up a good point. If the state is allowed to forcibly take custody of its citizens, for the purpose of mental evaluations, there is no way the citizens can be called ‘free.’ If you do not even get to control your own life, how can you possibly be free? I understand, although I disagree with(at least when it comes to socialized roads), those who believe speed limits, etc. are justified, due to the possibly increased chance that one will harm another by traveling at a high speed, etc., but granting the state the power to forcibly take custody of one who only poses a danger to himself is another matter altogether. There is no way that a society which permits such action is a free one.
Perhaps you don’t want to be free, and that is fine, but don’t pretend that we are. Human history shows that people prefer peaceful slavery to dangerous freedom, so it is what it is, and there’s no reason to sugarcoat it.[/quote]
You’re right, but at the same time, there are plenty of instances where someone who was mentally unstable did end up hurting not only themselves, but others. If the woman in the story had gone on some sort of a shooting bender, people would be up in arms that another mentally ill plebeian slipped through the cracks.
Such a policy legally exists in Illinois. I cannot speak for other states, but it sounds like that’s also the case in Wisconsin based on the statute mentioned in the story. It’s possible to find some middle ground whereby exigent circumstances need to exist and, in most cases save for a bona fide emergency, a judge must issue a court ordered decree that the person can be taken for an evaluation, after scrutinizing the evidence. Either that, or we accept an all or nothing: the state does not have this authority because it can be abused or the state has blanket emergency authority to act as necessary and hopefully it doesn’t get abused for political purposes. Option A is one of those situations were you sacrifice some security to maintain liberty. The libertarian side of me tends to favor A, but the pragmatic side of me says B has worked pretty well in most cases. It cannot really go both ways.
[/quote]
Strange. I read 3 options.
Option A, middle ground, allowing for “bona fide emergency” type exceptions
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
This piece does not compute
[/quote]
You misread or perhaps I chose a poor way to phrase it. I reread it several times, perhaps what I was trying to argue didn’t come across that well with my choice of verbiage.
Option A is the exigent circumstances, which seems to already exist in some form in most, if not every, state legal code (the “all”). The “middle ground” reference was a synonymous with the present “all” approach, since it reflects trying to providing a balance between maintaining absolute liberty, which would be essentially doing “nothing,” or giving the state some limited authority to act, which it already does. I see it as sort of a “middle ground” if we make the provisions for acting very legally stringent - i.e., you just don’t get to lock people up on a whim.
Doing nothing would involve rescinding already standing laws. So we either have a legal procedure that gives the state limited authority to act (statist) or we don’t allow anything on the table due to potential for abuse, in the name of preserving absolute liberty for fear of sliding down that slippery slope (libertarian).
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
My question is thus: Does the government have the right to forcibly prevent you from taking your own life? If so, the idea that we are free men is null.[/quote]
Is suicide a right that you even have to begin with? No. So your point is moot.
I wonder if you would apply the same line of logic to gay marriage. If the gov’t can forcibly determine who gays can and cannot marry (i.e. forcibly barring gay marriage), is the idea of free men null?
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
My question is thus: Does the government have the right to forcibly prevent you from taking your own life? If so, the idea that we are free men is null.[/quote]
Maybe you aren’t familiar with the concept of “fundamental liberty”. Is the “right” to kill one’s self a fundamental liberty? Can you be “free” without this right? I think so. Stop being ridiculous.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Inalienable rights, as profound as they are, do not exist objectively. They are socially constructed.[/quote]
As far as we can’t tell, nothing exists objectively. Human language is socially constructed.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
My question is thus: Does the government have the right to forcibly prevent you from taking your own life? If so, the idea that we are free men is null.[/quote]
The right? No-no such right can possibly exist. Will the state use its superior force to prevent you from doing so? Absolutely. Will the state send people wearing ridiculous costumes to force you to be evaluated? Absolutely. If you resist the attempt of those people to take you captive, will they bring more costumed folks to take you captive? Yes. Is there a good chance the enforcers will kill you if you attempt to employ a force equalizer, such as a firearm? Yes. I’ve read plenty of your posts, and you are far too intelligent to believe we are free.[/quote]
They weren’t dressed in costumes; that’s just a symptom of your illness. They were there to help you. No one is trying to hurt you. You’ve got to keep taking your medication and do what the doctors say. If you stop taking your meds you’ll start hearing the voices again and you’ll have to go back to the ward.
[/quote]
Do you work in mental health or in a field related to it?
[/quote]
No, but I’m surrounded by crackpots wherever I turn.
[/quote]
What’s your profession? Mirror-maker? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
My question is thus: Does the government have the right to forcibly prevent you from taking your own life? If so, the idea that we are free men is null.[/quote]
Is suicide a right that you even have to begin with? No. So your point is moot.
I wonder if you would apply the same line of logic to gay marriage. If the gov’t can forcibly determine who gays can and cannot marry (i.e. forcibly barring gay marriage), is the idea of free men null?[/quote]
That’s a strange stance since you believe a woman has the right to kill the unborn human inside her belly. If she can do that, why can’t she freely choose to end her own life? Does society have absolute ownership of your being?
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
My question is thus: Does the government have the right to forcibly prevent you from taking your own life? If so, the idea that we are free men is null.[/quote]
Is suicide a right that you even have to begin with? No. So your point is moot.
I wonder if you would apply the same line of logic to gay marriage. If the gov’t can forcibly determine who gays can and cannot marry (i.e. forcibly barring gay marriage), is the idea of free men null?[/quote]
That’s a strange stance since you believe a woman has the right to kill the unborn human inside her belly. If she can do that, why can’t she freely choose to end her own life? Does society have absolute ownership of your being?
[/quote]
Actually, I do not support the right to abort an unborn child. Stop making rash generalizations about me to fortify your argument. You’re failing miserably at it.
I am asking YOU why you seem to think that you have absolute ownership of your body. The state, as determined by Justice Rehnquist in “Washington v. Glucksberg”, has a certain interest in preserving the lives of its citizens.
English common law, amongst other legal precedents, has always punished attempted suicide in some manner. At one point, people who committed suicide had all their property confiscated.
So you have never had absolute ownership of your body, ever. And the ability to commit suicide has NEVER been considered a necessary component of liberty. Stop being such a child about it.
Warrantless searches are completely unconstitutional.
The price of a free society is some crazies are going to do some appalling shit and no matter how many freedoms you swipe, it’s not going to stop determined people from doing horrible things to others. It’s a fact of life these days that nuts live among us and there are a multitude of reasons for it. But we cannot just search and harass people, because they may possibly be a threat. The slippery slope is enormous.
Over reactions are to be expected, but the checks and balances of the system we have in place are in place to stop impulsive reactions to horrible shit. Hopefully they work.