(October 1, 2012 at 6:37 pm)Tiberius Wrote: It makes no sense. Presuming the lifeguard represents a Libertarian government, or even a Libertarian society, at no point would such a government or society simply stand idly by and let people die. Libertarianism is about letting people make their own choices, not about abandoning all levels of protection in society.
In short, the only way that image makes any sense in the Libertarian political ideology is if every single drowned person had gone up to the lifeguard prior to drowning and said "I'm going to commit suicide in this pool; please don't try and save me." A Libertarian society would honour a person's wish to kill themselves, but would never simply watch as innocent people drowned.
So the liberterian wouldn`t question a induviduals decision to commit suicide? I do believe in euthenasia as it is legal as for example in the Netherlands (and if i`m not wrong the states of Oregon and Washington in the USA), but I dont think i actualy need a statistic to prove, and can actualy assume that most suicides are the result of depression. Depression I believe, and probably most of the sane world would believe, is a illness, and in most cases - a mental illness - wich concludes that the patient might not eaven be certifiably sane, and requires medical treatment through therapy rather than letting the patient end his life. Depression can have various causes wich lead to that state and proposing to let these people simply commit suicide to me comes awfully close to proposing a eugenic sociaty.
On a other note.
Am I wrong with my assumtion that libertarians propose the abolishment of all social services and security nets provided by a goverment?
