A little philosophy...

[Dizzied]

I know this board is for religion and politics, but I think the two of them are closely tied to philosophy.  The question is...Murder Park.

It's like a theme park.  It opens up, and anyone who wants to can go inside.  Then they lock the doors, and the goal is to pretty much just survive the day.  There's literally nothing you can't do, until it closes and you're forced to leave. 

Should a place like this be legal?  I wanna say that there's nothing wrong with it. Everybody is there by their own accord, and they know the full possibilities of what could happen inside.  So whats wrong with it?

[Zakharra]

 

I know this board is for religion and politics, but I think the two of them are closely tied to philosophy.  The question is...Murder Park.

It's like a theme park.  It opens up, and anyone who wants to can go inside.  Then they lock the doors, and the goal is to pretty much just survive the day.  There's literally nothing you can't do, until it closes and you're forced to leave. 

Should a place like this be legal?  I wanna say that there's nothing wrong with it. Everybody is there by their own accord, and they know the full possibilities of what could happen inside.  So whats wrong with it?

It's be closed down in an instant. Can you imagine the number of crimes that would occur in there?  Just because people would go in of their own accord and knowing the possibilities doesn;t make it legal. murder is stil murder. Rape is still rape.

[Dizzied]

Naturally.  The idea of the park is that anything inside is legal.  Why?  Because you more or less sign up for it when you go inside.  You might as well be signing your life away. 

I, for one, don't think that suicide should be legal, so I don't see why this is a problem.  Rape?  Well, if you don't wanna get raped, don't go inside.   It applies to anything.  I just don't see why if people wanna tear each other apart, we should stop them.

[Zakharra]

 It's still against the law. Even knowing what can happen does not give a place, like a park the legal authority to void the laws and regulations that it must work under. One of which is to provide a safe environment. Not one catered to the worst excesses of humanity.

[Oniya]

First off, I doubt any place like this really exists, nor do I think anyone could get backing for constructing it.  Also, knowing how 'well' people tend to read any sort of contract/warning label/disclaimer these days, I think you would still risk people going in 'on a lark'. 

I would like a clarification of one thing, though.  In your last post, you say that:

I, for one, don't think that suicide should be legal, so I don't see why this is a problem.

Followed by:

I just don't see why if people wanna tear each other apart, we should stop them.

What makes people killing each other more allowable than one person killing him/herself?

[Cecily]

There are plenty of ways for people to kill themselves, so I don't understand why a 'murder park' needs to be invented. It just sounds like a place where lots of stupid/sick/mentally ill people would end up. And regardless of that, it's still illegal.

[Dizzied]

First off, I doubt any place like this really exists, nor do I think anyone could get backing for constructing it.  Also, knowing how 'well' people tend to read any sort of contract/warning label/disclaimer these days, I think you would still risk people going in 'on a lark'. 

I would like a clarification of one thing, though.  In your last post, you say that:

Followed by:

What makes people killing each other more allowable than one person killing him/herself?

Typo.  I mean to say, "I don't see why suicide should be illegal."  My bad.

Zakharra, what I'm really wondering here is why these things are illegal if people want to subject themselves to it.  What gives government the right to take away a person's rights like this?  If they want to do it, how does government have legitimate authority to stop them?

[Oniya]

Most people are more willing to be the shooter than the victim.  There is an old saying: 'Your right to swing your arm stops at the end of my nose.'  (I believe it was said by Mark Twain.) This is why there are laws against killing people.

[Dizzied]

I don't think Mark Twain was infallible.  The people are signing up for the park, knowing that they might die, and willing to take the risk in the name of sadistic glee. 

Who are we to deny them?  If they're all willing to take the risks, and all of them sign up anyway, what good would it do to stop them?

[consortium11]

I think some of you are considering this the wrong way, on far too practica level.

Think of it as a thought experiment.

If I am fully aware of the risk and consequences and sign up of my own free will, why shouldn't I be allowed in there? Who owns my body (which is actuall a pretty hot legal question) and my life? Who has the right to restrict my liberty and freedom to do something I am able and do consent to with full knowledge of the consequences? What basis can you have to infringe on my freedom?

On a slightly practical note the world has generally always had crazy consent laws.

I can consent to types of GBH and ABH with almost no difficulty.

