Skip to main content
Update
Non-financial boards have been closed.

Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.

Fool.com | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 0
JAR,

Why can I have the freedom to take my life in my hands when driving, but not have the freedom to decide when and if to end my own life?

As I mentioned before (go back and read the first note of the thread) I support the right of a rational being to make the rational choice to kill himself or herself. There are no laws that could prevent you or me from killing ourselves if we were really rationally determined and choosing to do so. There is no human punishment that can affect us once we have succeeded in the act of suiciding. No matter what society or the government tries to do, there is no really effective anti-suicide law, nor would I particularly want to live in a world where there is one. As a (presumably) rational human being, you are in ultimate control of your right to die, no matter what the government says.

The problem is that government policy and laws that enforce the right to suicide take away the rights of intervention of others. Since suicide attempts, especially among the young and the abused, are quite often attempts to cry out for help or attention, rather than rational choices to die, the right of intervention is important. A direct consequence of laws protecting suicide will be the prohibition of intervention in suicide attempts, thereby depriving those 'not really suicide' suicides of the help and attention they really were looking for.

In fact, if you were to take away the license of everyone who drives while under the influence, you would save far more lives than any of the stupid and draconian drug possession laws that we have.
I am confused - are you advocating taking away the licenses of people who had not broken any other laws, other than driving while under the influence? In a Libertarian world, driving while intoxicated should logically be legal, as long as that driver does not directly harm others. Preventative laws like those that punish DUI and DWI restrict the individual's freedoms to act, which by Libertarian doctrine, should be unlimited so long as that individual causes no harm to others. A person driving under the influence causes no harm to others, unless that person loses control of his or her vehicle. Following the Libertarian doctorine to its logical conclusion, driving while intoxicated should be permitted, as long as the driver causes no harm to others. I am against people driving while intoxicated, because the probabilty of those people causing harm to others is simply too high to allow 'reactive only' laws to work. I support reasonable laws that punish those actions, even when the inoxicated driver caused no direct harm to others. (I am still opposed to random traffic stops and other either without-probable-cause or without-warrant detainments and searches.) If that makes me non-Libertarian, so be it. I never claimed to be one, anyway, especially when it came to illegal drug use.

-Chuck
Print the post  

Announcements

When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.