Libertarianism and the Right to Die

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Jojobobo, Mar 13, 2015.

Remove all ads!
Support Terra-Arcanum:

GOG.com

PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!
  1. Jojobobo

    Jojobobo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,029
    Likes Received:
    122
    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    I think we all by now have heard of Terry Pratchett's death (if not, see papa_dog's thread). He was a great man; fantastic literature, a superb advocate of Alzheimers' awareness and - for fuck's sake - he made a sword of meteorite. I realise I come across as at least 70% disingenuous, but his death has saddened me.

    One further thing he was an advocate for was euthanasia - and discussion around that was the idea here, amongst other things. I guess first of all who should be allowed to die - the miserable and chronically suffering physical ill, the mentally ill who think they have suffered long enough? Secondly, where does interplay come into these things; for example if there was a person who wanted to end his life was a convicted criminal in a country where it was legal on the grounds of psychological trauma who should get the final say - the families of the people they've wronged or them themselves (this was obviously not a completely left-field question, and came up recently with the contentious case of Frank Van den Bleeken - discussion found here). Lastly, I know some people here have religious convictions - how do you feel about euthanasia? This is coming from me being British and living in a largely secular society - as such I'm genuinely interested in the more religious take on things.

    I guess for me personally, I've always liked to think of myself as a libertarian - as such ostensibly I should be in favour of legal drugs and prostitution, as well as the right to die. However I watched a documentary recently on how Germany has faired since legalising prostitution and it was pretty miserable affair - prostitutes hating their lives, many of them immigrants, pretty much all of them sexually abused when they were young. It was clearly a leading documentary on the lines of prostitution is bad, but as they looked at people in both higher management and the prostitutes themselves it still all seemed incredibly dismal so it's hard to not feel their bias was correct.

    On the "legalise drugs" score, as I mentioned through a whiney incoherent post on the good morning thread my downstairs neighbours are apparently heroin addicts - but beyond that they're just fucking awful people; rude, racist, jobless and completely inconsiderate (if you're wondering why I know so much about them, it's because I've heard them shout it through the damn floorboards). As a poster for "legalise drugs", I think they would make anyone reconsider their ideals.

    So on top of all the previous questions, is the right to death to be lumped into these issues as a potential libertarian fancy or does it stand on its own merits as something that needs to be evaluated regardless? In a broader sense, is the pure libertarian dream something that can only exist in the minds of people who may not realise when you strip back the boundaries of how people are by granting them further rights they can be they can potentially be a whole lot worse?

    As always when I'm not sure how to round off the first post... discuss. And if anyone says TL:DR (EDIT, no disable smilies that I can tell, ugh), well fucking read it! By Christ this is Terra-Arcanum, not 4chan.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2015
  2. Jungle Japes

    Jungle Japes Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,396
    Likes Received:
    70
    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Unlike many other Christians, I don't take the "sanctity of life" concept to the extreme. If a person is brain-dead, or if they're terminally ill and want to be unplugged, I say unplug 'em. Assisted suicide moves into more of a moral gray area that requires case-by-case judgement, and I believe that involuntary euthanasia is decidedly immoral (excepting cases of capital punishment).

    I also feel that the prolonging of life through medical means is often taken too far, but it's impossible to know where to draw that line.

    On the drugs issue, I guess my take is that prohibiting marijuana is a waste of resources, while other harder drugs should remain illegal. Not because the government should be trying to protect us from ourselves, but because drug users like your neighbors are a danger to others.
     
  3. Vorak

    Vorak Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,828
    Likes Received:
    21
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
  4. Grossenschwamm

    Grossenschwamm Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,630
    Likes Received:
    4
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    I think people should have the right to die. I find myself agreeing with the points Japes made, to further clarify my position. Getting to the mental anguish and trauma aspect, though...I'm not sure how to qualify what I'm about to say;

    Everyone is going to process everything they experience in a different way, and I know what one person may find traumatic is ultimately subjective, therefore it will not be traumatic to everyone who experiences it. In this same way, there are people who will not be able to move past their traumatic experiences and people who will. I've heard it said that suicide is a "permanent solution to a temporary problem." To be fair, life is temporary regardless of whether or not you're killing yourself.
    So on an individual standpoint, I think suicide to alleviate sufficient anguish should be allowed - though I also recognize that dead bodies cost money to remove and bury, and the aftershock of such an event can tear people's lives apart. I think I'm right on the fence as far as the personal suffering line goes.

