Discussion [Idea] Since we are (de facto) denied our negative liberty rights by default, then...

[TAW122]

So I had an idea based on the concept of negative liberty rights, but before I begin, I will first explain what negative liberty rights are before I proceed.

According to existentialgoof's definition of negative liberty rights on one of his blogs, it is "A negative right is something that nobody is obligated to provide us with, but which nobody may legally deny us without compelling reason." This means that while society (and the State by extension) may not be required to provide us a way to exit, they also should NOT legally deny us or prevent us (by de facto treating the right to die as an illegal act and treating people who plan or attempt to CTB) from exercising it on our own. This means that society and the State should NOT intervene nor impede on our right or bodily autonomy.

Furthermore, one of the podcasts from TRTNLE, podcast episode #7, "Should prisons have a right to die?", in other words, granting prisoners negative liberty rights, talked about whether to grant one or not. It is an interesting debate on whether to have rights for those who have done stuff to forfeit their own negative liberty rights. I do want to say I agree that we should NOT reward criminals or bad actors an easy way out if they have done something heinous just to avoid punishment and accountability. That much is true. However, this is coming from a presumption that one is living in a society in which negative liberty rights (the right to die especially) is already available and granted by default.

So with the definitions and concepts of negative liberty rights established and defined, onto the main topic itself. I'm not going to go off on tangent here by debating whether one should or shouldn't have the right as this thread is about our present reality, in which we live in a prohibitionist, preventionist society in which the right to die is not automatically granted (as it is illegal, prohibited) and thus denied by default.

Main topic and premise:
My main topic and premise is that since we are denied our negative liberty rights by default (as per living in a prohibitionist society itself), then the State or others cannot deny/deprive us of the right as it wasn't there to begin with? Speaking from just common sense logic, this means that in our current world where we (de facto) aren't allowed nor have negative liberty rights, then one cannot effectively lose what they never had to begin with.

For example, in our current society and world, the government cannot deny the right to die or voluntary euthanasia as it currently is not allowed, meaning that the State cannot suspend a negative liberty right for those who have done something to forfeit (an currently non-existent) right. Now if one lives in a society and world in which one is automatically granted the negative liberty (the right to die or voluntary euthanasia), then logically speaking, one can lose said negative liberty right as the State would be able to deprive a convict of their said right(s).

So in conclusion, my premise boils down to the "nothing to lose" concept (not in the most literal sense though, but figuratively and metaphorically), meaning that one cannot lose what one never had to begin with. In other words, no one, not even the state can take away the right to die if they never had it (or by default, prohibited it) to begin with. What are your thoughts on this?

@RainAndSadness @Forever Sleep @FuneralCry

 

[Huntfish34]

Hmmmm, Idk honestly ? I'm kinda confused. =/

 

[Pidgeons_Sparrows]

fuck fixers and fuck pro lifers

 

[Forever Sleep]

Even in countries where a person's right to die is acknowledged- (so- where assisted suicide clinics are based,) I imagine someone threatening to throw themselves off a bridge will still be stopped. Even in these more forward thinking countries- suicide is still strictly gatekept. Basically- they don't want suicidal people killing themselves.

I imagine it boils down to the whole- this person isn't in their right mind BECAUSE they are suicidal- thing. Presumably- it's this supposed 'mental illness' I imagine they would say that forfeits a person the right to bodily autonomy- lack of mental competancy and all that. I imagine that stands the same- whether it is a country that respects a person's right to die or not. You'd still effectively need their stamp of approval to die.

What I would most definitely find curious- is- if you were cleared medically as sane- is there anything they could really do to stop you then? Suicide isn't illegal in most of the world now. I still don't believe they'd just stand back and let you jump BUT- they may be more willing to turn a blind eye to a more private method.

The police officers allowed me to keep my SN after all. I was fairly honest with them too. I told them I'm not in immediate 'risk' but it's a possibility I will use it in the future. I don't fancy losing my mind and rotting in a nursing home one day.

But- to focus on your argument- society tends to focus heavily on mental illness/ competancy when it comes down to what they have the 'rights' to do to or deny someone.

I guess their idea of a default human being is one that isn't suicidal. So- when they come across ones that are- they assume they're broken in some way I suppose (and need 'help'.) Seeing as these initial responders will likely be police or emergency services- they aren't going to be qualified to assess for mental competancy. I imagine their only goal is to make the person 'safe' and hand them over to some psychiatric unit. Then- it just seems like one big system to keep people alive because- I don't know- they don't want to admit defeat maybe? There must be shit loads of money wrapped up in pharmaceuticals and therapy too.

Plus- you're only looking at it from the suicidal individual vs. authorities point of view. I ran a poll a few weeks back to ask how many people thought their parents/ families would support them if they were able to get assisted suicide. It was a tiny fraction of people who thought their families would understand.