But if I want to consent to someone punching me in the face there's a whole host of medical checks, insurance details, liscences and all that jazz.

And look at the criminal law (at least in the UK) realting to bdsm.

You want to engage in some consensual heavy bdsm in the UK with people of the save sex? Fuck that you're going to jail.

You want to brand your initials on your wife's arse? You're scot free...

[Zakharra]

Zakharra, what I'm really wondering here is why these things are illegal if people want to subject themselves to it.  What gives government the right to take away a person's rights like this?  If they want to do it, how does government have legitimate authority to stop them?

If someone wants to kill themselves, they can do it without getting someone else involved  unless they step in front of a train or truck. What's wrong with your senario is that 1, people are making money off of actual crimes (murder and rape), 2, people can go into those places and commit the same crimes without -any- legal penalties. A place like that can quickly become a meeting place for murderers, thugs, serial rapists and other degenerates of society.

You are, in essance, rewarding things we normally throw people in jail for. I can see a defence of a person who would kill someone outside of it. 'I thought I was back in the Aggro-Dome Park, sir. I didn't like the way he looked at me so I killed him.'

[Dizzied]

If someone wants to kill themselves, they can do it without getting someone else involved  unless they step in front of a train or truck. What's wrong with your senario is that 1, people are making money off of actual crimes (murder and rape), 2, people can go into those places and commit the same crimes without -any- legal penalties. A place like that can quickly become a meeting place for murderers, thugs, serial rapists and other degenerates of society.

You are, in essance, rewarding things we normally throw people in jail for. I can see a defence of a person who would kill someone outside of it. 'I thought I was back in the Aggro-Dome Park, sir. I didn't like the way he looked at me so I killed him.'

I don't see why letting people who enjoy similar activities gather is a bad thing.  If anything, in this case, they'll weed sort of weed themselves out, right?  Would you complain if all the murders and rapists in your state killed each other?  They're only committing these crimes on people who have consented to them by joining the park.  Which, if you think about it, makes them no longer crimes.  (Assault is illegal, but boxing isn't.)

Also, nobody is getting rewarded for what they do in there.  There are no prizes at the end of the day.  The owners don't participate, they only provide a location. 

As for the argument about using it as a defense claim...I don't imagine that would hold up any jury or judge.  "There was consent in the park ,there is none out here.  You know the rules."  I imagine he'd have an excuse, regardless.

[Oniya]

Also, nobody is getting rewarded for what they do in there.  There are no prizes at the end of the day.  The owners don't participate, they only provide a location. 

I believe there is an assumption that the owners would receive some sort of payment - if nothing else, to offset the property taxes and maintenance of the three-story electric fence with the razor wire to keep 'participants' from escaping, and the outer fence of Lexan to prevent stray bullets from picking off non-participants that happen to be within 50 feet of the park.

[Zakharra]

 That's aside from the fact you are letting a corporation have the authority to set aside the law. Which forbids murder and rape. This sets a bad precedence. What's to keep a corporation from setting aside environmental laws on their land? Or employment laws? You willingly work for them, you agree to the terms of the contract.  It sets a dangerous precedent.

[Dizzied]

I believe there is an assumption that the owners would receive some sort of payment - if nothing else, to offset the property taxes and maintenance of the three-story electric fence with the razor wire to keep 'participants' from escaping, and the outer fence of Lexan to prevent stray bullets from picking off non-participants that happen to be within 50 feet of the park.

Naturally.  But the owner still isn't being rewarded for doing anything other than providing a location for these people to act out their desires.  He just opens and closes the gates at the preset times.  Naturally, he can profit like any other business, but you don't see us closing cigarette companies down just because their customers tend to die faster than others.  (as much as some people would like)

That's aside from the fact you are letting a corporation have the authority to set aside the law. Which forbids murder and rape. This sets a bad precedence. What's to keep a corporation from setting aside environmental laws on their land? Or employment laws? You willingly work for them, you agree to the terms of the contract.  It sets a dangerous precedent.

This isn't a legal question, its a morality question.  Naturally, this place couldn't exist on our current earth - no government would allow it.  I'm asking why.  I personally don't see why it shouldn't.  (other than a lack of demand)

What keeps the corporation from setting aside environment laws?  The free market.  It's bad for business if people learn you're trashing the environment.  (the exon-valdez had quite an impact on the petrol industry for awhile).  The same goes for employment and other things. 

