NationStates

Excidium Planetis wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:PARSONS: One could use that exact same argument for the state to compel people to kill themselves. The state does not want to pay your medical bill, Grandma...

"The state should not pay medical bills, in my opinion. That is the role of private industries."

PARSONS: Well, one can get the same outcome if one simply believes that the state has an obligation to society, which you clearly do above.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Excidium Planetis wrote:"The state should not pay medical bills, in my opinion. That is the role of private industries."

PARSONS: Well, one can get the same outcome if one simply believes that the state has an obligation to society, which you clearly do above.

"Indeed, but the more reasonable solution, rather than killing productive members of society to avoid paying medical bills, is to simply not pay the medical bills. The state benefits more by not killing people."

Excidium Planetis wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:PARSONS: Well, one can get the same outcome if one simply believes that the state has an obligation to society, which you clearly do above.

"Indeed, but the more reasonable solution, rather than killing productive members of society to avoid paying medical bills, is to simply not pay the medical bills. The state benefits more by not killing people."

PARSONS: What if productive members of society are paying those bills and not buying war bonds or something? I don't think you can reasonably argue that it is impossible for the state to avoid tradeoffs.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Excidium Planetis wrote:"Indeed, but the more reasonable solution, rather than killing productive members of society to avoid paying medical bills, is to simply not pay the medical bills. The state benefits more by not killing people."

PARSONS: What if productive members of society are paying those bills and not buying war bonds or something? I don't think you can reasonably argue that it is impossible for the state to avoid tradeoffs.

"Those who are being helped by medical bills may recover to help further the war effort, or perhaps those who are paying the medical bills have increased morale because their loved ones are at home, still alive and un-euthanized. It is generally better to keep people alive than to have them dead. Dead people are of no use to society, save as the limited quantity of resources the corpse provides."

Excidium Planetis wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:PARSONS: What if productive members of society are paying those bills and not buying war bonds or something? I don't think you can reasonably argue that it is impossible for the state to avoid tradeoffs.

"Those who are being helped by medical bills may recover to help further the war effort, or perhaps those who are paying the medical bills have increased morale because their loved ones are at home, still alive and un-euthanized. It is generally better to keep people alive than to have them dead. Dead people are of no use to society, save as the limited quantity of resources the corpse provides."

PARSONS: How about people who are going to die. Would it be immoral for the state, in your opinion, to use their organs to source transfers to wounded soldiers who would die without them?

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Excidium Planetis wrote:"Those who are being helped by medical bills may recover to help further the war effort, or perhaps those who are paying the medical bills have increased morale because their loved ones are at home, still alive and un-euthanized. It is generally better to keep people alive than to have them dead. Dead people are of no use to society, save as the limited quantity of resources the corpse provides."

PARSONS: How about people who are going to die. Would it be immoral for the state, in your opinion, to use their organs to source transfers to wounded soldiers who would die without them?

"You can't know that people are going to die until they are dead. Any disease is curable, if you find the cure, and any wound is treatable, if you're lucky. But for those on death's door, they can sign consent waivers to be used for organ donations, to be used as soon as they are dead."

Excidium Planetis wrote:Dead people are of no use to society, save as the limited quantity of resources the corpse provides.

Barbera: ...Ew!

States of Glory WA Office wrote:

Excidium Planetis wrote:Dead people are of no use to society, save as the limited quantity of resources the corpse provides.

Barbera: ...Ew!

"Come now, ma'am, there are plenty of societies more primitive than yours and mine, but we shouldn't express such disgust at their desperate scavenging of resources from the dead. Impoverished and developing societies often resort to such measures out of necessity, not out of choice."

Excidium Planetis wrote:

Calladan wrote:Circumcision is a personal choice, and as such what the rest of the world, the rest of the country thinks really should not matter, and the rest of the world and the rest of the country should not get a say in the choice that a person makes because it is entirely up to the person's ethics as to whether they want to do it or not.

"We aren't discussing circumcision, Ambassador McGill, but suicide. Circumcision is a personal choice, it affects no one negatively except yourself and perhaps a few sexual partners throughout your life. Suicide, however, is a permanent end to your productivity, depriving your nation of a valuable worker and soldier, and negatively impacting the emotions of friends and loved ones with a premature death. The state has a compelling interest to preserve the lives of its citizens, and that includes reducing suicide rates, something which banning assisted suicide helps achieve."

