How should Suicide be dealt with? That person isn’t stealing another’s property or depriving another’s rights. Only wishing to kill his own property. I’m sure there are many answer so, let let me have it.
If you wanna do it, then do it. Leave the rest of us out of it, though.
I’m not sure I understand the question. What is there to deal with in the case of a successful suicide? Or are you talking about an unsuccessful suicide?
The question is: do you have the right to try to prevent someone from committing suicide?
Ahh, makes sense.
I don’t think so, not by way coercion at least. Which is to say, we have the right to attempt to persuade someone not to commit suicide, but we don’t have the right to use force in order to stop them based on the axiom of self-ownership.
Here’s the spanner in the works: What if they are suffering from a mental illness? Can they be held against their will under medical orders…?
Would Mises not be applicable here?
Okay, putting aside the murky realm of psychoanalysis and sub-conscious compulsion driving people to irrational actions, what if the cause of suicidal inclination were to come from the influence of a chemical substance?
An example is a friend of mine dabbled in psychedelic drug use and, whilst experiencing a “bad trip” with extreme hallucinatory paranoia, resolved to harm and even kill himself. I physically restrained him from doing this until the effects of the drug waned and his normal state of consciousness returned. Was I justified in restraining him?
Was your friend grateful that you restrained them after all was said and done?
Yes. He admitted that he had used narcotics many times before never experiencing the reaction he had that night. It may have been an unwitting overdose. He also told me he had never had suicidal intentions before and had no history of depression or anxiety so it seemed like all of it was the result of the “bad trip”.
I had no knowledge of this at the time of the incident, of course, so my restraint of him was compassionate and pre-emptive, I suppose. Had he managed to actually kill himself we would have never known if his intentions were solely motivated by the effects of the narcotic or not. Was I justified?
Get practical guys. If someone really wants to kill himself, not just attract attention (like a wuss, I must add), or not just as the result of an unclear state of mind, he will do so and there is nothing anyone could do to stop him. We get a chance to restrain people only when they are undecided. So, on practical terms, I always advocate restraining (physically, if needed) people dangling about suicide. We might be invading his property but he can always kill himself later on. While of the abhorrent practice of jailing people (in mental hospitals) only because they have attempted suicide, I believe we all agree here that it is a medieval practice.
I can’t really be sure, to be honest, though I think I’d personally be inclined to take the position that you were justified. On one hand, it could be argued that you were in apparent violation of his natural rights. On the other hand, considering the whole of the situation, it seems you were acting in congruity with his true wishes; regardless of how known they may or may not have been, they still existed on some level.
Admittedly this is a rather unique, and rare, case, no? I’d be interested to hear what position or thoughts others might have on the subject though, as this has created something of an apparent gray area in my principles.
Can true wishes or desires, even if apparently unknown, justify the use of coercion in rare situations?
Perhaps it could be argued that being under the influence in a negative way (the “bad trip”) interfered with your friend’s ownership of his/her self, and/or their ability to freely act?
Edit: Merlin also raises an interesting point, in that even if coercion is used to stop a single instance of attempted suicide, that doesn’t necessarily make it impossible for a person to carry out their suicide at a later time when you are not present.
This is a very interesting question that belongs in the same category as Rothbard’s “Lifeboat Situations” from his Ethics of Liberty (namely, that the existence of extremely rare situations like these do not negate the entire libertarian ethics). Perhaps by asking a few more questions, we can learn more about what we should do in situations like these. I think it’s important to do this just as an intellectual exercise. Here goes:
When you were restraining your friend, were you violating his property? Did you do so with the intent to violate/damage his property? Did your actions mean to do harm? Did they do any harm which required restitution?
Or were you acting in defense of his property? Were you defending your friend from the effects of the drug (poison)?
I’m just thinking aloud here, and I know this may sound controversial, but perhaps there are situations where the property rights of an individual can be protected by a bystander even if it may seem that their property rights would be violated in the process. For instance, if my neighbor, in the yard next to me fell to the ground and started having convulsions, am I violating her property rights by jumping the fence and helping to save her life? I didn’t jump the fence with the intent to violate or damage her property, but rather to ensure the vitality of her property (body). The question of whether I should have jumped the fence or just stood there and watched as she slowly died is beside the point. Is my action a violation if my intention wasn’t malicious?
Please someone, save me from my reasoning.
I think this is probably the most pertinent question with regard to this situation, which somewhat echoes or expands on a question I posed previously…
Isn’t it true that because of the “bad trip” the friend in question was no longer in ‘possession’ of his property (his/her self)? Or even that the friend’s property was in jeopardy?
Isn’t it true that others, such as Rain in this case, adopt the right to protect the property of the non-aggressor if another party initiates aggression?
Perhaps Rain may find justification here without necessarily violating the NAP?
How big of a role does Rain’s intent play in this situation? If intent does play a substantial role, does that not also open a questionable door to many other situations which would otherwise be relatively cut and dry?
That is what I was driving at. Also, consider that the friend’s property was in jeopardy due to poisoning (that is what I consider the drug to be). The difference between Rain protecting his friend, and say an ambulance and paramedics, is that the friend (assuming we are in an ancap society) would have a contractual relationship with the paramedic company to intervene in such a situation. Rain doesn’t have such a contract with his friend? Or does he? Is there an implicit agreement to allow such things by virtue of living in a human society?
Wait a second. Disregard all that. I think I solved the problem. Contracts. In an ancap society, life insurance contracts would probably tend to standardize and develop a clause that states something to the effect of “In the case that I am in a situation where my state of mind presents a threat to myself, I permit company XYZ or any nearby individuals to respond in a way that preserves the integrity of my property (body).” Contracts will simply state explicitly what we understand is necessary in human society implicitly.
I’m afraid that wouldn’t cut it. For how to judge whether you state of mind was truly depriving you of reason? If you really go through a mentally incapacitating episode, and someone intrudes in your property to save you, and you’re thankful afterwards, no such case will be brought before an arbiter, and there is no need for such contract.
On the other hand, if you latter on disagree that the intervener’s action was right, and you insist on pressing charges, than the arbiter cannot truly uphold the contract, as you yourself will be stating before him that your state of mind was proper, and who ca judge that better than you?
Thus, such a contract would be at every time unneeded.
But than again, I must repeat myself: loosen up fellows, let individual arbiters decide such cases. At most 100 USD will be paid to compensate a really expensive window broken to get into the house. I don’t think that would be the end of the world.
Thomas Szasz might be worth reading on this, if you are really interesting in this topic.
This week in my hometown there was a 911 call made regarding a suicide threat. When the gestapo arrived they were greeted by a man with an AK-47 who killed one of the officers and injured the other. While the surviving officer was waiting for back up to arrive, the suicidal man shot at two random passing cars putting one driver in the hospital. The next officer to arrive at the scene cleared his clip with precision killing the AK-47 toting suicidal man.
If the state didn’t assume ownership of its citizens and ignored the call, it is likely that two folks would still be living, two folks wouldn’t be in the hospital, and one folk wouldn’t be making an car insurance claim to get bullet holes repaired.
^maybe they should just opt for stricter gun control 
ha, I wouldn’t attempt it. Nielsio clarified the question. I was just wondering anyways. Seems like a tricky question that no one has really dealt with. Can’t have a stateless society without being clear on all major subjects. The Small things will take care of themselves though.