[Zakharra]

I don't see why letting people who enjoy similar activities gather is a bad thing.  If anything, in this case, they'll weed sort of weed themselves out, right?  Would you complain if all the murders and rapists in your state killed each other?  They're only committing these crimes on people who have consented to them by joining the park.  Which, if you think about it, makes them no longer crimes.  (Assault is illegal, but boxing isn't.)

But boxing does not usually end up killing the other person. Assault, with the intent to hurt and/or kill is a crime. Whether both people agree to it or not. Under the laws of  the nation, it is irrelevant what both people agree to, it is still a crime.

Recently in Germany a man consented to being killed and eaten by another man. Cannibalism. He was killed and mostly eaten, and the man that did it arrested and (I hope) jailed for the rest of his life or killed. The fact that they both agreed to it means nothing when a life is at stake.

[Oniya]

Naturally.  But the owner still isn't being rewarded for doing anything other than providing a location for these people to act out their desires.  He just opens and closes the gates at the preset times.  Naturally, he can profit like any other business, but you don't see us closing cigarette companies down just because their customers tend to die faster than others.  (as much as some people would like)

Based on my unfortunate addiction to In Session (Formerly CourtTV Daytime), I know of this little thing on the books called felony murder.  Basically, it states that if you take part in certain enumerated crimes, even by so much as encouraging the primary participants to engage in them, and someone gets killed, you are just as guilty as the person who did the actual killing. 

As an example, suppose you drive someone to the bank, knowing that they are planning on robbing the bank.  Once you get there, you sit in the car while the job goes down.  One of your buddies guns down a security guard, who dies.  Guess what?  You can get charged with felony murder.  Robbery/burglary, assault, arson, kidnapping, and rape are the ones I remember off the top of my head.

Now, put this in context of the Murder Park.  The owner(s), by providing this arena where the acts are allowed, are encouraging the acts to occur.  Hence, they could be charged under the felony murder rule.

[Dizzied]

But boxing does not usually end up killing the other person. Assault, with the intent to hurt and/or kill is a crime. Whether both people agree to it or not. Under the laws of  the nation, it is irrelevant what both people agree to, it is still a crime.

Recently in Germany a man consented to being killed and eaten by another man. Cannibalism. He was killed and mostly eaten, and the man that did it arrested and (I hope) jailed for the rest of his life or killed. The fact that they both agreed to it means nothing when a life is at stake.

Now see, thats what bothers me.  If two people agree to something, where does the government get the ability to come in and nullify that agreement?  What lets them say, "No, this can't be allowed," and take those people off to prison for doing exactly what they both wanted? 

The guy consented to being eaten?  Little odd, I guess, but I don't see why the government can take away his right to do what he pleases with his body.  If he wanted to be eaten, so what?  Why does a life at stake mean consent has to be gained from the government instead of the person?

Now, put this in context of the Murder Park.  The owner(s), by providing this arena where the acts are allowed, are encouraging the acts to occur.  Hence, they could be charged under the felony murder rule.

This is outrageous.  How do they charge you with murder when you haven't killed someone?  Good lord, we let these people govern us?  They take whatever liberties they want!

Shouldn't no one have authority over you but yourself?  If I want to kill myself and be eaten by cannibals, thats my decision.  Not some fatcat in an office building. 

Am I missing something here?

[Oniya]

This is outrageous.  How do they charge you with murder when you haven't killed someone?  Good lord, we let these people govern us?  They take whatever liberties they want!

Shouldn't no one have authority over you but yourself?  If I want to kill myself and be eaten by cannibals, thats my decision.  Not some fatcat in an office building. 

Am I missing something here?

Well, for one thing, it's not some guy in an office building, it's nine guys (er - 8 and 1 gal) in robes in the Supreme Court.  More importantly, when engaging in one of the felonies that the law applies to, the participant is creating a situation where death of another is likely to occur - like burning a building down.  Robbery and burglary imply a certain level of violence (stealing a car off a lot wouldn't count, but carjacking someone at a traffic light would).

[consortium11]

But boxing does not usually end up killing the other person. Assault, with the intent to hurt and/or kill is a crime. Whether both people agree to it or not. Under the laws of  the nation, it is irrelevant what both people agree to, it is still a crime.