My apologies - I think I got my debates mixed up a little and posted a response to one in another. I am very sorry about that -- it was not an attempt to side track, it was an honest mistake, I swear.

Excidium Planetis wrote:

Calladan wrote:Whether to end your own life or not is - in the end - a purely personal choice. It has nothing to do with the state, or The WA, but is only to do with you and your family (should you have one).

"Not so. The state does have a compelling interest in suicide.

The state has a compelling interest in almost everything the individual does. I am a very well trained diplomat who - as far as I know - represent Calladan with a high degree of skill. If I were to quit this job and go farm yaks in the mountains of Loran then the state would lose a highly trained employee.

But does that mean the state should be able to forbid me from quitting my job? That the state should be able force me to stay in a job I hate for the rest of my life?

Of course not. Because I have free will, and I am a free person, not an indentured slave. In the end it is my choice whether to work for the state or to farm Yaks in Loran or to bum around on trains for the rest of my life. My choice - my decision.

The same can be said for my choice about continuing or ending my life, and asking for help to end my life. I accept that the state has an interest in whether I do that or not, but in the end it is MY CHOICE, not the choice of the state.

Excidium Planetis wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:PARSONS: One could use that exact same argument for the state to compel people to kill themselves. The state does not want to pay your medical bill, Grandma...

"The state should not pay medical bills, in my opinion. That is the role of private industries."

It won't come as a huge surprise to you that I ENTIRELY disagree with you there

States of Glory WA Office wrote:

Excidium Planetis wrote:Dead people are of no use to society, save as the limited quantity of resources the corpse provides.

Barbera: ...Ew!

"Come now, Barbera. It isn't gross to speak of burning bodies to use the carbon for nanotube construction."

Calladan wrote:The state has a compelling interest in almost everything the individual does.

"Now, that's simply not true. The state has no compelling interest in whether my genitals have been circumcised or not. It doesn't affect them either way to such a degree as to compel them to act."

I am a very well trained diplomat who - as far as I know - represent Calladan with a high degree of skill. If I were to quit this job and go farm yaks in the mountains of Loran then the state would lose a highly trained employee.

But does that mean the state should be able to forbid me from quitting my job? That the state should be able force me to stay in a job I hate for the rest of my life?

"Absolutely. And the WA has recognized the right of states to do that, Ambassador McGill. It is called conscruption, and states can not only force their citizens to work jobs they do not want, but it can forbid them from leaving until their service is up. It can punish those who desert their positions. Everything you claim the state should not be able to because you have free will, the state does indeed have the ability to do in a great many nations, and has been explicitly granted the right to do by the WA, in Resolution One-Thirty-Two, Article Three, Section Two A."

Of course not. Because I have free will, and I am a free person, not an indentured slave. In the end it is my choice whether to work for the state or to farm Yaks in Loran or to bum around on trains for the rest of my life. My choice - my decision.

"But, as I have demonstrated, when the state has a compelling interest, it can override your individual choice and force you to do something. It can force you to pay taxes to maintain the state, it can force you to serve as a starship maintenance crew member to maintain military fleets, and, in some nations, it can force you to vote to maintain democracy. Even if you choose to bum around on trains, the state can force you to abandon that with vagrancy laws."

The same can be said for my choice about continuing or ending my life, and asking for help to end my life. I accept that the state has an interest in whether I do that or not, but in the end it is MY CHOICE, not the choice of the state.

"Suicide is no exception to the power of the state to restrict personal freedom in the interests of itself."

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: Against. Whilst this resolution may look like a NatSov repeal, its real intent is to force through another act mandating that euthanasia be legalised in all nation states. Please remember your duties under the Read The Resolution Act.

Excidium Planetis wrote:

Calladan wrote:The state has a compelling interest in almost everything the individual does.

"Now, that's simply not true. The state has no compelling interest in whether my genitals have been circumcised or not. It doesn't affect them either way to such a degree as to compel them to act."

The key word in my sentence being ALMOST.

I am a very well trained diplomat who - as far as I know - represent Calladan with a high degree of skill. If I were to quit this job and go farm yaks in the mountains of Loran then the state would lose a highly trained employee.

But does that mean the state should be able to forbid me from quitting my job? That the state should be able force me to stay in a job I hate for the rest of my life?