Do you really think parents would be ok with police just standing back while their teenage child jumps off a bridge? It ISN'T just that authorities would intervene because they want to deny people their autonomy. It's likely that they are thinking about the distress of the families left behind plus- the repurcusions on them- 'Why didn't you do more to save my child?' type of thing. You can see the backlash on the sellers of SN. Those families don't seem too willing to accept their loved ones right to die. It ISN'T just authorities that want to deny us this right- it's our families too! Families who very likely lobby their MP's and vote!

Until things really change in terms of how we view and talk about suicide- I think it's kind of unrealistic to think that people would make that logical decision to step back from someone about to attempt to CTB.

 

[TAW122]

Even in countries where a person's right to die is acknowledged- (so- where assisted suicide clinics are based,) I imagine someone threatening to throw themselves off a bridge will still be stopped. Even in these more forward thinking countries- suicide is still strictly gatekept. Basically- they don't want suicidal people killing themselves.

I imagine it boils down to the whole- this person isn't in their right mind BECAUSE they are suicidal- thing. Presumably- it's this supposed 'mental illness' I imagine they would say that forfeits a person the right to bodily autonomy- lack of mental competancy and all that. I imagine that stands the same- whether it is a country that respects a person's right to die or not. You'd still effectively need their stamp of approval to die.

What I would most definitely find curious- is- if you were cleared medically as sane- is there anything they could really do to stop you then? Suicide isn't illegal in most of the world now. I still don't believe they'd just stand back and let you jump BUT- they may be more willing to turn a blind eye to a more private method.

The police officers allowed me to keep my SN after all. I was fairly honest with them too. I told them I'm not in immediate 'risk' but it's a possibility I will use it in the future. I don't fancy losing my mind and rotting in a nursing home one day.

But- to focus on your argument- society tends to focus heavily on mental illness/ competancy when it comes down to what they have the 'rights' to do to or deny someone.

I guess their idea of a default human being is one that isn't suicidal. So- when they come across ones that are- they assume they're broken in some way I suppose (and need 'help'.) Seeing as these initial responders will likely be police or emergency services- they aren't going to be qualified to assess for mental competancy. I imagine their only goal is to make the person 'safe' and hand them over to some psychiatric unit. Then- it just seems like one big system to keep people alive because- I don't know- they don't want to admit defeat maybe? There must be shit loads of money wrapped up in pharmaceuticals and therapy too.

Plus- you're only looking at it from the suicidal individual vs. authorities point of view. I ran a poll a few weeks back to ask how many people thought their parents/ families would support them if they were able to get assisted suicide. It was a tiny fraction of people who thought their families would understand.

Do you really think parents would be ok with police just standing back while their teenage child jumps off a bridge? It ISN'T just that authorities would intervene because they want to deny people their autonomy. It's likely that they are thinking about the distress of the families left behind plus- the repurcusions on them- 'Why didn't you do more to save my child?' type of thing. You can see the backlash on the sellers of SN. Those families don't seem too willing to accept their loved ones right to die. It ISN'T just authorities that want to deny us this right- it's our families too! Families who very likely lobby their MP's and vote!

Until things really change in terms of how we view and talk about suicide- I think it's kind of unrealistic to think that people would make that logical decision to step back from someone about to attempt to CTB.

You raise lots of good points here. In countries that have legalized medical assistance in death (Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, to name a few), yes, there are still many barriers to just having carte blanche access to CTB. As far as people being medically cleared to be sane, I don't really know as I never been through that process nor applied for death with dignity (not that I would qualify for it as I would have to meet a narrow set of criteria to be eligible).

With respect to families and loved ones being alright or respecting one another's decision, it is indeed a tough situation for them (even seeing it from their point of view), but I would say that if they really cared and loved their loved ones, they would accept their loved ones' decision to end ones' own suffering if suffering has become too much for one to deal with.

I don't think the public (the masses) would be ok with the State simply just doing nothing or failing to intervene, especially those of impulsive CTBs. However, even for non-impulsive ones, there are certain quite a number of people whose families seem to pushback and pressure the authorities to intervene. There isn't really an easy solution (or rather a good solution as there are many things at play simultaneously), but I remember I had an old thread that outlined all the areas that need to be thoroughly addressed in order to have a chance at legalizing voluntary euthanasia, which also includes changing the culture surrounding death and bodily autonomy. There is a thread I wrote a while back, over half a year ago, and it highlights all (or as much as I can think of) the roadblocks and challenges that get in the way of legalizing and granting the right to die for all adults.

------
Continuing on the main premise of my thread, about the concept of "nothing to lose", this video (and especially the scenario example at 7:30) by Marc Antinatalist, emphasizes my point about being trapped in a world where one is not able to leave, via the house party analogy. In the analogy, leaving the party on one's volition (the negative liberty right) is by default, denied. Therefore the people who WANT to leave aren't able to exercise it and are trapped.