Recently in Germany a man consented to being killed and eaten by another man. Cannibalism. He was killed and mostly eaten, and the man that did it arrested and (I hope) jailed for the rest of his life or killed. The fact that they both agreed to it means nothing when a life is at stake.

You're still talking about it in a legal context, not a philosophical one.

Also, you seem to misunderstand how the mechanism for boxing/mma/kickboxing etc work. The offence (assault/battery) still occurs however the perfect defence of consent applies. The statute's/case law have held that when properly regulated etc etc two liscenced boxers (or whatever) may consent to being battered within the confines of the rules.

The assault still occurs, there is just now a perfect defence.

The simple fact is the government allows you to consent to physical harm in some cases (serious physical harm in many) and yet doesn't in others. The question is why...

[Zakharra]

1Now see, thats what bothers me.  If two people agree to something, where does the government get the ability to come in and nullify that agreement?  What lets them say, "No, this can't be allowed," and take those people off to prison for doing exactly what they both wanted? 

The guy consented to being eaten?  Little odd, I guess, but I don't see why the government can take away his right to do what he pleases with his body.  If he wanted to be eaten, so what?  Why does a life at stake mean consent has to be gained from the government instead of the person?

2This is outrageous.  How do they charge you with murder when you haven't killed someone?  Good lord, we let these people govern us?  They take whatever liberties they want!

Shouldn't no one have authority over you but yourself?  If I want to kill myself and be eaten by cannibals, thats my decision.  Not some fatcat in an office building. 

Am I missing something here?

1: If it involves the death of someone, then yes. Otherwise many mafia murders would be legal since you have entered into a contract that you failed to live up to (however you ended up failing them either from stealing from them, failure to live up to the conditions of the contract or simply being 'retired'). The idea of a Murder Park opens the gateway to sanctioned murder and other henious crimes.

2: It's the intent and the fact you are an accomplice in the act that gets you in trouble. The fact the park owners would be providing an arena for people to murder and rape or worse, others puts them directly at fault as aiding and abbeting a crime.

If you want to kill yourself, stick a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger or step in front of a train, the moment you ask someone else to do it, it becomes murder. Do you want people getting used to the fact thay can snuff a life so easily? Or become a 'criminal' so easily and not get caught? A place like that cheapens life far to much for my tastes.

And we let those people rule over us by electing the Congressmen and President that appoints these people to their post for life. By that fact alone, we consent to it.

[MHaji]

The Murder Park version seems deeply dubious, for the reasons mentioned above (sanctioned murder, essentially), but also for another:

What if you change your mind when you're inside? You're no longer agreeing to be killed; does that mean you have to be allowed out immediately? If you're killed after you change your mind, is that murder? I'd think so. Most contracts have some sort of clause for renegotiation/escape. A contract that's enforced on pain of death is essentially indentured servitude.

Here's a variation described by Larry Niven in the story "Cloak of Anarchy." What if the park has robot drones that prevent anyone from actually causing physical harm to anyone else? Anything else is allowed, but no direct violence. Is this allowable? Preferable? A good model for a society?

[Mnemaxa]

Philosophically speaking, this is actually a situation that exists all the time, all around us.  There is nothing actually stopping anyone from doing these things immediately and in whatever manner they like. 

There are three things that stop people from doing whatever they like whenever they like to whomever they like. 

The first is capability.  It is entirely possible that even though someone would like to be able to rape and kill and steal, they haven't the strength or ability to do so effectively. 

The second is repercussions.  In most cases, the repercussions of doing these acts is deterrent enough that people do not indulge in them. 

The third is training.  We are trained not to do these things by society, usually through parental and authority figure guidance. 

And that's it.  That is all that keeps us from acting on our base desires.  Understanding this is a dangerous thing, because it enables a person who understands and believes these truths to do an act in ways that are detrimental to their own and other's survival.  It is well known that among Taoists there is as great a capacity for evil as there is for good; accepting responsibility for the actions one takes is pretty much the only limitation the philosophy places on the person following it outside of the fundamental truths it is known for.

[consortium11]

Philosophically speaking, such a breakdown avoids one of the major schools of philosophical thought... morality (either internal, external or a third way system).