"Absolutely. And the WA has recognized the right of states to do that, Ambassador McGill. It is called conscruption, and states can not only force their citizens to work jobs they do not want, but it can forbid them from leaving until their service is up. It can punish those who desert their positions. Everything you claim the state should not be able to because you have free will, the state does indeed have the ability to do in a great many nations, and has been explicitly granted the right to do by the WA, in Resolution One-Thirty-Two, Article Three, Section Two A."

Since the resolution is titled "Military Conscription something something", and I am a civilian ambassador, I understand the point you are making but at the same time refute the fact that - in general - the state can apply that power to the vast majority of its citizens (with the exception of a state where EVERY job is in the military, which is not impossible but must be fairly rare).

And even then - and I do not mean to make light of this, given the subject - even if you can compel someone to stay in a job, you can not stop them from killing themselves, should they decide to. Even if it is illegal, even if it is forbidden. It will be THEIR choice and the state will be unable to stop it should they decide to do it.

And - to further expand on that - should someone decide to help them, the state will be able to do very little to stop that as well.

(Especially if these people are in the military where guns and other such things abound).

Of course not. Because I have free will, and I am a free person, not an indentured slave. In the end it is my choice whether to work for the state or to farm Yaks in Loran or to bum around on trains for the rest of my life. My choice - my decision.

"But, as I have demonstrated, when the state has a compelling interest, it can override your individual choice and force you to do something. It can force you to pay taxes to maintain the state, it can force you to serve as a starship maintenance crew member to maintain military fleets, and, in some nations, it can force you to vote to maintain democracy. Even if you choose to bum around on trains, the state can force you to abandon that with vagrancy laws."

Actually - it can't. It can require me to pay taxes, and throw me in jail if I don't. And it can throw me in jail for disobeying vagrancy laws. And it can requirements me to serve on a starship but it can't force me to work or do a good job - and can apply suitable punishments. And even if I am required to vote by law, I can either ignore that (and be prepared to chance the consequences) or I can write "democracy sucks" on my ballot paper which would render my vote null and vote, thus subverting the system.

There are very few ways to force someone to do something they do not wish to do, short of hypnosis or the imperius curse. And then - are you really forcing them, because is it really them?

The same can be said for my choice about continuing or ending my life, and asking for help to end my life. I accept that the state has an interest in whether I do that or not, but in the end it is MY CHOICE, not the choice of the state.

"Suicide is no exception to the power of the state to restrict personal freedom in the interests of itself."

Yeah - I have no clue what that means. Sorry.

Calladan wrote:The key word in my sentence being ALMOST.

"I would not say the state has a compelling reason in even half of everything, let alone almost everything."

Since the resolution is titled "Military Conscription something something", and I am a civilian ambassador, I understand the point you are making but at the same time refute the fact that - in general - the state can apply that power to the vast majority of its citizens (with the exception of a state where EVERY job is in the military, which is not impossible but must be fairly rare).

"It is titled Military Freedom Act, and the power I described can indeed be applied to the vast majority of citizens in many states. Just because it may not be applied to the majority, does not negate that it can be applied to any one of the majority. Most states which use conscription apply drafts randomly to the male population. This is nearly half of all adults of military age that the state can force into service. For nations such as ours which compel female citizens to serve as well, nearly all citizens of military age can potentially be forced to serve in the military if necessary."

And even then - and I do not mean to make light of this, given the subject - even if you can compel someone to stay in a job, you can not stop them from killing themselves, should they decide to. Even if it is illegal, even if it is forbidden. It will be THEIR choice and the state will be unable to stop it should they decide to do it.

And - to further expand on that - should someone decide to help them, the state will be able to do very little to stop that as well.

(Especially if these people are in the military where guns and other such things abound).

"If your argument is that because suicide cannot be prevented, it should be assisted, then we may as well require member nations to assist in murder and theft. After all, you cannot stop murderers from killing others, or thieves from stealing, should they decide to. Even if it is illegal, even if it is forbidden. It will be their choice and the state will be unable to stop it should they decide to do it. And, to further expand on that, should someone decide to help them commit murder or theft, the state will be able to do very little to stop that as well.

"This is especially true if these people are in the military where guns and other such things available to steal abound. Even in states such as yours, which outlaw private gun ownership, murder can be committed with kitchen knives, pool cues, or one's own hands. One can kill their own infant especially easily, with a pillow. The state, without prior knowledge, is powerless to prevent this, and indeed fails all the time to stop such acts from occurring. As such, since clearly the state cannot prevent theft and murder in all situations, the state should, by your argument, actively assist in such actions rather than trying to prevent them where possible.

