Most dangerous game: Right-Libertarian version

[Staenwald]

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?

Well he wasnt exactly advocating that. He was more pointing at government being able to limit business practice based on moral values.

[Mercator Terra]

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

Ok maybe ethically deficient is a better term?

I'd rather just call it perfectly fine.
morals lack truth value

[Mercator Terra]

Morals lack truth value...

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

Well he wasnt exactly advocating that. He was more pointing at government being able to limit business practice based on moral values.

If that is the case that is ironic coming from a anarchist.

[Staenwald]

Ok maybe ethically deficient is a better term?

I'd rather just call it perfectly fine.
morals lack truth value

if all parties agree. they do lack truth value, but there are some reasons to enforce certain ones.

[Mercator Terra]

I'd rather just call it perfectly fine.
morals lack truth value

if all parties agree. they do lack truth value, but there are some reasons to enforce certain ones.

Then they're just subjective preferences. So your advocating enforcing subjective preferences. There is nothing "wrong" with that statement.

[Staenwald]

Well he wasnt exactly advocating that. He was more pointing at government being able to limit business practice based on moral values.

If that is the case that is ironic coming from a anarchist.

Doesnt that make this entire thread ironic then. No rules in anarchy at all. Well there are depending on where you live but when it comes down to it. Meh I don't understand the concept of left anarchism. You can't enforce a collectivist ideology on those who don't want one without the use of force to maintain stability. Aurely it would lead right back to a society with a state.

[Staenwald]

if all parties agree. they do lack truth value, but there are some reasons to enforce certain ones.

Then they're just subjective preferences. So your advocating enforcing subjective preferences. There is nothing "wrong" with that statement.

Anarchy has no contradications I know...but people need to be free of force if they want to live to their natures. Minarchist government allows this.

[Mercator Terra]

If that is the case that is ironic coming from a anarchist.

Doesnt that make this entire thread ironic then. No rules in anarchy at all. Well there are depending on where you live but when it comes down to it. Meh I don't understand the concept of left anarchism. You can't enforce a collectivist ideology on those who don't want one without the use of force to maintain stability. Aurely it would lead right back to a society with a state.

There are rules in a anarchist society. And I dont believe you would be forced into it. Free market anarchism is more tolerant on that matter (from what I have seen.) Social anarchists wouldnt force it on you but would be less tolerant.

[Staenwald]

Doesnt that make this entire thread ironic then. No rules in anarchy at all. Well there are depending on where you live but when it comes down to it. Meh I don't understand the concept of left anarchism. You can't enforce a collectivist ideology on those who don't want one without the use of force to maintain stability. Aurely it would lead right back to a society with a state.

There are rules in a anarchist society. And I dont believe you would be forced into it. Free market anarchism is more tolerant on that matter (from what I have seen.) Social anarchists wouldnt force it on you but would be less tolerant.

But surely the support of free-market anarchism and social anarchism is down to individual preference....to me it seems like anarchism is getting mixed up between political systems and moral standpoints.

[Alevuss]

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?

1.) As long as the employee agrees with it and the employee can reserve his right to back out and give up his pay.
2.) See Above.
3.) Yes, because that's just murder and no one gets paid!
4.) Yes. It would make my opinion in more support.
5.) Yes, some desperate people cannot see well and may not be able to read the fine print. As a result, the company should give a fully detailed explanation of the job at the job interview.
6.) Yes, because the employee should be able to back out and not get paid. Otherwise, it's just killing him against his will, or murder.
7.) Yes, because if he didn't he probably would have been killed and he had to do it if he wanted be able to provide for his family. The hunter should also have to recognize that he could be killed in his job.
8.) Killing his employer or one of the other employees if not out of self-defense.
9.) Yes, the persons wanted should be between the ages of suffrage to the end of when they are at the height of fitness in adulthood. Even though a lot of people don't get to do it, people should be able to have suffrage before they die.
10.) Yes, because it's still a violation of human rights, servant or not.

And to add, the hunting area should be under surveillance at all times for legal purposes.

If Rainsford could do it, these people should be able to.

[Mercator Terra]

There are rules in a anarchist society. And I dont believe you would be forced into it. Free market anarchism is more tolerant on that matter (from what I have seen.) Social anarchists wouldnt force it on you but would be less tolerant.

But surely the support of free-market anarchism and social anarchism is down to individual preference....to me it seems like anarchism is getting mixed up between political systems and moral standpoints.

Free market anarchists are fine with social anarchist communes etc in said free market anarchist society. Social anarchists would not force free market anarchist to conform to there belief in a social anarchist society but (based on observations and conversations I have had) they will not be as tolerant or as friendly.

[Mercator Terra]

Then they're just subjective preferences. So your advocating enforcing subjective preferences. There is nothing "wrong" with that statement.

Anarchy has no contradications I know...but people need to be free of force if they want to live to their natures. Minarchist government allows this.

How would they be not free of force?
Would said government be voluntary?

[Natapoc]

If that is the case that is ironic coming from a anarchist.

