OK, it's been a while since I started all this, sorry about that.

Regarding the contract business, contracts are important in civil matters, not in criminal ones. Besides, verbal contracts are enforcable. Contract simply means an agreement, not the piece of paper that this agreement is written upon. In this case, it is not disputed that the two had voluntarily entered into an agreement even though it was not written down.

Anyway, the discussion is not about what is legal or illegal. I'm sure it's illegal, which is why the guy was arrested. The question a question of principles. Is it correct for the state to involve themselves in this matter?

Regarding the comments made earlier about suicide being illegal, remember that this goes back to feudal law and (I believe) proves my point. Suicide was (and remains) illegal because people were not their own property, they were the property of their feudal lord. In killing themselves, it was believed, the harmed the master by destroying his "property." It was similarly illegal for non-owners to kill slaves. This should be blatantly disgusting to most of us.

Self-ownership -- the idea that no person can be the property of another besides themselves is the very foundation of classic liberalism and is literally the foundational contribution of the Enlightenment. You are not the property of the state, nor the church, nor the establishment. You are your own property. Period. All "civil liberties" and personal freedom must stem from this basic idea.

Now, freedom implies the freedom to choose poorly. By calling others who do not make the same choices as we deem proper "mentally ill", we deprive them of their freedom and use this as justification to compel or punish them. This is a terrible trend in western societies today.

I accept that there are some circumstances where people are not competent to take care of themselves, but anyone who, according to the article, held down a job, had a home, and would seem completely normal to anyone meeting him can not possibly be considered incompetent.

The only way one could call this person, who has for at least 20 years taken care of themselves perfectly well, "mentally ill" is to do so exclusively on the basis of disagreeing with his decisions. Worse, disagreeing with them and being willing to use force to prevent him or punish him from making those decisions.

IMHO, there is a place for police, law, and punishment, but that is when a person's actions pose a clear and present threat to *others*, not to themselves.

Jim