I don’t feel like wasting much time on another sociopathic hypothetical…
I agree with this. It is wrong for arbitrators to refuse to consider possible justifications, but it is the defendant’s responsibility to argue his own side.
It is what you said though.
You need to prove that he gave you permission to kill him. He might live through the fall, or prefer to die that way. He is still human, same as you.
I don’t think I’d take that as proof. A signed statement from the deceased would probably work though. Really, it’s up to whomever is deciding the case to determine how much would be required to establish proof. We were questioning who the burden was on, not the degree needed one way or the other.
So if Person A steals a watch from Person B, and then Person B takes back the watch, and then Person A accuses Person B of theft, it is up to Person B to prove that he didn’t steal? Why wouldn’t Person A, the accuser, be required to prove that it was theft?
The accuser has to prove the crime occured first.
Then the accused would have to prove justification for the crime or accept the consequences(or ignore the whole thing)
Yeah, in practice. This is not about the consequence of such an action though, this is just a weird hypothetical situation. I am a Rothbardian myswlf, so there’s no need to be defensive. I acknowledge that no-one would ever shoot a person that is attempting suicide because of judicial difficulties, but that doesn’t mean it is wrong to kill people who give up their right. Are you with me?
It is if you follow the NAP.
Property rights is a requirement for the NAP. If a person has no rights - he has nor property rights, and therefor the NAP can’t be applied on him.
I didn’t think it was possible to give up your right of self ownership.
It’s an inalienable right. But you can rent yourself into slavery.
It’s call an affirmative defense. If you said, “I did not kill him,” then the burden of proof would be on the prosecution/plaintiff. If you say, “Yes, I did kill him, but I was justified because…,” it’s then up to you to prove the justification.
If he is a self owner it is wrong.
If he isn’t a self owner then why does it matter if he is committing suicide? He could be killed at any time.
You guys seem to think that rights are a result by some god or something like that, ahve any of you read anything by Rothbard on rights? I do not know much, but I do know that he bases them on the central premise that everyone wants to live. If a person does not want to live, he can not be a self-owner, since ownership is not necessary for dying.
So if I ownsomething say a car, and decide I don’t want it any more, do I no longer own it through sheer force of will or do I have to get rid of it somehow?
Well, since property rights is a way of distinguishing between what is yours and what is mine, more than one party is required. You’d have to physically do something to illustrate that you don’t want the car, I can’t just assume that it is not owned. The same goes for suicide, but if someone jumps from the golden gate bridge, i’d sya the persons intentions are pretty obvious, and so, why miss the chance to practice shooting on a moving target? 
Where does Rothbard say that?
Oops. You didn’t notice the bungie cord and just killed an innocent man…