"Instead of taking those who attempt suicide and consigning them to psychiatric wards for therapy, we should just euthanize them, and instead of taking those who attempt theft to prison, we should aid them in their crimes."

Actually - it can't. It can require me to pay taxes, and throw me in jail if I don't.

"It can automatically deduct taxes from your pay check if you don't, actually, and thus you are still paying taxes."

And it can throw me in jail for disobeying vagrancy laws.

"And then you are no longer a vagrant, are you? And thus we have forced you to give up vagrancy."

And even if I am required to vote by law, I can either ignore that (and be prepared to chance the consequences) or I can write "democracy sucks" on my ballot paper which would render my vote null and vote, thus subverting the system.

"Should you choose not to vote, the state can cast your vote on your behalf, and a vote for Democracy Sucks is still a vote. If Democracy Sucks wins, Counselor Sucks will become part of our government."

There are very few ways to force someone to do something they do not wish to do, short of hypnosis or the imperius curse. And then - are you really forcing them, because is it really them?

"Well, in that case, by putting them in psychiatric wards, we aren't forcing people to remain alive. They are choosing to do so.

"This idea of force is ridiculous. Forcing someone to do something does not mean they will succeed at doing so, it means that you are using force to back your commands to do something."

Yeah - I have no clue what that means. Sorry.

"If you have no idea what an exception is, I do not believe your earlier claim that you are a very well trained diplomat is correct. If the state has a compelling interest to restrict the freedom to work, the freedom to move, and other personal freedoms, the freedom to end your own life does not merit an exception."

Excidium Planetis wrote:Most states which use conscription apply drafts randomly to the male population.

Barbera: Pardon me for interrupting, Ambassador Blackbourne, but would the Charter of Civil Rights not forbid such a practice?

States of Glory WA Office wrote:

Excidium Planetis wrote:Most states which use conscription apply drafts randomly to the male population.

Barbera: Pardon me for interrupting, Ambassador Blackbourne, but would the Charter of Civil Rights not forbid such a practice?

Parsons: All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against ... except for compelling practical purposes. This is why it's basically useless.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

States of Glory WA Office wrote:Barbera: Pardon me for interrupting, Ambassador Blackbourne, but would the Charter of Civil Rights not forbid such a practice?

Parsons: All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against ... except for compelling practical purposes. This is why it's basically useless.

Barbera: What compelling practical purpose is there to forcing only male citizens to join the army?

States of Glory WA Office wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Parsons: All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against ... except for compelling practical purposes. This is why it's basically useless.

Barbera: What compelling practical purpose is there to forcing only male citizens to join the army?

Parsons: Who cares. Nations can define whatever they want to be a compelling practical purpose.

Christian Democrats wrote:

Aclion wrote:You have our support. A meaningful right to life requires a right to death.

That's like saying a meaningful right to liberty requires a right to sell oneself into slavery.

It is impossible to sell oneself into slavery as self-ownership is by it's nature, non-transferable(see Short vs Cohen).

States of Glory WA Office wrote:

Excidium Planetis wrote:Most states which use conscription apply drafts randomly to the male population.

Barbera: Pardon me for interrupting, Ambassador Blackbourne, but would the Charter of Civil Rights not forbid such a practice?

"No more than excluding those from the draft based on 'physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system', also covered in the Charter, and which in the former case obvious draft exclusions are practiced even by our own military, and in the latter case the WA itself has recognized the right of states to exclude those from conscription who have certain religious beliefs."

OOC:
You then have compelling practical reasons that Blackbourne would not add, such as the physical differences between men and women which would justify excluding women, concerns about fraternization, the concern of female prisoners of war being far more likely to be subjected to rape, etc.

States can come up with all kinds of compelling practical reasons to draft only male humans, not to mention non-human nations where maybe the male really are the only ones capable of fighting.

Excidium Planetis wrote:

States of Glory WA Office wrote:Barbera: Pardon me for interrupting, Ambassador Blackbourne, but would the Charter of Civil Rights not forbid such a practice?

"No more than excluding those from the draft based on 'physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system', also covered in the Charter, and which in the former case obvious draft exclusions are practiced even by our own military, and in the latter case the WA itself has recognized the right of states to exclude those from conscription who have certain religious beliefs."

OOC:
You then have compelling practical reasons that Blackbourne would not add, such as the physical differences between men and women which would justify excluding women, concerns about fraternization, the concern of female prisoners of war being far more likely to be subjected to rape, etc.

