TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,944
From one of existentialgoof's quotes about negative liberty rights (pertaining to the right to die, shown below), it shows that merely getting the government and/or others from actively impeding, conspiring to, or even staying out of one's business with regards to bodily autonomy will go a long way. It is also a major start towards winning our right to die, even if we don't have a positive right (a right granted or given by a recognized authority or enshrined as a legal, human civil right).
Here is the quote below:
Given that quote, basically EG is conveying that all we need is to prevent, stop, and curtail the government, authorities, the State, and anyone with the power to actively impinge, interfere, intervene, or otherwise prevent us (pro-choicers) from exercising our negative liberty rights (the right to die on our own terms, ultimate act of bodily autonomy of the individual). Then once that is achieved and/or realized, then it would be
A good example of this is a story a few years ago, around the time of the welfare/wellness checks being done on those who gotten the SN (back in 2023 or so), and was quite a fiasco as well as arduous times. There was one jurisdiction, I believe, which was Met Police in the UK who stopped responding to welfare/wellness checks and calls (see article linked). While this is just a drop in the bucket and a small example, it still shows that when things like this happen, where one's rights are not impinged, it goes a long way and is a major step towards the eventual recognition and formalization of the right to die (as a positive right). Even though the people who are being impinged (or would be impinged) are not granted a positive right (the right to die), they are at the minimum, not being harassed by the State (the gov't) and also not having their privacy and peace of mind violated. While some people could argue that it has it's drawbacks, I won't delve into that tangent as this article is mainly focused on the curtailment of paternalistic measures and how that would benefit people (even if there isn't currently a positive right, but just the mere respecting of negative liberty rights) as it stands. Also, critics, may defer to the fact that there could be laws that introduce paternalism and/or concerned citizens going about underhanded ways (circumventing and evading the normal way of doing things) to get what they want (to impinge or conspire to impinge on others' negative liberty rights), but they also run afoul of laws and would be dealt with by the legal system.
Rebuttal to 'other ways and means of impingement of negative liberty rights:
While many pro-lifers and anti-choicers (even the State) may find ways around skirting the legal system and/or enact paternalistic measures that are extralegal or even introduce legislation that would erode personal civil liberties, they would either be unconstitutional and/or the moral busybodies would be crossing a legal line (which could result in criminal and civil consequences).
Quick disclaimer: I am not a legal expert nor lawyer, and the statements I made are not legal advice, but merely just conjecture and speculation from a layman's perspective.
With that said, here are two scenarios in which either the State would try to circumvent one's civil liberties, and the other one, a moral busybody looking to find ways around one's rights and how both of them are likely to fail, at least with the current legal system.
Scenario A: The State (gov't) introducing new paternalistic legislation to circumvent existing liberties
Throughout history, there has been many times where the State has overstepped their boundaries and/or bad actors have crossed the line. If there are such paternalistic legislation being introduced, ideally it would struck down before it even has a chance to pass and become law. However, should that fail, then there are legal challenges to either rule it unconstitutional or the law being unconstitutional and therefore, not enforced. The former is more likely to be possible than the latter. Such laws would be considered unconstitutional if/when it violates a person's civil liberties (Bill of Rights), especially the 4th and 5th amendments. It's more complex than that, but the general idea is there and my point still stands.
Scenario B: Moral busybodies will still try to find ways to impinge on negative liberty rights
While there will always be some moral busybodies going about, when the State no longer has such powers (or chooses to not enforce them), then these busybodies would not have a legal ground to intervene. Although some may still try to skirt the law to get around such restrictions, they would be crossing a legal line doing so. For example, in the Met police example, had there been some busybodies who then tried to get a police response by falsely reporting (or wildly exaggerating) a crime, then they would likely be guilty of misuse of emergency/public services, and filing a false report, especially if there was no crime being committed. Furthermore, since CTB is NOT considered a crime and if the State has no power (or chooses not to enforce impingement of the individual's civil liberties), then they (the State) would effectively do nothing. There is likely more factors and details at play, but this is just an over-simplified example demonstrating what could/would happen if the State simply had their paternalistic powers curtailed. Additionally, the victim (the pro-choicer who was minding their own business) would likely be able to pursue legal action against the busybody, depending on what happened and the outcome of the false report/skirting of laws.
With all that said, this article mainly takes a quote that EG made and also gives a real world example (especially during the time where the whole IC SN fiasco was going on) of what would happen if/should authorities not intervene. It puts things into perspective and overall, I do believe that if the State simply had it's paternalistic powers and overreach curtailed, then they would be unlikely to impinge on one's civil liberties. While there may be a few that will 'try' to, it is much easier to deal with them than to have the State with unchecked and unbridled paternalistic powers to intrude on law-abiding citizens' rights and freedoms.
