I bet you go up to people in near suicidal states and tell them "hey, get a life", don't you.
Sorry, Perry, but that's a cultural matter. Here we consider one has right over his/her own life up to decide to suicide. And so it is not ilegal here. What that reflects is that I respect their right to dispose of their lifes. I do care though, and if I can help I'll do my best. That's why I studied Medicine in the first place. Just as I try to convince people to learn, increase their political awareness, overcome their limitations and get better. That's why I defend defensive use of crypto against technological mind-control. I still won't force anyone into using this or that algorithm or taking this or that drug. As long as they have a free will. Then comes disease, when one is not able to decide by him/herself. If I were to make a blood transfusion to someone refusing it on religious grounds I wouldn't be much different from the gov't imposing some crypto scheme on the basis of its own moral grounds. Is it that what you are proposing? It would be quiet another thing if I saved the life of someone who can't tell me at all his/her religious beliefs. Not to say I wouldn't 'cos I'd. But I don't think goverments can say we are not able to express our preferences, do they? In short, I may think otherwise and try to convince people not to suicide, even do my best. But in the end it's their choice. Just the same I believe the gov't can try to convince us, but it should be in the end our choice to chose how we live (or what crypto we use). So, are you saying that to avoide the society collapsing by terrorism and go to its suicide we should give the government total control? jr