Most dangerous game: Right-Libertarian version

[Servantium]

Wait... So people under 16 are unable to enter a contract... Which means they are unable to work.

Which means they are unable to provide for themselves.

Which obligates someone else to provide for them.

The government is to ensure that they are provided for... But only if they pay? With the money they are not legally able to obtain due to anti child labor laws?

Did you miss the part where I'm just making this up as I go? I guess within the context of what I've said the guardian's payment would apply to their ward, similar to the way that a family insurance plan covers more than just the person whose bank account the payment comes out of.

[The Parkus Empire]

First off, there are openly racist libertarians. Quite prominent on Stormfront and such. Secondly, the kind of racism I'm talking about is the kind the libertarian himself is typically not aware. Not to say unconscious racism is limited to libertarians: it's in everyone is in somewhat. But libertarians often let it dictate their ethics and policy, though not knowingly.

What are you doing on Stormfront anyway Parkus?

I'm not on Stormfront. If I were, which I'm not, I'd be trollin' like a boss.

[Staenwald]

User fees. Government only protects the rights of those under its jurisdiction and the only ones under its jurisdiction are tthe ones that pay for that protection.

Wait... So people under 16 are unable to enter a contract... Which means they are unable to work.

Which means they are unable to provide for themselves.

Which obligates someone else to provide for them.

The government is to ensure that they are provided for... But only if they pay? With the money they are not legally able to obtain due to anti child labor laws?

I assume that you assuming these children have no parents or guardians? some right-wing libertarism may argue that children don't yet have mental and -in young cases- physical ability to act rationally, in which case they would be entitled to healthcare, education etc, up to the age they legally become adults.
However I am of the opinion that children should be looked after by their parents, and those without such should be looked after by people who might feel it an act of charity.

[Natapoc]

If you wanted to be right libertarian to the absolute extreme, it probably would be able to be justified, since both parties are in agreement. Any terms and conditions would most likely be spelt out within the contract, to protect the 'hunters' from suing the victim, or vice versa. Most right wing morality ideologies are based on the principle that humans are rational beings, and they need to act so if they want to live. Being rational obviously involves gathering and weighing up facts and testing them against what you maybe believe, or are unsure about and you should make the value judgement at that point. Objectivists put their own lives as the highest value to themselves in their life, so it's really quite unlikely that a person of that particular code of ethics would sign away their lives like that.

However...in terms of interpreting individual rights, it's probably fair to say that it wouldn't be allowed on the grounds that no matter what you sign, you individual rights are upheld by the government, and only the individual is the one who can take their own rights away directly, not assign them to someone else.

From a business point of view, i really doubt this would take off. Businesses are subjected to the power of consumer choice, and i'm not exactly sure what faith you have in your fellow man, but I am confident in saying that the vast majority of people would be extremely against at the concept, and so the business plan would be unlikely to work, simply on a cost basis.

Not only this bust there are many hard jobs which would probably be more worthwhile to yourself than getting killed.

Finally, if anything, does this surely point to the concept that altruism is dangerous, in that people would put themselves forward to be killed for the sake of others. In the rest of society we regularaly have the products of our work stolen through taxes for the sake of others, the only difference here is that for once you are willingly allowing the will of others to be imposed upon you, and the act of altruism involves death.

Where is the altruism here?

In this story everyone is looking out for their own rational self interest as free rational agents. The employees want some income so they can feed their hungry children, the hunter wants a to experience the thrill of the hunt! And the business man puts the two together, sets up the rules and procedures.

Also... There are 7 billion people on this earth. It would only take a fraction of a percent of them to be sick enough in the head to want to do something like this to keep the company afloat.

It's called a niche market. They are very profitable especially when underdeveloped.

[The Parkus Empire]

Well let's get down to it: how many libertarians object to child labor being used by corporations overseas?

It depends on the conditions.

For many of the "sweatshops" the children in East Asia, the children end up having a better life than they would have had.

So you're for the legalization of child labor and sweatshops in the U.S.?

[Staenwald]

What are you doing on Stormfront anyway Parkus?

I'm not on Stormfront. If I were, which I'm not, I'd be trollin' like a boss.

Having racism inclinations whilst being a libertarian is possible. However individual right applied, the rights of everyone are equal. no one race legally has more rights than another. Individuals cannot force or harm others of another race. However, this doesnt mean people can't decide how to use their property. They could be racist and refuse to sell things or come into the contact with another race, but in this instance they are more governed by their own appearance to everyone else in society.Being racist doesnt help you if you want to make money, since you want to appeal to the broadest audience possible.

I abhor racism, I think it's disgusting and also irrational. I openly protest against it, but it still doesnt give me the right to force others into thinking so.

[Natapoc]

What are you doing on Stormfront anyway Parkus?

I'm not on Stormfront. If I were, which I'm not, I'd be trollin' like a boss.