Doesnt that make this entire thread ironic then. No rules in anarchy at all. Well there are depending on where you live but when it comes down to it. Meh I don't understand the concept of left anarchism. You can't enforce a collectivist ideology on those who don't want one without the use of force to maintain stability. Aurely it would lead right back to a society with a state.

If some people don't want to participate in left-anarchism are free to not join the autonomous communities.

[Mercator Terra]

Doesnt that make this entire thread ironic then. No rules in anarchy at all. Well there are depending on where you live but when it comes down to it. Meh I don't understand the concept of left anarchism. You can't enforce a collectivist ideology on those who don't want one without the use of force to maintain stability. Aurely it would lead right back to a society with a state.

If some people don't want to participate inleft-anarchismany form of anarchism are free to not join the autonomous communities.

Fixed for clarification.

[Norstal]

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.

I'm not sure I follow. The two go hand-in-hand.

"Come join Christianity."

"Why?"

"Or else you go to hell."

"Ok."

Which is like what most cult suicides look like. Joining the cult itself is completely voluntary, but they are also compelled by their morals or whatever. Then, when they do sign up, they get screwed. Such examples are Scientology and Davidian Branch.

Or it can be the reverse, such as in my example.

[Caninope]

The answer you're going to get mostly is, "depends."

For instance, a lot of us are not adverse to the concept. However, the ideology does tend to oppose the specifics of their employment such as the coercion.

My personal view on the issue is that a non-majority child can have their guardian sign an employment contract and since non-majority children are basically slaves the parent would assume all legal responsibility for the child when they're on the job and there would be certain things the employer/parent could and couldn't do.

It's all very complicated and off-topic.

It's actually very related. If a child in america cannot sign a contract to participate in this "game" then a child cannot sign a contract to participate in some types of sweatshops where there is a possibility of death and if your objection is not with the possibility of death then any ethical allounces for children here must aslo be made for children oversees or you are:
A. Racist
B. Ultra nationalist (and probably racist)

Not necessarily. In many 3rd World Countries, "sweatshops" are the best future a child has, whereas this is not the case in America.

[Servantium]

Anarchy has no contradications I know...but people need to be free of force if they want to live to their natures. Minarchist government allows this.

How would they be not free of force?
Would said government be voluntary?

Yeah; well it would be in my version.

[Conservative Alliances]

Is this an acceptable type of business? If not why not?

Yes, it is a consensual arrangement.

Is it okay for an employee to sign away basic rights to the employer like this as a condition of employment?

Yes, they don't have to take the job. I don't support the concept of natural rights.

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?

No, as long as all parties knew of the risks and consented.

Would your opinion change if the hunter was not allowed to take trophies?

No, that would be a policy left up to the discretion of the business.

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?

Maybe. If it was fraud and people were not appropriately warned of the dangers within the realm of reason, there would most likely be problems. But if their role was still pretty clear, then no. Always read a contract before you sign it.

This question is to see if it's the actual words on the contract that matter or what was emphasized that matters.

I would say the actual words matter more.

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?

Yes, he already signed. I suppose there may be some legal recourse available to him, though. I imagine that they would also simply be able to quit unless otherwise specified in 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?

Depends on the parameters of the contract. If it said they cannot fight back, then no.

What, if any, damages is the employee liable for?

Depends on the legal customs and practices of the area.

Would it make a difference if the employees where children? If so why and what ages?

Maybe. They would have to be capable of giving consent to be an employee.

Would it make a difference if they were indentured servants?

No, but consent would still be needed.

[Sungai Pusat]

Well, it is personally not OK with me morally, but if the people in the scenario find it ethical, I have nothing to say. Of course, there's gonna be a very slim chance that will happen. And even so, since it isn't gonna get far in terms of getting business, it'll probably ruin the reputation of the business itself, since most people find it unethical. While possible that the business can survive, the business may be very small, like the one you stated, and could probably stay that way.

[Maurepas]

I don't see why not. I'm not even a "Right-Libertarian", but if someone wants to sign that stuff away, that's their prerogative. I don't have the right to stop them anymore than I have the right to bar them from suicide.

My questions of course would be, A) How much am I being paid?, and B) Do I have the right to kill my pursuer before he kills me, and if so, will I still be paid?

I would also say that it's only valid if any and all stipulations in relation to the contract are made available up front, and in bold letters. I would say that should be a legal requirement of any and all contracts. Fine print should be illegal, imo.

[Staenwald]

I don't see why not. I'm not even a "Right-Libertarian", but if someone wants to sign that stuff away, that's their prerogative. I don't have the right to stop them anymore than I have the right to bar them from suicide.

My questions of course would be, A) How much am I being paid?, and B) Do I have the right to kill my pursuer before he kills me, and if so, will I still be paid?

I would also say that it's only valid if any and all stipulations in relation to the contract are made available up front, and in bold letters. I would say that should be a legal requirement of any and all contracts. Fine print should be illegal, imo.

the only issues with fine print is that people don't bother to read it....even if it is sneaky business practice. It is illegal to lie when making contracts the last time i heard.

[Fizbar]

Out of character, I'm a socialist, so such a game should not be allowed.

[Staenwald]

Out of character, I'm a socialist, so such a game should not be allowed.

of course if the majority of workers say so, it's ok to steal from productive people...