Bohemian, one day you can tell God that you once compared him to a rapist. I would love to be around for that.
If your concept of moral/legal progress is denying God’s existence and moral authority and instead extolling human arrogance in the face of God’s authority, then I really don’t want anything to do with you or your “progress.”
The law, as far as I am concerned, is a vehicle for executing God’s will. As far as I can tell, his will is not to simply allow people to commit suicide. Most current state law reflects this view, perhaps if we continue as a country to descend into godlessness, you will get your way.
Until then, except in a few states, no one has the right to kill themselves.
Whose law? Hugo Chavez’s law? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s law? Robert Mugabe’s law?
America isn’t a country which writes laws based on the Bible. Jesus did not steal or kill.
Rights don’t come from the states. They come from God. Is this cognitive dissonance or do you really believe God creates governments of men like Barack Obama?
“Whose law? Hugo Chavez’s law? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s law? Robert Mugabe’s law?”
If their law is consistent with God’s law, then there’s no problem. The question, then, is whether or not their law is consistent with God’s law.
“America isn’t a country which writes laws based on the Bible. Jesus did not steal or kill.”
I’m not a Christian, I don’t believe in Jesus. That being said, taxes will probably be something all statists have to answer for. That’s why I try to use the money to do things that God will approve of. We’ll see if it all balances out in God’s eyes. Murder and theft don’t really seem to be so bad in principle, I’m betting it all depends on who you’re stealing from and who you’re killing.
“Rights don’t come from the states. They come from God.”
True, but in this case, the state’s law seems to be consistent with God’s law.
A bit shocking and bedazzling to see Bloom believing in some form of a (good?) god. But, ignoring the fact that suicide is really nothing more than a legal term, it is really based off of ones allegiances towards spiritual and cultural obligations.
If this is about the libertarian view of suicide, I would suspect most libertarians would hold the broad view as an issue of self ownership and therefore permissible on a legal level.
As for suicide being cowardly, courageous, rational, good, bad, etc that is simply a matter of perspective and one’s own allegiance to things such as courageousness, rationalism, good, bad etc. To me none of the terms are very useful outside of descriptive terms.
What is always shocking for me is when so-called libertarians call others nihilists and amoralists but those so-called libertarians do not respect the foundation of their own moral doctrine, that is property rights.
I am speaking specifically about people who are prohibited from participating on someone else’s property, but they try to do so anyway, through the use of multiple identities, tor proxies and other subterfuge.
What’s most saddening, is that these so-called libertarians don’t have anything better to do, than violate the property rights of people who they claim they have no respect for. I mean, surely these so-called libertarians should be busy fighting for real justice, not petty ideological differences, and yet typically, you can spot these sad former community members from a mile away.
I think it says a lot about the character and motivations of someone when they insist upon going where they are not wanted and not allowed. And surely such libertarians would have to agree that they are not allowed, unless they refuse to acknowledge the property rights of anyone else, and thus, invalidate themselves as libertarians.
Of course, if any of that was to happen, then these so-called libertarians would be outed for what they truly are. Collectivist hypocrites.
I’m confident you can figure it out for yourself. But the main idea is that believing nothing, or believing in utter nonsense, are both childish rejections of common sense.
“I’m confident you can figure it out for yourself. But the main idea is that believing nothing, or believing in utter nonsense, are both childish rejections of common sense.”
For the first and third yes, but for the second no. Morality as it is used today is little more than superstition, and it is those who consider it a valid concept rather than those who challenge its validity who have reached an actually mature and real position