    As for legal drugs;

    Yes. I think at the very least drugs should be decriminalized. But I know people who are assholes, or are willing to hurt/rob other people to keep their habits going, don't need a drug habit to make them assholes. Have you ever worked with someone who's always cranky in the morning, and they say "Oh, I'm always cranky before my coffee"? I bet they totally surprised you by continuing their asshole proclivities after they nurse their chemical addiction. To be fair, though, I'm sure any conversation will turn into a shouting match when all parties involved are coming down from an opiate stupor.
     
  5. Transparent Painting

    Transparent Painting Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,138
    Likes Received:
    6
    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    I have considered myself a liberal*, but, as time goes on and life hits me in the face, I've realized I have a hard time defending the "classic" liberal viewpoints. Guess the problem in this case can be derived from the fact that most of my liberal input comes from a group of friends who consider themselves libertarians, something I certainly don't view myself as.

    Regarding the issues presented here, I feel most in line with Jojobobo's post. There are circumstances where euthanasia is justified, but I see more problems then good coming out of legalizing drugs on a broad scale, or giving the public access to firearms, for that matter. However, it's not, in any way, something I'm certain of; as with prostitution, there are some many problematic factors connected to the subject, and it all boils down to how we can tackle the social issues in a efficient way.

    How that is actually done, I don't know.


    *A better description would probably be something like "slightly to the right of the Swedish norm along the state control vs. individual control scale", but that's probably a little bit too extensive for everyday conversations.
     
  6. Jojobobo

    Jojobobo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,029
    Likes Received:
    122
    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    I guess that was some of what I driving for, it's easy to classify yourself as liberal without experience but when life comes and slaps its dick in your face it becomes less clear as to how best make those distinctions. I think for most "young" people, a libertarian view point is nice; it essentially hinges on personal liberty, allowing things like the maximum level of personal freedom and a high level of capitalism so long as it doesn't crap on the little guy - but the interplay between who's rights should take precedence in any situation is a very a thorny ground. I don't obviously own my own business and I'm not in a high management position, but I've spoken to people who have/are and they see the central lefties as shit and the central right as the only way to preserve their current situation (and by being so vague and unspecific I've now flagged up the gaps in my knowledge as to why that's the case, hence in some ways a post and a thread like this for my own sake and for others as unknowledgeable - 70% that's a real word - as me is worthwhile if anyone is willing to educate).

    In reality, hitting the middle ground is always the harder thing to do whilst also being the better thing to do. The compromise between everyone's needs is always better than that of individual groups on either of the spectrum, surely? I feel like liberals, regardless of their ideas on rights, still try and hit that middle ground - whereas as the left and right push their own agendas and don't care so much about these complex ethical issues (they care as much as they are required to, but don't make a point about it unless they must). Maybe this is different in other nations?

    To reign it back to an issue, I recently met with someone with pretty bad Alzheimer's and had also had a severe stroke. I would guess the family, ultimately, would have maybe wished they'd died with the stroke - not because of the burden they now are because they're more than happy to look after them, but because of the quality of life they've now lost from Alzheimer's. Having known the person before Alzheimer's, I think they would feel the same - however now that they're in this state and retain some of their cognitive faculties it seems very much (through conversation) that they'd like to live.

    When would euthanasia arrive in this situation? When they are diagnosed and pretty much 95% fine, or on that very iffy slider when you can't really judge where their mental capacities are because things like that just aren't quantitative. It's not like a "do euthanise" order would be like a "do not resuscitate" order usually born out of a long standing physical issue; the boundaries are very blurred. From what I saw the person does still want to be alive, but would they have ideologically wanted to be dead were they of their full mental capacity? Yes maybe, however now they ostensibly now they want to live - at what point does a firm ruling get weighed in (not particularly aimed at you TP, but at everyone)? Hopefully medical science will wash away a lot of these issues, but we currently have no such luck.

    I'd be interested if you'd want to elaborate, but no pressure if you can't be bothered - I think the political situation of any country can shed light on similar situations ongoing in internal politics elsewhere.

