Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When the State executes a person..... It is considered punishment for a certain crime.
It would be hard to think of a person's suicide as a punishment.
Well that is certainly true, but you haven't laid out an ethical argument that the right to take a life, for whatever reason is a power exclusive to a state. If taking can rationalize the taking of the life of another why can an individual not only express a rational reason for taking their life but to act upon that rational.
Well that is certainly true, but you haven't laid out an ethical argument that the right to take a life, for whatever reason is a power exclusive to a state. If taking can rationalize the taking of the life of another why can an individual not only express a rational reason for taking their life but to act upon that rational.
You can't. There is no rational argument about it. I don't even think that there is an ethical one either. It's just traditional way.
I agree that a person should be able to do this. However, Our society has deemed it wrong and horrible. It goes back to a religious idea that people should be punished for misdeeds, but it's wrong to take a life, even if it's your own. The State can do it, because The State is not a human. It can't feel pain, nor will The State be punished for doing it.
If a person tries suicide and fails, he/she is considered mentally ill and requires treatment for their own protection. The idea is that everyone should want to live as long as possible, no matter what their life may be like. Live is better that Dead. Always. No exceptions. Etc, Etc, Etc,
This way of thinking, Life is better that Death, has been around ever since the idea of an Eternal Life or Punishment was developed. Too many are afraid of dying. They want to protect everyone from what they think is real.
It's a real pity that people are so unaware of what others may be going through.
When that prevailing mindset is overcome, there might be changes.
"What ethical argument can be made for the right of the state, any state, to grant itself the right to exercise the right to kill another human yet deny the right of an individual the right to terminate their own?"
You grossly misuse the word "right". Semantic slips like that make for illogical arguments.
I supposedly have the "right" to build a house on my property. That assumes that someone is in control who legally has the power to convey that "right" to me.
If I was to go to the council of the native Americans who originally owned the land, but had it stolen from them by Jackson, they might say that I do NOT have that "right". Ethically, unless I also got their approval, I would be wrong to build and wrong not to pay their council for the land.
We dismiss such claims, because we no longer think the native Americans have power to enforce their will. That is the common way of humanity.
Recognizing that it is not "right" but "power", your statement becomes:
"What ethical argument can be made for the power of the state, any state, to grant itself the power to exercise the power to kill another human yet deny the power of an individual the power to terminate their own?"
Yeesh. Allow me to clean that up and remove the redundancies that formed some of your convoluted thinking:
"What ethical argument can be made for a state to exercise the power to kill another human yet deny an individual the power to terminate their own?"
The answer becomes self-evident. You attempted to place ethics in a position of having dominion over power, which on a practical level is ludicrous. Power trumps ethics in governments 99.9% of the time, and that other .1% is only to keep hope in the gullible and limit riots.
The limited access of ethics in governments is there primarily to allow a straw-man reason for ousting someone who other powerful players dislike or to make that person "toe the line." That reference to ethics keeps the proles from becoming confused and upset.
The case of Gov. Bentley in Alabama may be an example. His "ethics" in supposedly questionable campaign contribution paybacks were no worse than those of dozens of other politicians that I could cite, yet the POWER of the state removed him from office and imprisoned him. I don't hold him up as an innocent choirboy, or make personal judgment on the man, I just point out that "ethics" were the straw-man used to destroy his power, while others were doing the same and worse. FWIW, the man who replaced him was about the best governor that Alabama has ever had, so there was some good that came out of it.
The second issue you face when your statement is reframed, is that there is no real conundrum. If the person has the power (opportunity and will) to suicide, and is effective, the only downside is that the survivor friends and relatives stuck within the power of the government will have to denounce him and his actions, which, by that point, is irrelevant to his consciousness.
If he fails to kill himself, he can always request to be tried for premeditated attempted murder, and ask for the death penalty, which then becomes a rather elegant refutation to your original posit.
I respectfully decline to argue the sovereign citizen issue if that is the thrust of your argument because if I find it baseless and well... patently absurd.
It isn't based upon any factual evidence, case law, or statute. The Constitution and the rights that it confers remain solidly in tack. I think that sovereign citizen proponents simply do not correctly understand the concept or meaning of due process.
I respectfully disagree. Since 9/11 (and well before that in some cases) the citizens have willingly given (and not willingly given) their rights away for security over and over again.
By definition ethics and law are inseparable since the very definition of ethics is the systematic approach for defining what is right and what is wrong?
There is nothing whatsoever systematically ethical about law. Law is about controling the masses. It is the tool which the elite class keeps control of the working class.
Quote:
I respectfully decline to argue the sovereign citizen issue if that is the thrust of your argument because if I find it baseless and well... patently absurd.
It isn't based upon any factual evidence, case law, or statute. The Constitution and the rights that it confers remain solidly in tack. I think that sovereign citizen proponents simply do not correctly understand the concept or meaning of due process
You are either...
A) Living in a fantasy world,
B) Are woefully ignorant of the facts
C) A government or public relations firm employee who is compensated for delivering propaganda to the masses via the internet.
If you were a citizen your right to own and bear arms would be protected by the Federal Government.
Your right to travel would not be outlawed.
It would not be illegal to engage in commerce.
You would not be subject to search and seizure without a warrant.
Churches would be free to criticize the government.
There would be no such thing as "thought crimes” such as conspiracy to.....
You would be able to hold alodial title to your land.
You would not be subject to persecution for "victimless crimes".
This list goes on and on, but the bottom line is that we now live in a world where the multi-national corporation owns the government, and the media. They write the laws, and control the masses.
It is literally impossible to live your live without breaking ordinances and laws designed to take from you your liberty and the fruits of your labor.
"There is nothing whatsoever systematically ethical about law. Law is about controling the masses. It is the tool which the elite class keeps control of the working class."
This about sums it up:
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." -Anatole France (Le Lys Rouge)
"There is nothing whatsoever systematically ethical about law. Law is about controling the masses. It is the tool which the elite class keeps control of the working class."
This about sums it up:
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." -Anatole France (Le Lys Rouge)
The entire argument that it is illegal to kill yourself proves that the government considers you, and your life, to be their property and that they have jurisdiction over it.
That concept is completely contrary to the concept of being a Citizen as the framers of the Constitution intended.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
