Repost: Ten Reasons to Legalize ILA

I originally published this post on my now-defunct blog Dispatches from the North in January of 2012.

  1. To reduce the prison population and ease police workloads. As of 2008, more than 175,000 Americans were behind bars for ILA. Statistics for other countries with anti-ILA laws are similar. Anti-ILA laws thus put a tremendous strain on both prisons and law enforcement, giving them less time and fewer resources to deal with other, more important problems, such as poverty and racism.
  2. To combat discrimination. In many countries, those who have been convicted of ILA are forbidden from voting or running for political office. Furthermore, tremendous social stigma is attached to ILA, reducing practitioners’ opportunities in housing and employment, among other things. Laws against ILA are also often used to legitimize institutional racism: In the United States, a disproportionate number of people convicted of ILA are Hispanic or African-American, and again, the statistics for other countries are similar. We believe that the legalization of ILA should be complemented with anti-discrimination laws, mandatory sensitivity training for police and public servants, and the introduction of an ILA History Month aimed at making society more inclusive of ILA and its practitioners.
  3. To maintain a longstanding tradition. History shows us that ILA has been practiced in all cultures, at all places and all times. Furthermore, many notable historical figures – Founding Father Aaron Burr, celebrated revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara, and 15th-century Wallachian ruler Vlad III “Ţepeş”, to name but three – engaged in various activities that would be illegal today under most ILA laws. Who are we to challenge the precedent set by these great men and women?
  4. To save us all from the unenlightened past. Formal or informal prohibitions on ILA have existed (and continue to exist) in many societies that also harbor racist, sexist, homophobic, and other undemocratic attitudes. Thus, there is good reason to believe that anti-ILA laws are impeding our progress towards a more open and tolerant society.
  5. To save us all from theocracy. The Bible includes very specific prohibitions on ILA, as do many other religious texts, and the practice is universally opposed on the Religious Right. Therefore, anti-ILA laws have no place in a secular and rational modern democracy.
  6. To save us all from a moralistic dictatorship. Every anti-ILA law is ultimately on the books because some legislator found the practice personally distasteful. Should private morality and private preferences really be allowed to dictate public policy?
  7. Because anti-ILA laws are unscientific. As of January 2012, no scientific study has shown that ILA is any way wrong or harmful. Furthermore, there is no scientifically proven link between ILA and cancer, heart disease, or any other health problem.
  8. Because it will allow more efficient regulation. While we believe that the arguments against ILA are religious and unscientific, we also acknowledge that the practice is not without its dangers. If not carried out correctly, ILA can cause long-lasting physical and psychological injury. In the past, lawmakers have tried to combat these problems with zero-tolerance policies, even though this is an outmoded and inefficient method that has failed at every turn. (See point 9.) We believe that harm reduction is a better way: Legalizing ILA will allow the government to regulate the practice, and to educate practitioners about safe ways to practice ILA.
  9. Because people will do it anyway. Even though almost all anti-ILA laws have been on the books for years, hundreds of thousands of people around the world continue to engage in the practice. Thus, we can surmise that anti-ILA laws have little or no effect, failing even on their own terms.
  10. Because it will make people happier. Practitioners engage in ILA for a variety of reasons, often rooted in strong, deeply felt desires. The repression of these desires has a number of adverse psychological consequences. Furthermore, not a single person who has undergone a successful ILA has ever reported feeling unhappy or dissatisfied. Legalizing ILA will make society happier and allow people to be themselves.

These, then, are the top ten reasons why we should legalize Involuntary Life Abdication, known to the less enlightened by pejorative terms like “murder” and “homicide.” The list could, of course, easily be expanded to include more arguments, but these are the ones that are raised most often. We hope you find them convincing, because as we say in ILA Practitioners for Tolerance, “Legalize ILA – or we’ll practice it on you!”

15 thoughts on “Repost: Ten Reasons to Legalize ILA

  1. It’s almost perfect, the only thing missing is how ILA was originally banned to serve the interest of greedy corporations, to create slaves for the for profit prison industry, or that sort of thing.

  2. Whew! For a moment there I thought you were trying to ban the International Longshoreman’s Association. Glad to know you’re not anti-labor, comrade 🙂

    Thanks for your Modest Proposal. No doubt there is a new movement here waiting to be born.

  3. Don’t forget this one:

    11. Because ILA is natural. A tendency toward ILA seems to be genetically “hard-wired” into human beings. Even our close cousins, the chimpanzees, engage in ILA. The many millions of people who every day repress their natural urges to engage in ILA so as to lead “normal” lives are doing themselves great emotional harm. Who knows how many cases of mental illness might have been avoided if people were allowed to express their natural impulses, without fear of punishment or ostracism?

  4. Actually, human sacrifice plays a valuable role in traditional religious, and can ease the mimetic conflicts that modern, unstructured, egalitarian societies are prone to. If we’re going to all be the same, we’ll need a release valve for the interpersonal tensions this will create.

  5. I honestly don’t understand what you’re satirizing. Some of them sound like gay rights arguments, some of them drug legalization, and I’m not sure what you’re going for in #3.

    • These arguments have all been used, in some form, to justify every tenet of the left-liberal dogma.

      This delectable satire is practically a summary of the case against any of them.

  6. Hmm. To me it looks more like a list of logical fallacies/possibly bad arguments that could be used in flimsy support of any politics. Point #3 seems particularly inappropriate to criticize left-liberals for.

  7. Looking it over again, I retract my first point–these are mostly arguments employed by liberals. It’s just the third one that threw me off, because usually Orthosphere folks say liberals have too LITTLE respect for great men of the past and time-honored customs.

    • Not at all. One point of the article is that the meaning of the acronym (which was invented by me) doesn’t become clear until the very end–it’s explained in the last paragraph.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.