The following is not intended to mock any particular belief system, it's intended to analyse the limitations (if any) of contracts in a theoretical society.
Would the following business model be acceptable in the future libertarian, objectivist, or "anarcho"-capitalist society:
Imagine a business which allowed sportsmen to hunt people who have agreed to have the job of being "the hunted"
The hunter is given hunting rifle with 1 bullet, a horse, and a pack of bloodhounds.
5 employees of the ranch have signed papers agreeing to be "the hunted", they are to be dropped off naked in the middle of the property which is 40 miles in diameter, unable to escape with a 4 hour head start on the hunter who paid for this opportunity.
Included in employment contract signed by the employee is the usual legal disclaimer about waving all rights to sue the ranch or the sportsman for loss of life or limb or physical or mental impairment or any other damages that may result from the job they are about to preform.
The employees were told after their interview that 1 of them will die (assuming the hunt is successful, which, like most canned hunts, it nearly always is) and the rest will be paid but of course they focus on the salary that the 4 survivors will get.
For the sportsmen the game is to outsmart the employees and bag one of them, If he manages to kill an employee he may do whatever he likes with the body including collect trophies but he must use one bullet to make his kill.
Okay now questions: Is this an acceptable type of business? If not why not?
Is it okay for an employee to sign away basic rights to the employer like this as a condition of employment?
Would it make a difference if the sportsman was given a machine gun and helicopter and had a 100% chance of killing all of the 5 employees instead of 1?
Would your opinion change if the hunter was not allowed to take trophies?
If the employment chance had been advertised as "ranch hand" or "Adrenalin junkies wanted!" in the paper and the part about agreeing to be selected for this game was in the "fine print" of the employment contract would it make a difference? If so why?
This question is to see if it's the actual words on the contract that matter or what was emphasized that matters.
Lets say one of the employees has second thoughts and no longer wants to be hunted but it's after the game already started. Is it still okay to hunt him because he signed the contract?
Now to turn the tables, one of the hunted humans hides in a tree with a large sharpened stick and as the hunter nears hurls the stick into the neck of the hunter killing the hunter.
The employee claims self defense. Is this a valid claim by the employee?
What, if any, damages is the employee liable for?
Would it make a difference if the employees where children? If so why and what ages?
Would it make a difference if they were indentured servants?
This post is inspired by this article http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/story?id=4659641&page=1
