Skip to main content
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. | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
No. of Recommendations: 1
Thank you. You've proven my point. That is exactly the sort of response I was hoping to see. Your response is exactly the reason why I do not self identify as a Libertarian...

Under libertarian law, I as a family member would have no more rights over his behavior than either you or the state would.

Why should you decide for him?

nobody has the right to force him to remain either medicated or locked up.

Seems pretty reasonable... if you can't decide what to put (or not put) into your own body, you're not very free, period!

The logical result would either be a dead family member (if he attacked someone less forgiving of his actions than another member of the family) or long term incarceration (at tax payers' expense) when under his uncontrolled condition, he battered someone else, again.

People attack other people for all kinds of reasons, and I don't really care what his state of mind was at the time, he should be held accountable for his actions. Period.

If they locked up crazy Eddie for slamming his Mom into the wall, maybe he wouldn't have been around to slash her throat. Maybe he'd ALSO consider the likely result of going off his medication BEFORE doing so. (And if while on the Meds he wasn't a "rational actor" capable of making such decisions for himself then what was the point of the meds in the first place?) Instead, he knows that while off his medication he can go off the deep end and get all violent and they won't send him to prison... they'll just call him "crazy" and punish him with a hospital visit.

The problem is not the right to die.

Okay. Glad you're on board with that.

The problem is the very common case where a suicidal attempt is not really a rational choice to end one's life but is in fact a cry for help and attention. In a society where others could not intervene in a person's 'right to die' (after all, the rights of the individuals are sacred),

You have every right to intervene. You just don't have the right to make the decision FOR HIM then FORCE him to live with YOUR decision.

then those whose suicidal attempts are cries for attention or help and are not really rational wishes to die...

...can still get all the attention and help they want. And there's nothing keeping friends, family, or anyone else from trying to talk the would-be suicidee into reconsidering. I respectfully suggest that the very reason so many people "attempt" suicide is precisely because they know someone will show up to save their life... generally by pumping their stomach or bandaging their wrists for them.

With laws protecting suicide, there will be no legal mechanism for anyone else to intervene and help those whose suicidal attempts are in fact cries for attention and help.

You can't FORCE someone to accept help. You can't MAKE someone change their mind. You can't substitute your judgement for theirs. I can't think of a much better definition of freedom than that.

My concern is with the young, abused, and other not-really-suicide suicides.

It's either a genuine suicide attempt, or it's not. If you remove the artificial safety net, this "attempted" BS will dry up real fast.

In a Libertarian society, the rights of the individual are supreme. Not the rights of the family of that individual to intervene. And in this case, protecting the rights of the individual would cause exactly the opposite result than that individual really intended.

What you're essentially arguing is that those who try to fake suicide might do a bad job of it and accidentally kill themselves. That's just Darwin at work, dude. With freedom comes an equal measure of personal responsibility.

As for the rational actor test, without getting into the definition of this term, libertarians argue that people have a right to imbibe drugs, even if this causes their volition and rationality to be compromised. They just don't have a right to commit a crime, either sober or "stoned."

Precisely. An individual is ultimately responsible for his actions and the results thereof, in ALL situations.

If PCP were legalized, then PCP users who committed other crimes would also likely require otherwise excessive force to be subdued by arresting officers.

Excessive force is never warranted. On the other hand, unusual force may well be required in such situations. I don't see what this has to do with police beatings nor the resultant riots, despite your implications of a link.

when probable, preventable death is the natural, unintended consequence of a Libertarian model, then I must disagree with implementing the model.

To have freedom - TRULY have freedom - you must as a natural course and consequence allow people to pay the price for their decisions. Your disagreement with the Libertarian model stems from the fact that you want to separate the action (i.e. suicide attempt) from the consequence (possible death).

You just don't want to give someone control over the end of their own life because you're afraid someone might use it. Welcome to the nanny state.

Print the post  


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.