States can come up with all kinds of compelling practical reasons to draft only male humans, not to mention non-human nations where maybe the male really are the only ones capable of fighting.

OOC: If you think rape doesn't happen to the men, you're sadly mistaken. It just gets no press. And many women can meet the physical requirements. The concerns for fraternization are the most realistic there, and even that can be mitigated. Soldiers generally listen, and it mostly works in the real world.

Calladan wrote:And even then - and I do not mean to make light of this, given the subject - even if you can compel someone to stay in a job, you can not stop them from killing themselves, should they decide to. Even if it is illegal, even if it is forbidden. It will be THEIR choice and the state will be unable to stop it should they decide to do it.

And - to further expand on that - should someone decide to help them, the state will be able to do very little to stop that as well.

(Especially if these people are in the military where guns and other such things abound).

"Treating assistance as murder goes a very long way to eliminating assistance. Modern forensics are very good. Its very hard to hide that fact. The state will be unable to do anything preventative, but after the fact? They can jail helpers for life, and boy, wouldn't that stop the majority of aiding in suicide.

"Not that we would. Suicide is a choice in the C.D.S.P."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Calladan wrote:And even then - and I do not mean to make light of this, given the subject - even if you can compel someone to stay in a job, you can not stop them from killing themselves, should they decide to. Even if it is illegal, even if it is forbidden. It will be THEIR choice and the state will be unable to stop it should they decide to do it.

And - to further expand on that - should someone decide to help them, the state will be able to do very little to stop that as well.

(Especially if these people are in the military where guns and other such things abound).

"Treating assistance as murder goes a very long way to eliminating assistance. Modern forensics are very good. Its very hard to hide that fact. The state will be unable to do anything preventative, but after the fact? They can jail helpers for life, and boy, wouldn't that stop the majority of aiding in suicide.

"Not that we would. Suicide is a choice in the C.D.S.P."

Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. If you feel strongly enough to help someone end their life, then (I would argue) there are good odds you would most likely be willing to accept whatever comes next. And most people who do assist someone do not try to hide the fact - it isn't a case of not getting caught, it is a case of believing they were justified and did the right thing in doing what they did and that THAT is what should make it not a crime (which, I know, is a very badly phrased sentence but it was the best I could do).

And even if this repeal goes through, we are still going to keep the resolution in place (so to speak).

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: If you think rape doesn't happen to the men, you're sadly mistaken. It just gets no press.

OOC
Strawman. I never said men don't get raped, I said that a justification for excluding females was that female prisoners of war are more likely to be raped than male prisoners of war. This is especially true when you consider who is taking the prisoners of war. Countries with strong anti-sodomy laws are not likely to have many soldiers willing to rape male prisoners of war. This justification for preventing females serving in combat roles was used by the IDF (and no wonder, Israel's enemies aren't known for their tolerance of homosexuality) originally to exclude female soldiers from combat roles (it has since changed it's position, of course).

And many women can meet the physical requirements. The concerns for fraternization are the most realistic there, and even that can be mitigated. Soldiers generally listen, and it mostly works in the real world.

Look, I'm not saying that's the case, I'm saying it is used as a justification of compelling practical purposes. Would you say that a nation which excluded women from the draft on those grounds was no complying with CoCR in good faith?

Calladan wrote:Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. If you feel strongly enough to help someone end their life, then (I would argue) there are good odds you would most likely be willing to accept whatever comes next. And most people who do assist someone do not try to hide the fact - it isn't a case of not getting caught, it is a case of believing they were justified and did the right thing in doing what they did and that THAT is what should make it not a crime (which, I know, is a very badly phrased sentence but it was the best I could do).

IC:
"Ambassador McGill, you are now arguing that because people will commit murder in spite of the consequences, we should legalize murder. If assisting in suicide is treated as murder, you are indeed saying that murder should be legalized because people who commit murder anyways believe they are in the right."

"opposed, euthanasia is an unacceptable moral evil that endangers the rights of every patient, as well as those of the elderly or disabled."

Calladan wrote:And even if this repeal goes through, we are still going to keep the resolution in place (so to speak).

Fairburn: Until a replacement gets passed, of course.

The United Neptumousian Empire wrote:"opposed, euthanasia is an unacceptable moral evil that endangers the rights of every patient, as well as those of the elderly or disabled."

How? And which rights? And why? If you are going to use a moral argument then you have to define it.