A girl ordered her own murder.

It is interesting to consider this case from the perspective of ancap. At the same time, the parents are against it, and are already upset that the guy was sentenced to 48 years (which brings up the question of the victims; it turns out there is a conflict). And others claim that the girl could have been saved, and that she needed psychological help.

анонимный вопрос

I have already covered the topic of euthanasia in quite some detail. In itself, there is nothing criminal about a killing requested by the person being killed, but in order to prove the voluntary nature of the transaction and the capacity of the client, it is advisable to carry out certain legal procedures. From the circumstances of the case under consideration, it is clear only that there was indeed a request, but the awareness of the actions remains unproven.

Of course, in the absence of a state, it would be much easier for the girl to appear at a clinic accompanied by a notary, so that the latter could record her clearly expressed intention and the results of an examination by a psychologist confirming that she is of sound mind and memory, after which she would receive her lethal injection of heroin from a doctor and pass away peacefully with a blissful smile on her face. If the prediction from the song—that under ancap, we probably won’t need to die at all—does not come true, then personally, I expect to end my life in exactly this way in my old age.

In the case under consideration, there are too many circumstances that are very difficult to imagine when ancap is all around and there are no bans on euthanasia. I will start inventing how such a thing could happen, and you will respond by claiming that ancap is sheer cannibalism; well, screw you.

Well, there is no need to hire the first guy you meet on the street when there are doctors. There is no need to hide the fact of the killing if everything happened by agreement, and this can be easily confirmed. And finally, the parents have no right to demand retribution from a conscientious executor of a legally flawless contract.

Now, if you want me to consider specifically the case linked, where the state is still around, but for some reason my non-deciding opinion is important to you, then okay. I consider the perpetrator of the killing a jerk who didn’t step away from this slippery subject, although he had every opportunity to do so. If he was driven by curiosity, then I would be wary of such curious people—maybe next time he’ll decide to be curious with a knife in my guts. If he thought such things were fucking romantic, then he could have taken a second dose of heroin, and it would have been a double suicide in a beautiful Japanese style. If he just needed money, there are many more ethical ways to earn a living. Nevertheless, this is all, of course, not a reason for a half-century prison sentence; community service in a morgue would be quite sufficient.

I don’t want naturalistic images, just a beautiful tyan in the forest!

Suppose there is a terminally ill person who cannot be saved in any way, and has a couple of weeks left. Would euthanasia be a violation of the NAP? Is his consent/the consent of his relatives needed for this?

anonymous question

Euthanasia is not a violation of the non-aggression principle; it is merely the execution of the owner’s instructions regarding the disposal of their own body. You commission one specialist to give you a haircut, another for a massage, a third for an abortion, a fourth to remove a kidney for transplant, and a fifth to kill you. These are all perfectly correct instructions. The only subtlety in the euthanasia procedure is to ensure that the instruction is indeed given voluntarily and with a full understanding of the consequences. Well, the sale of real estate requires the observance of exactly the same legal precautions, as does any other important and responsible transaction.

The situation becomes slightly more complex when a person lacks the technical ability to give instructions for their euthanasia, for instance, because they are in a coma. In this situation, the decision is made by the person paying for the life support. It is this person who has the full right at any moment to consider further expenses impractical—and to offer any willing party the chance to take over the further burden of costs. If no willing parties are found, then life will no longer be supported.

Finally, a situation is possible where a person is in a coma and an insurance company is paying for their life support. Here, the company does not have the right to refuse to fulfill its obligations at any moment. First, it must fully exhaust the insurance premium due to the person under the contract in attempts to restore the insured health, and only after failure can it stop spending the money. Any attempts by the heirs of the insured person to claim something like “unplug him from the machine, and we will receive the remainder of the insurance as an inheritance; our father, had he been conscious, would have commissioned you to do this himself,” are most logically regarded as incitement to murder for mercenary purposes.

For mercenary purposes, I incite you to make a voluntary donation to the development of this channel. Drop some money to the bitcoin wallet 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8