    And besides, you have other filthy swedes like DE and Yuki who could chime in - not that I think you're filthy in any way but I always like the term "filthy" before a nice national eponym.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2015
  7. Smuel

    Smuel Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,403
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    271
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    I'm pretty sure everyone already has the right to die. I could die while writing this, and nobody would say that I violated my own rights. The question is - under what circumstances is it permissible to deliberately end someone else's life?

    If we lived in a perfect world where there were never any mistakes, then justice would be easy, but we don't live in such a world. My opinion is that the consequences of a mistake are so disastrous that I would prefer that it's never permissible. Even the most heinous serial killer should be imprisoned rather than given the death penalty. And even the most miserable victim of a horrible disease should be kept in an assisted living condition rather than euthanized. Yes, these policies mean that occasionally a nasty person can be seen to have "gotten away with it" because they continue to live in relative comfort while their victims don't, but the alternative - which is that occasionally an innocent person will be mistakenly executed - is worse to me. And occasionally someone will be begging their doctors for death, and the doctors won't be able to give them what they want, and that sucks, but the alternative is that occasionally an otherwise healthy person will feel pressured - not even necessarily overtly - into agreeing to their own euthanasia, and that's worse to me.

    As for drugs and prostitution, those should be legalised. And if they were, maybe those terminal illness patients would find that life isn't so bad after all. Problem solved.
     
  8. Jojobobo

    Jojobobo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,029
    Likes Received:
    122
    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    That's exactly it I suppose, and it's such a minefield it's almost impossible to legislate about.

    I don't think the case of mistaken convictions is very high, or anything to be worried about. Honestly, the death penalty is always one of those things that should be weighed against the crap storm it causes the state (as in, is the freeing up of prison spaces worth the cost of the red tape of execution?). Red tape is always what would hold these things back, which I guess is fine as you don't ever want to not be sure the bad man did the thing he's been accused of being.

    I've come to the conclusion legalising prostitution is fine, but it needs to come with a caveat - as far as I can tell in Germany they legalised it without any kind of protection for the prostitutes (the idea that legality would naturally produce protection, but that's not really case). People shouldn't change legality without fully considering the ramifications of that legality, first and foremost on the person who was committing the alleged crime in the first place not really the customer.

    In terms of drugs, I've become a bit more hardline. I don't believe weed is anymore dangerous than alcohol, so I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be legal, despite not trying it in 10+ years. Most other things however, I'm suspicious of. Living above junkies and having them be massive cunts for years on end honestly makes me personally not care if they burn out and die and rot in a hole of their own making. I make no apologies for that statement, I've been as peaceable a neighbour as was literally possible in the circumstances, but they are rude and discourteous beyond imagining and it's very hard not to tie their drug habit to that. I would love to get behind the idea of treating drug addiction as a medical problem rather than a criminal one, but given my bias it would seem that there's a lot of antisocial dickheads who thrive with such a weak treatment.

    I did go quite ballistic and Walter White on them about a month back (no violence, just a lot of aggression from someone who they perceived was quiet and middle class taking them even more so by left field) and since then they've shut the fuck up and kept on the down low, but it shouldn't take a civil person like me (regardless of civil I sometimes seem here) to finally crack to get them in order. Still, bottom line, you're never going to get me to sign off on heroin being a great legal drug - or most of them for that matter.
     
  9. Dark Elf

    Dark Elf Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,796
    Media:
    34
    Likes Received:
    164
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Okay, so I am not entirely sure on what the best course of action is here, but still... on the matter of drugs, I'm sure everyone knows how well it turned out when America decided to ban alcohol back in the day. Did people stop drinking? Nope, banning a commodity when demand is still there is just going to lead to the creation of a black market catering to said demand, only that you now do not have the ability to regulate the goings-on of said market and you're going to create Al Capones and Bugsy Siegels. Now, if banning alcohol leads to more crime than keeping it legal, why shouldn't the same principle apply to other drugs?

    Don't ban things unless you know what you are doing, harm reduction is the way to go. I don't know what it's like in your neck of the woods, but I hardly ever see anyone smoking here. Smoking is still legal, but decades of campaigning against it and educating people about its harmful effects has done wonders. I'm pretty sure that, had they just banned tobacco, a higher percentage of the population would still be smoking, smuggling and tobacco-related crime would be rampant and nicotine equivalents of krokodil would pop up.
     