I'm afraid to look. If they are anything like the racists who invade NSG occasionally I'd probably damage my computer after long and there is no point in damaging my computer if I don't have to.

But yes I can see the allure of trolling a place like that.

[Allanea]

What lengths must the company go to to make the prospective employee aware of the potentially lethal aspects of the job? Is simply putting it on page 27 of a 50 page contract in small writing sufficient?

You see, this is why I'm not 100% an anarchist.

From an ethical standpoint, I wouldn't feel right with doing such a thing if the participant doesn't actually know they're going to be at risk of death.

But from a legal standpoint, I just don't know. The law is a different beast than ethic – you need to outline a set of objectively quantifiable conditions under which the participant 'counts as' informed under law. I do not know what that standard is at this case.

My viewpoint is that it's always okay to defend oneself even using lethal violence if needed. As such I would disagree that the person committed murder by killing the hunter with the sharpened stick.

Consider the contrary.

In general, we believe – I think even non-libertarians agree – that you do not have a right of self-defense if you started it. In some jurisdictions, merely provoking an encounter is sufficient to weaken a claim of self-defense.

Presume there was no contract or hunting game or whatever. Suppose there was just a guy with a rifle and I shouted: “Go ahead, shoot at me, I don't care!” and then when he shot at me, I would draw my own gun and shoot back at him. That's clearly not something a court would agree was legitimate self-defense in the same way as defending yourself from unprovoked attack. You would probably go to prison for this if there witnesses.

But then, how is signing a contract that effectively says 'go ahead, shoot at me, I don't care' different?

Again, I would feel highly uncomfortable with stating outright that a person like this is a murderer. But I think you appreciate how this is problematic.

[The Parkus Empire]

Having racism inclinations whilst being a libertarian is possible. However individual right applied, the rights of everyone are equal. no one race legally has more rights than another. Individuals cannot force or harm others of another race. However, this doesnt mean people can't decide how to use their property. They could be racist and refuse to sell things or come into the contact with another race, but in this instance they are more governed by their own appearance to everyone else in society.Being racist doesnt help you if you want to make money, since you want to appeal to the broadest audience possible.

I abhor racism, I think it's disgusting and also irrational. I openly protest against it, but it still doesnt give me the right to force others into thinking so.

Are you in favor of current corporate use of child labor as "justified" but against white children being utilized for child labor and sweatshops?

[The Parkus Empire]

I'm not on Stormfront. If I were, which I'm not, I'd be trollin' like a boss.

I'm afraid to look. If they are anything like the racists who invade NSG occasionally I'd probably damage my computer after long and there is no point in damaging my computer if I don't have to.

But yes I can see the allure of trolling a place like that.

It was founded by a genuine KKK leader and member of an American Nazi party, so you can take it from there.

[Allanea]

I'm afraid to look. If they are anything like the racists who invade NSG occasionally I'd probably damage my computer after long and there is no point in damaging my computer if I don't have to.

But yes I can see the allure of trolling a place like that.

It was founded by a genuine KKK leader and member of an American Nazi party, so you can take it from there.

VNN is worse. They condemn Stormfront for not being racist enough. I trolled VNN once, it was epic.

[Tekcirb]

No but im not a libertarian

[Staenwald]

If you wanted to be right libertarian to the absolute extreme, it probably would be able to be justified, since both parties are in agreement. Any terms and conditions would most likely be spelt out within the contract, to protect the 'hunters' from suing the victim, or vice versa. Most right wing morality ideologies are based on the principle that humans are rational beings, and they need to act so if they want to live. Being rational obviously involves gathering and weighing up facts and testing them against what you maybe believe, or are unsure about and you should make the value judgement at that point. Objectivists put their own lives as the highest value to themselves in their life, so it's really quite unlikely that a person of that particular code of ethics would sign away their lives like that.

However...in terms of interpreting individual rights, it's probably fair to say that it wouldn't be allowed on the grounds that no matter what you sign, you individual rights are upheld by the government, and only the individual is the one who can take their own rights away directly, not assign them to someone else.

From a business point of view, i really doubt this would take off. Businesses are subjected to the power of consumer choice, and i'm not exactly sure what faith you have in your fellow man, but I am confident in saying that the vast majority of people would be extremely against at the concept, and so the business plan would be unlikely to work, simply on a cost basis.

Not only this bust there are many hard jobs which would probably be more worthwhile to yourself than getting killed.

Finally, if anything, does this surely point to the concept that altruism is dangerous, in that people would put themselves forward to be killed for the sake of others. In the rest of society we regularaly have the products of our work stolen through taxes for the sake of others, the only difference here is that for once you are willingly allowing the will of others to be imposed upon you, and the act of altruism involves death.

Where is the altruism here?

In this story everyone is looking out for their own rational self interest as free rational agents. The employees want some income so they can feed their hungry children, the hunter wants a to experience the thrill of the hunt! And the business man puts the two together, sets up the rules and procedures.

