John asked in Social ScienceEconomics · 1 decade ago

How is outlawing the free market for the service of assisted suicide compatible with capitalist values?

How is outlawing the free market for the service of assisted suicide compatible with capitalist values

Now it is true that suicide is always possible even if it is illegal. But other than the shotgun method there are few fool proof methods. Even if there is a 90% chance that the shotgun method works, the horror of the 10% with your face blown off is a powerful deterrent even to those who genuinely want to die and fear no afterlife. In addition you only get one shot, since if you attempt suicide and fail, the state has the right to intervene to prevent future attempts.

Doesn't capitalism assume the right to individualism, self-ownership of life, and a free market for services. If on-demand assisted suicide was legalized for everyone (including those not medically ill), there would certainly emerge a market for entrepreneurs who wanted to sell that service.

Government regulation would only be necessary to 1. ensure this was not used for murder 2. suiciders has a determined cooling off period so that suicide was not done in the heat of passion.

Suicide is also an example of the capitalist concept of "voting with your feet". If people are not satisfied with the world they should not be forced to "consume" it. People can show their consumer dissatisfaction with life by committing suicide.

5 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    toothacres you are an idiot!

    so this is for you and all the other idiots...

    euthanasia is not the same as a 16 yr old idiot ODing on Tylenol because his girlfriend broke up with him. Nor is it the same as a 16 y/o getting mad at the GF and going to her house to kill her. SO stop using the word suicide and murder to describe euthanasia. As soon as you mix those definitions you immediately become an ignorant fool!

    I think they should allow assisted suicides (for terminally ill not the suicidal idiots). Who are we (the healthy and happy) to decide how much pain someone else should be allowed to live with. Instead we've decided we're gonna look for Waldo on their ICU wall while they are in agony. Yes, yes of we know what's best for them right? Wrong... we're a bunch of self-righteous holes who want to go to sleep in peace because we don't want to wonder "what if the 20 year old with pancreatic cancer suddenly got up and started walking." We're a bunch of selfish, waldo searching, dingles.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It is compatible b/c it prevents people from escaping from their debt obligations.

    If it was allowed, people would get a bunch of credit cards, live a life of luxury while they last, and then off themselves.

    Capitalism is not about individualism, it is about protecting property rights. In this case, banning on-demand suicide protects the money that people deposit into banks (since it's banks who issue credit cards).

  • perun
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    each and each of those are actual separate themes. a million) The minimum salary will enhance unemployment, so confident. each economist is conscious that value caps enhance call for and decrease grant ensuing in shortages, and that value flooring enhance grant and decrease call for ensuing in gluts. the only reason the minimum salary hasn't accomplished greater harm is because of the fact unfastened marketeers have resisted hikes to maintain it low...fairly close to to the organic marketplace value for many 0 skill hard artwork jobs. 2) secure practices standards, holiday journeys, maternity, max working hours, and so on. regularly purely ensue after the marketplace has made the low priced. coming up economies can not cope with to pay for them, and so the regulation does not mandate them. purely whilst unfastened markets have raised the familiar of living to the element the place a society can initiate questioning approximately luxuries to reforms like those ensue. on the tip of the day, a real laissez-faire recommend will oppose government mandate on those because of the fact they're issues that could desire to be freely bargained for in an open marketplace. they're all acceptable issues, yet permit's look on the main severe of those, workplace secure practices. If people choose for an risky job knowingly of their own unfastened will, who're we to tell them they can't? Emergency oil workers who cap out of control wells have between the main risky jobs interior the international, yet adult men examine in for it because of the fact the pay is amazing. who're you to tell them they could't take that threat? The NFL is a risky job that could desire to be close down if secure practices is a difficulty. yet people volunteer for it each and all the time because of the fact the recognition and fortune are nicely worth it to them. You telling them they could't is tyranny...a mushy tyranny possibly, yet tyranny despite the fact that. Now, does that mean i'm adversarial to places of artwork being as secure as they somewhat may be? for sure no longer! The NFL ought to pursue the final helmet technologies it could. Oil crews ought to have precise of the line secure practices equipment. yet whilst the regulation gets in touch, issues do no longer unavoidably get greater constructive. I off the BP oil disaster as evidence. A heavily regulated oil nicely, yet yet it become risky. The regulation isn't a panacea. a greater constructive thank you to leverage it is via tort regulation. Obama become incorrect to furnish BP a deal that gave it secure practices from courtroom cases. Obama relatively gave BP a get-out-of-reformatory-unfastened card whilst he did.

  • 1 decade ago

    Murder has always been illegal in the USA. Suicide is murdering one's self. Enough said.

    Source(s): common sense
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Alex
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    it is illegal because the government does not want to lose a taxpayer

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.