  10. Smuel

    Smuel Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,403
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    271
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    I'd say any number above zero is something to be worried about. But you bring up another good point which is the red tape. It turns out that keeping someone in prison for life is not that much more expensive than jumping through all the hoops that are put in the way of executing them. So now there are two reasons not to do it.

    I think this rather makes Dark Elf's point. Despite heroin being illegal, your neighbours have been openly taking it for years. Clearly prohibition hasn't worked in that case. Do you think that if heroin were legalised, your neighbours would be even more badly behaved? Or is it that you think that more people would turn into obnoxious dickheads because everyone would start shooting up all the time? Neither of those things seem likely to me.
     
  11. Jojobobo

    Jojobobo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,029
    Likes Received:
    122
    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    The latter really, I think the sheer accessibility would make some bad people worse - at least with it being illegal people can't so easily give into vice. I guess it's hard to say whether or not this would actually be the case, but I don't think it's worth the risk to find out.
     
  12. Dark Elf

    Dark Elf Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,796
    Media:
    34
    Likes Received:
    164
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    It just isn't possible for me to not share this in a discussion concerning drugs.
     
  13. The_Bob

    The_Bob Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    891
    Likes Received:
    8
    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
  14. Smuel

    Smuel Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,403
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    271
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    I can't deny that it's possible that a few people would end up addicted who currently aren't, but I think that's likely to remain a small percentage. After all, alcohol is addictive and freely available, and yet there isn't a nationwide problem with people turning up to work drunk. In any case, I think you have to balance the risk of creating new addicts against the benefit of reducing organised crime, gang wars, profiteering, and all the other issues that come with the supply of illegal drugs. Some entire countries are blighted by the drug trade (e.g. in South America). I think it's rather short sighted to keep all those people trapped between warring cartels just because you would like slightly better behaved neighbours.

    That comes across as glib of me - I don't mean to make light of your situation, it must be pretty bad living there, and I'm sorry you have to put up with it every day. I hope that it never escalates to put you or your other half in danger. But on a global scale I still think that legalizing drugs has far more upside than downside.
     
  15. papa_dog_1999

    papa_dog_1999 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,511
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    27
    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    I'll have to check it out from home, as work has tagged it as porn. o_O
     
  16. Jojobobo

    Jojobobo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,029
    Likes Received:
    122
    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    No these are all valid points, I guess I do still stand by particularly hard drugs remaining banned however. I supposed if others where unbanned, it could be the case that there would be fewer new addicts of things that likely should remain illegal (i.e. heroin) as they would literally have buffet of other stuff to try before hard and illegal drugs. It's also one of those things would very much need to be a case by case basis situation too as to whether something should be legalised - though I guess that goes without saying.

    Interesting stuff, seems a bit ludicrous the research was widely discredited at the time. Having said that, it's also assuming the rat model is directly comparable to the same situation in humans - which may not be true. I guess it was definitely a good starting point however.
     
  17. Xyle

    Xyle Member

    Messages:
    373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2011
    "Whoso sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Genesis 9:6
    "But the fruit of the Spirit is ... longsuffering ... against such there is no law. " Galatians 5:22-23

    I believe that brain-dead is dead.
    I also hate the position that permits a person in a coma to effectively starve to death by denying them fluids.

    But for the most part, I believe that such decisions are difficult to begin with and that we should offer forgiveness to those that are overwhelmed with having to make them. Therefore, my position is to NOT enshrine in the law either permission nor condemnation for those that unplug another that is only alive because of a machine (and I don't consider IV's to be machines.)

    As even Buddha taught "Life is suffering." Pain is a part of being alive.
     
  18. Smuel

    Smuel Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,403
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    271
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    These Russian spam-bot posts just get more and more incomprehensible.
     
  19. TheDavisChanger

    TheDavisChanger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,845
    Likes Received:
    13
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    This was the second time in one day I had been reminded of this quote from the Buddha. Is this coincidence or has something happened with the Buddha that he occupies more mindshare of late?
     
  20. Xyle

    Xyle Member

    Messages:
    373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2011
    Who me? I ain't Russian; I'm taking my time. :cool:

    You know how fast a rumor spreads, right? Maybe I bumped up people's awareness level by mentioning that quote a few times locally and it just spread like a virus? But then, I can't remember what boosted my awareness of the quote, so maybe the credit goes to that origin point. That's memes for you.
     
Our Host!