Also... There are 7 billion people on this earth. It would only take a fraction of a percent of them to be sick enough in the head to want to do something like this to keep the company afloat.

It's called a niche market. They are very profitable especially when underdeveloped.

Yes markets are very profitable when underdeveloped, as long as there is a steady enough supply of the product and demand for it. And as long as they can cover their costs.

Another major thing I think you could perhaps consider, is that the people who are sick enough to want to do this are likely to be mentally ill, in which case, after undergoing psychological and physical tests, the person would proabably be proved to be mentally ill, preventing them from making entirely rational judgments, therefore meaning that normal people would be the ones not making the decision to come and do it. Whether this is legal in itself maybe also be debatable.

[Staenwald]

Having racism inclinations whilst being a libertarian is possible. However individual right applied, the rights of everyone are equal. no one race legally has more rights than another. Individuals cannot force or harm others of another race. However, this doesnt mean people can't decide how to use their property. They could be racist and refuse to sell things or come into the contact with another race, but in this instance they are more governed by their own appearance to everyone else in society.Being racist doesnt help you if you want to make money, since you want to appeal to the broadest audience possible.

I abhor racism, I think it's disgusting and also irrational. I openly protest against it, but it still doesnt give me the right to force others into thinking so.

Are you in favor of current corporate use of child labor as "justified" but against white children being utilized for child labor and sweatshops?

In my opinion no child should have to work, but sometimes in dire situation it may become necessary.

[The Parkus Empire]

Are you in favor of current corporate use of child labor as "justified" but against white children being utilized for child labor and sweatshops?

In my opinion no child should have to work, but sometimes in dire situation it may become necessary.

So yes?

[Natapoc]

Are you in favor of current corporate use of child labor as "justified" but against white children being utilized for child labor and sweatshops?

In my opinion no child should have to work, but sometimes in dire situation it may become necessary.

Specifically what sorts of dire situations?

[Gun Manufacturers]

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

There's no way your idea would be legal. Now, if you switch out the hunting gear with paintball gear (clothes should be considered paintball gear, because a hit on bare skin sucks), significantly reduce the size of the area, and make sure everyone knows the rules, then you might have something.

[Sibirsky]

No, but I imagine its good with a side of spuds...

I think such a thing is against my personal ethics, but in such a society as a right-libertarian one, I suppose It'd be legal.

I really hope I have a chance to taste it sometime.

I hear it's not good. Or healthy.

[Norstal]

Obviously the whole thing. But specifically, this cropped portion.

I'm not sure I get it, maybe thats the only way they're able to hire workers and get hunters as well?

It would imply coercion. No one in their right mind would sign up for this kind of thing. Yes I know its a very flimsy argument.

[Sibirsky]

What lengths must the company go to to make the prospective employee aware of the potentially lethal aspects of the job? Is simply putting it on page 27 of a 50 page contract in small writing sufficient?

How about basing it on expectations of that particular portion of the contract being read? Page 27 of 50 is not likely to be read. In a potentially life terminating contract, that is not sufficient.

Or would they need to come out and say it directly?

Pretty much. Page one in 24 font print.

Also would this be an ethical or a legal requirement?

Both

I also believe in the ability to opt out at any time. To suggest otherwise would be to legitimize a type of slavery.

Put it in the contract.

My viewpoint is that it's always okay to defend oneself even using lethal violence if needed. As such I would disagree that the person committed murder by killing the hunter with the sharpened stick.

Put that in contract. Although I suspect demand would drop, with risk of death to the hunters.

[Katganistan]

You're already late to this party.

[Conserative Morality]

In an anarcho-capitalist society? Sure, why not?

[Hydesland]

First off, there are openly racist libertarians. Quite prominent on Stormfront and such. Secondly, the kind of racism I'm talking about is the kind the libertarian himself is typically not aware. Not to say unconscious racism is limited to libertarians: it's in everyone is in somewhat. But libertarians often let it dictate their ethics and policy, though not knowingly.

A racist doesn't want to have his 'freedom' to be a dick to other races obstructed, so naturally he will be drawn to libertarianism, which is a philosophy all about telling the government to fuck off and let him do what he wants. On the other hand, he may be drawn to the opposite of such, and instead use the government to curtail the freedoms of certain races.

[Mongolian Khanate]

You're already late to this party.

Ohhhh

I know what to watch now

[Vetalia]

Absolutely not. This is so utterly immoral in any context I would never condone it. Maybe my morals aren't based entirely on facts or logic like so many people seem to desire, but looking at it from the outside I'd never want to be in a situation where someone was free to hunt down and kill me for their own sick enjoyment. Sometimes, you've got to lay down an axiom...killing people is wrong unless in self defense.

That being said, the "hunting" in this article is perfectly acceptable. I would enjoy taking part myself.