Most dangerous game: Right-Libertarian version

[Mongolian Khanate]

You're already late to this party.

Hey you crooked me

The guy's not even maiming the preys. I call BS on that

[Bendira]

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 is a difference between what is an ethical business practice, and what should be allowed "legally" in my personal opinion. It is ok for an employee to sign away "basic rights", however I do not feel the employee should be obligated to fulfill the contract. If the employee is "forced" to fulfill his contract, which requires him to give up his right to life and other basic human rights, he would be a captive/slave, which would obviously be "illegal". So I would say this business "could" exist, however it would be a risky and foolish business venture that would most likely result in lawsuits and public outcry.

As to whether this is ethical, probably not. I think, for instance, when it comes to things like cannibalism, if it is consensual it should be allowed. However I see these things happening in a more "intimate" setting and not a business one. So it comes down to more of a personal choice issue, where for example, if somebody is sexually aroused by being hunted down naked and killed, it is their choice to engage in such behavior. When you try to make it into a business however, you are entering a new realm entirely. When the motivation isn't personal gratification in the traditional sense, but instead monetary, it calls into question the ethical implications. However it would not make sense to make it "illegal" to be able to hunt somebody and kill them if the victim agree's with the prospect of receiving money, and make it legal to have a person hunt a a victim for sexual gratification.

If the hunter is killed in self defense by the employee, then the business is most likely in trouble because they failed to account for such a scenario, and would be liable for the "damages".

Indentured servitude would not exist, because slavery would not be tolerated. Little l libertarians typically cite the modern day military as an example of indentured servitude and slavery. Such a system would hopefully be outlawed in a libertarian society, and contractual obligations could be broken. Obviously failing to deliver on your contractual obligations would not make you very popular to do business with however.

Age is a hard question to answer, because age restrictions are arbitrary. Some 12 year olds are more mature than some 40 year olds, etc. Age restrictions would most likely be set by local communities.

[Mercator Terra]

As long as it is %100 voluntary as stated in OP it is fine.

[Staenwald]

It's highly unlikely to appear in the this form anyway. Do you know how much it would cost to keep replacing the employees and advertising for such a niche market. Not only this, but it would be subjects to the employees value judgements, in which they would most likely place a rather high value on their lives. Youd be talking like at least several hundred k's if not going past 1 million dollars and beyond. So that it stands that the people who come to pay would have to be basically millionaires, which comprise a much smaller part of the population and so you are unlikely to get much of a market if your target market is mentally high millionaires who want to kill someone for sport. I don't think it would be very easy to run.
Why haven't people some it yet in this exact form? Because it's cheaper to keep a runner in employment by not killing them, it's cheaper to pay them, the customer base is likely to be far bigger. To be honest I think even people who are sick in the head would probably prefer to go animal hunting- i mean like big scary animals like tigers...but yeah.

[Natapoc]

As long as it is %100 voluntary as stated in OP it is fine.

Do you think that everything in the OP is really voluntary? I'm asking because I don't think it is but I suspect some capitalists do.

[Qatarab]

I'd prefer something more exciting. Put 6 hunters in a forest of 40 mi diameter and give em all a double barrel break-action shot gun with just 2 rounds. Now thats fun.

[Natapoc]

I'd prefer something more exciting. Put 6 hunters in a forest of 40 mi diameter and give em all a double barrel break-action shot gun with just 2 rounds. Now thats fun.

Are they hunting eachother?

[Mercator Terra]

As long as it is %100 voluntary as stated in OP it is fine.

Do you think that everything in the OP is really voluntary? I'm asking because I don't think it is but I suspect some capitalists do.

Im a capitalist? Wow. I wish I new were all my money is then. Not to mention my business.

No one is being forced into it therefor its voluntary. Unless I misread.

[Natapoc]

Do you think that everything in the OP is really voluntary? I'm asking because I don't think it is but I suspect some capitalists do.

Im a capitalist? Wow. I wish I new were all my money is then. Not to mention my business.

No one is being forced into it therefor its voluntary. Unless I misread.

Sorry, advocates of capitalism.

[Allanea]

I'd prefer something more exciting. Put 6 hunters in a forest of 40 mi diameter and give em all a double barrel break-action shot gun with just 2 rounds. Now thats fun.

Are they hunting eachother?

I think that's the idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbar_Fight

[Mercator Terra]

Im a capitalist? Wow. I wish I new were all my money is then. Not to mention my business.

No one is being forced into it therefor its voluntary. Unless I misread.

Sorry, advocates of capitalism.

I advocate a %100 free market. Not necessarily capitalism.

[Natapoc]

Sorry, advocates of capitalism.

I advocate a %100 free market. Not necessarily capitalism.

The situation described in the OP is capitalist in nature.

[Staenwald]

As long as it is %100 voluntary as stated in OP it is fine.

Do you think that everything in the OP is really voluntary? I'm asking because I don't think it is but I suspect some capitalists do.

If it's not voluntary it's illegal.

[Traximonia]

Seems fine with me except for the trophies thing. Who would want that?

[Staenwald]

Seems fine with me except for the trophies thing. Who would want that?

The same sickos who would kill people? Idk. Although that bone church in prague is beautiful.

[Norstal]

No one is being forced into it therefor its voluntary.

We've been here before. The volunteer has to be 100% voluntary, with no outside force affecting their decision.

How is this possible?

[Mercator Terra]

I advocate a %100 free market. Not necessarily capitalism.

The situation described in the OP is capitalist in nature.

How is it "capitalist" in nature?

[Staenwald]

No one is being forced into it therefor its voluntary.

We've been here before. The volunteer has to be 100% voluntary, with no outside force affecting their decision.

How is this possible?

Theres a difference between having your choices narrowed by rational limits and your own values or your consciousness of the values of others, and being pushed into it through force or fraud, by other people.

[Mercator Terra]

No one is being forced into it therefor its voluntary.

We've been here before. The volunteer has to be 100% voluntary, with no outside force affecting their decision.

How is this possible?

lol by your definition then nothing is voluntary because everything you do is based on an outside force.

[Staenwald]

The situation described in the OP is capitalist in nature.

How is it "capitalist" in nature?

I mean surely despicable businesses can still be run and owned by it's own workers...

[Mercator Terra]

How is it "capitalist" in nature?

I mean surely despicable businesses can still be run and owned by it's own workers...

My point exactly.
EDIT: I wouldn't call it "despicable" though.

[Natapoc]

I mean surely despicable businesses can still be run and owned by it's own workers...

My point exactly.

As described it's not. SOme of the ethical issues would go away if it were.

[Staenwald]

Regardless of whether we are influenced in our choice making or not, there is still no physical limit to stop us making choices against all all the evidence put against us. Because i've been influenced by learning about experiences of others, I'm not going to jump of a cliff because i think i might be able to fly. It doesnt stop me doing it though, and I could still do it if I wanted to though. Voluntary decision is choosing to jump off a cliff. Force is getting push or being made to jump or something else will happen.

[Mercator Terra]

My point exactly.

As described it's not. SOme of the ethical issues would go away if it were.

Morals lack truth value...

So it is immoral for a regular business to go this but moral for a worker cooperative?

[Staenwald]

I mean surely despicable businesses can still be run and owned by it's own workers...

My point exactly.
EDIT: I wouldn't call it "despicable" though.

Ok maybe ethically deficient is a better term?