Here is the quote below:
| Most of the time, the argument for the right to die focuses on trying to win a positive right. But all we really need is to demonstrate that the government is unjustly stopping us from ending our suffering through these paternalistic suicide prevention laws. |
Given that quote, basically EG is conveying that all we need is to prevent, stop, and curtail the government, authorities, the State, and anyone with the power to actively impinge, interfere, intervene, or otherwise prevent us (pro-choicers) from exercising our negative liberty rights (the right to die on our own terms, ultimate act of bodily autonomy of the individual). Then once that is achieved and/or realized, then it would be
A good example of this is a story a few years ago, around the time of the welfare/wellness checks being done on those who gotten the SN (back in 2023 or so), and was quite a fiasco as well as arduous times. There was one jurisdiction, I believe, which was Met Police in the UK who stopped responding to welfare/wellness checks and calls (see article linked). While this is just a drop in the bucket and a small example, it still shows that when things like this happen, where one's rights are not impinged, it goes a long way and is a major step towards the eventual recognition and formalization of the right to die (as a positive right). Even though the people who are being impinged (or would be impinged) are not granted a positive right (the right to die), they are at the minimum, not being harassed by the State (the gov't) and also not having their privacy and peace of mind violated. While some people could argue that it has it's drawbacks, I won't delve into that tangent as this article is mainly focused on the curtailment of paternalistic measures and how that would benefit people (even if there isn't currently a positive right, but just the mere respecting of negative liberty rights) as it stands. Also, critics, may defer to the fact that there could be laws that introduce paternalism and/or concerned citizens going about underhanded ways (circumventing and evading the normal way of doing things) to get what they want (to impinge or conspire to impinge on others' negative liberty rights), but they also run afoul of laws and would be dealt with by the legal system.
Rebuttal to 'other ways and means of impingement of negative liberty rights:
While many pro-lifers and anti-choicers (even the State) may find ways around skirting the legal system and/or enact paternalistic measures that are extralegal or even introduce legislation that would erode personal civil liberties, they would either be unconstitutional and/or the moral busybodies would be crossing a legal line (which could result in criminal and civil consequences).
Quick disclaimer: I am not a legal expert nor lawyer, and the statements I made are not legal advice, but merely just conjecture and speculation from a layman's perspective.
With that said, here are two scenarios in which either the State would try to circumvent one's civil liberties, and the other one, a moral busybody looking to find ways around one's rights and how both of them are likely to fail, at least with the current legal system.
Scenario A: The State (gov't) introducing new paternalistic legislation to circumvent existing liberties
Throughout history, there has been many times where the State has overstepped their boundaries and/or bad actors have crossed the line. If there are such paternalistic legislation being introduced, ideally it would struck down before it even has a chance to pass and become law. However, should that fail, then there are legal challenges to either rule it unconstitutional or the law being unconstitutional and therefore, not enforced. The former is more likely to be possible than the latter. Such laws would be considered unconstitutional if/when it violates a person's civil liberties (Bill of Rights), especially the 4th and 5th amendments. It's more complex than that, but the general idea is there and my point still stands.
Scenario B: Moral busybodies will still try to find ways to impinge on negative liberty rights
While there will always be some moral busybodies going about, when the State no longer has such powers (or chooses to not enforce them), then these busybodies would not have a legal ground to intervene. Although some may still try to skirt the law to get around such restrictions, they would be crossing a legal line doing so. For example, in the Met police example, had there been some busybodies who then tried to get a police response by falsely reporting (or wildly exaggerating) a crime, then they would likely be guilty of misuse of emergency/public services, and filing a false report, especially if there was no crime being committed. Furthermore, since CTB is NOT considered a crime and if the State has no power (or chooses not to enforce impingement of the individual's civil liberties), then they (the State) would effectively do nothing. There is likely more factors and details at play, but this is just an over-simplified example demonstrating what could/would happen if the State simply had their paternalistic powers curtailed. Additionally, the victim (the pro-choicer who was minding their own business) would likely be able to pursue legal action against the busybody, depending on what happened and the outcome of the false report/skirting of laws.
With all that said, this article mainly takes a quote that EG made and also gives a real world example (especially during the time where the whole IC SN fiasco was going on) of what would happen if/should authorities not intervene. It puts things into perspective and overall, I do believe that if the State simply had it's paternalistic powers and overreach curtailed, then they would be unlikely to impinge on one's civil liberties. While there may be a few that will 'try' to, it is much easier to deal with them than to have the State with unchecked and unbridled paternalistic powers to intrude on law-abiding citizens' rights and freedoms.
Last edited:
