[| I, CWAS |]

I stumped a few libertarians on this one because of thier religion. But what is your personal view, on muder with permission. Say if I just want person-B to shoot me. Now this is not euthnasia because they are not a doctor, and I am not dying. Do you as a libertarian support the idea that suicidal people should be confined to mental institutions? But the larger question is can i hire someone to kill me, without them facing criminal prosecution. And the point still remains he is not a doctor, but a hit-man.

[nach0king]

I'm not religious, I am agnostic.

It's a contract, a man's life is his property (of course the religious people you speak of will subscribe to the Lockean view that life is in fact the property of the Maker), he can have himself killed if he wishes. If the contracter fulfils his end of the bargain (kills him) then there's no reason to stop them.

The problem raised by my interpretation is that it might leave the door open for people to sell themselves into slavery. One of the typical responses against slavery under libertarianism is that life is inviolable property of the individual and cannot be transferred - but if it can be terminated, why can't it be transferred? My only response is that murder ends the life, which is different from giving it away.

[Todd D.]

This is fairly black and white. In short, the answer is yes, that is ok.

Murder is by defenition the killing of another human being outside the confines of the law. In a Libertarian society, the law exists to protect the individual from UNWANTED coersion or force. Everybody has the right to do with their body what they choose, including suicide. The method that they choose to end their life, be it a swan dive off a cliff, or the hiring of a hitman, is their choice. Now, if I were that Hitman, I would be damn sure that I have some sort of notarized written consent to kill the person, because it could look like murder very easily, but so long as there is consent, it is A-OK.

[Noumenon]

I used to think this was okay, but I now think that assisted suicide should be illegal in a libertarian society. That is because the will is inalienable. What if you tell someone to kill you, but you change your mind at the last second? You no longer consented to be killed, but it was too late to be stopped. I think that the only kind of suicide that should be legal is when you do it completely on your own. If you change your mind you can just not pull the trigger.

This same idea makes selling yourself into slavery non-permissible. Since the will is inalienable, you should be able to change your mind and not work for someone if you wish. That is essential for freedom. You should not be held prisoner to your past decisions, except when doing so hurts others (in which case you must accept personal responisbility for your decision).

[smashthestate]

You should not be held prisoner to your past decisions, except when doing so hurts others (in which case you must accept personal responisbility for your decision).

Disregarding the selling yourself into slavery issue (I am concerned about what you wrote which I have quoted), what if you have entered into a contractual agreement with someone? In this situation, it does not matter if you change your mind, mutually accepted contracts are upheld by law and you cannot simply eject yourself from a previous agreement simply because you've changed your mind.

Anyway, to the main point...

I believe that if the person wanting to die is not under the influence of any foreign substances (drugs, etc.), then I don't see how it is that much different than euthanasia. The person is obviously suffering in their life, because they want to die. They may not have a terminal illness, but severe emotional problems can probably be just as bad or worse. If both parties agree to something, and no non-consenting parties are involved or harmed, then I don't see why the government should criminalize it.

My personal, moral view is that it is wrong to help someone kill themselves even if you think they truly don't want to live anymore. Of course I think euthanasia is a bit different, because when you're suffering from a terminal illness, it's just a matter of time anyway. However, my own personal and moral views should not be forced upon the rest of society, therefore I would say it should not be criminalized.

[Noumenon]

Disregarding the selling yourself into slavery issue (I am concerned about what you wrote which I have quoted), what if you have entered into a contractual agreement with someone? In this situation, it does not matter if you change your mind, mutually accepted contracts are upheld by law and you cannot simply eject yourself from a previous agreement simply because you've changed your mind.

Contracts are only valid if breaking them involves implicit theft. Otherwise, they are nothing more than promises and should be treated by the law as such. If I make a contract to sell my car to you for $1000 (yeah, my car sucks), then that contract is legally enforcable. If I take the $1000, then change my mind about giving you the car, that is theft. However, if I make a contract to sell myself into slavery for $100, that contract is only enforceable so long as breaking it involves theft. If I give back the $100 I am no longer obligated to be a slave.

I believe that if the person wanting to die is not under the influence of any foreign substances (drugs, etc.), then I don't see how it is that much different than euthanasia. The person is obviously suffering in their life, because they want to die. They may not have a terminal illness, but severe emotional problems can probably be just as bad or worse. If both parties agree to something, and no non-consenting parties are involved or harmed, then I don't see why the government should criminalize it.

In the case of euthanasia, I think you can be fairly sure that the person wanting to die consents to it. However, for assisted suicide in other situations, you may not be sure. You will never know if they changed their mind at the last second, or were really just out of their mind at the time. So I think we should err on the side of caution, and assume they don't really consent to it.

[| I, CWAS |]

In the case of euthanasia, I think you can be fairly sure that the person wanting to die consents to it. However, for assisted suicide in other situations, you may not be sure. You will never know if they changed their mind at the last second, or were really just out of their mind at the time. So I think we should err on the side of caution, and assume they don't really consent to it.

Especially in an unremitting sense. I have dealt with suicidal people in my life, some really wanted it and succeeded, some tried and failed, and regretted ever trying once they got help and convalesced, and some changed their minds at the last minute. For example the 3rd, One was standing on the edge of a bridge ready to jump, but the fear of heights caused her to become nauseous, and she didn't know what to do, and she became afraid and didn't do it. Now if that was a hired gun, it would have put her out indefinitely, yet it is obvious her will was not truly there.
In the case of the second--those who tried and failed at later regretted it. This shows that some people are at points in their life or suffer from mental illness. Now in the end the result is they did not want to die, but a hired gun would have done it quickly, with no chance for a second thought. Since many consider it a contract, is a contract valid if the person is not in the right state of mind? Then we must get into the debate of --Are you mentally sound if you want to commit suicide, or hire someone to murder you. Doesn't the result, which was obviously they didn't want to die important? Have you ever seen the movie Bullworth with warren Betty? This is a great example. The senator hired a hitman in despair, and the person he paid died, and he spent half the movie in panic, not wanting to die.

If you were to stand on that bridge and have second thoughts, and not do it, doesn't that give credence to the point of there being something wrong with the, shoot me tomorrow between 8am and 8pm? Because the true will is not there. Then you have the factor of mental state.

[Vivisekt]

One was standing on the edge of a bridge ready to jump, but the fear of heights caused her to become nauseous, and she didn't know what to do, and she became afraid and didn't do it. Now if that was a hired gun, it would have put her out indefinitely, yet it is obvious her will was not truly there.

Survival Instinct can be > will. It is a very difficult thing to control, you might be suprised.

Now in the end the result is they did not want to die, but a hired gun would have done it quickly, with no chance for a second thought. Since many consider it a contract, is a contract valid if the person is not in the right state of mind?

If you willfully set an irreversable chain of events into motion, then that is your own fault. Tough cookies. Libertarian government isn't there to protect people from their own stupidity or lack of foresight, nor does it exist to step in and ascertain whether or not a person is in the right frame of mind to do whatever he or she wants with his or her own private property (body included).

[Todd D.]

I agree with Vivisekt, and the sentiments that were issued by Smashthestate as well. If you have entered into a legally binding contract, it doesn't matter if you have second thoughts later, you consented. I consider it no different than people accepting their responsibility for pregnancy. Consider if a man said "I'm ready to have a baby sweethart, have sex with me", she get's pregnant, "Oh I'm sorry honey, I changed my mind". Yeah, I don't think that would fly, and that's not even a real contract.

Libertarian governments are not there to protect you from your own stupid self, that's your own responsibility.

[smashthestate]

Contracts are only valid if breaking them involves implicit theft.

Incorrect. Contracts are legally binding and they are enforced and upheld by the law. Think of the contracts professional football players make to their teams. Think of the contracts you make when you rent a house. Those are all legally binding, and you can't back out of them simply because you had a change of heart, without penalties.

[Noumenon]

Incorrect. Contracts are legally binding and they are enforced and upheld by the law. Think of the contracts professional football players make to their teams. Think of the contracts you make when you rent a house. Those are all legally binding, and you can't back out of them simply because you had a change of heart, without penalties.

So if I make a contract in which I agree to be someone's slave the rest of my life, thats okay? Enforcing that would be a violation of self-ownership. Rightly, I should always own myself, no matter what the circumstances. Thus, if I simply want to walk away and not be a slave anymore, I should be able to. Also, who's the aggressor? Who's initiating force? Surely, since I'm not involved in any implict theft, walking away cannot be considered an aggressive initation of force. However, enforcing the slavery contract is.

Might want to read Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty, page 79, and then chapter 19 starting on page 133.

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics.pdf

If you have entered into a legally binding contract, it doesn't matter if you have second thoughts later, you consented. I consider it no different than people accepting their responsibility for pregnancy. Consider if a man said "I'm ready to have a baby sweethart, have sex with me", she get's pregnant, "Oh I'm sorry honey, I changed my mind". Yeah, I don't think that would fly, and that's not even a real contract.

I don't view pregnancy as an issue of contracts. I added a new paragraph to our pro-life essay that explains it pretty well. Basically, you have to accept personal responsibility for pregnancy not because you made any sort of contract, but because pregnancy is a natural consequence of sex. If you step off a cliff, thats just too bad. If there was some way to reverse it, that would be great, but whether you change your mind or not doesn't really matter. Likewise, with sex, pregnancy is a natural consequence. You don't have to agree to it, its just the way it is. It doesn't matter whether you change your mind, because now you have a human being with rights inside you that you cannot violate.

If you willfully set an irreversable chain of events into motion, then that is your own fault. Tough cookies. Libertarian government isn't there to protect people from their own stupidity or lack of foresight, nor does it exist to step in and ascertain whether or not a person is in the right frame of mind to do whatever he or she wants with his or her own private property (body included).

I guess you are right. However, I still believe that you have a right to change your mind when it comes to contracts which don't involve implicit theft. If I hire someone to kill me, I should be able to change my mind and make him stop. I may have been stupid to consent in the first place, but I stopped consenting. And theres no good reason why the hired killer shouldn't stop. Its not like he has the right to kill me.

[nach0king]

Put a get-out clause in the contract, then