But that's taking the discussion O/T.

[RubySlippers]

I don't get what the problem is if anillegal act does take place that could happen anywhere couldn't it?

Say you go to Carneval in Rio and get raped that doesn't mean they should stop Carnevalle.

And what if a woman really likes rough sex with strangers and doesn't mind getting raped since its not really rape in her case.

As a libertarian if they are warned what could happen, they are adults, enter voluntarily and are aware of the risks let them, the government has no right to protect people who are adults like parents for personal choices outside the public venue.

[Inkidu]

I don't get what the problem is if anillegal act does take place that could happen anywhere couldn't it?

Say you go to Carneval in Rio and get raped that doesn't mean they should stop Carnevalle.

And what if a woman really likes rough sex with strangers and doesn't mind getting raped since its not really rape in her case.

As a libertarian if they are warned what could happen, they are adults, enter voluntarily and are aware of the risks let them, the government has no right to protect people who are adults like parents for personal choices outside the public venue.

You're comparing an illegal, non-consensual  act with one that would theoretically be legal. They're not going to shut down Carneval because it's not about rape. They will shut down Murderland. it's legalizing murder. That's perverse. The ad for Carneval doesn't say, "Come to Carneval, get raped!" It will hopefully never be legal to have murderland and the world would be a sadder place if there was. Just because people can consensually enter into a murder agreement doesn't mean they're smart.

[RubySlippers]

I think its stupid and insane but if they go in thinking they are likely to have bad things happen why is that suddenly wrong, if they are all at least eighteen.

I compare this simply its a free choice of an adult to take part in potentially risky behavior, smoking pot could be risky and its illegal now but I would defend an adults right to smoke it. I treat this as potential suicide over murder when the party enteringit may just want to die its their right to do so. Of course the government can regulate clubs and the like they could use that to regulate it such as demanding extensive cameras hidden inside and consent forms.

I find it despicable but I also find other things that so its not fair to foist my values on other persons even if they are being fools.

[Oniya]

I don't get what the problem is if anillegal act does take place that could happen anywhere couldn't it?

Say you go to Carneval in Rio and get raped that doesn't mean they should stop Carnevalle.

The difference here is that Carneval is not set up in a way where rape is permissible - as far as I know.

And what if a woman really likes rough sex with strangers and doesn't mind getting raped since its not really rape in her case.

This actually brings to mind an interesting thought-experiment that I came up with last night:  Suppose three people go into 'Murder Park': One with a clear intent of wanting to murder (M), one with a clear intent of committing rape (R), and one with a clear intent of wanting to be raped, but also a clear intent of not wanting to be killed (V).  Ideally, R and V would get together, and M would find someone else.  But suppose M finds V (or R!) first?  Has the park failed them?  Is it 'too bad, so sad'?

[consortium11]

The park hasn't failed in any way at all.

The park has clearly stated that there are no limits for what will occur inside and all of the participants have agreed to this.

V may want to be raped and not murdered, but the park has said that either can happen without consequence. By entering the park she has accepted and consented to the fact that her being killed by m is entirely possible. If she was unwilling to risk getting murdered then she should not have entered the park and if she did anyway then it would not be fully informed consent.

[RubySlippers]

Its actually a interesting Libertarian Philosophical point is an adult by their nature free to make choices if informed properly to engage in risky behaviour. I would say yes they have that free choice and right be that doing Cocaine or entering Murderpark, if they are properly informed of all the risks.

[Dizzied]

1: If it involves the death of someone, then yes. Otherwise many mafia murders would be legal since you have entered into a contract that you failed to live up to (however you ended up failing them either from stealing from them, failure to live up to the conditions of the contract or simply being 'retired'). The idea of a Murder Park opens the gateway to sanctioned murder and other henious crimes.

2: It's the intent and the fact you are an accomplice in the act that gets you in trouble. The fact the park owners would be providing an arena for people to murder and rape or worse, others puts them directly at fault as aiding and abbeting a crime.

3If you want to kill yourself, stick a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger or step in front of a train, the moment you ask someone else to do it, it becomes murder. Do you want people getting used to the fact thay can snuff a life so easily? Or become a 'criminal' so easily and not get caught? A place like that cheapens life far to much for my tastes.

4And we let those people rule over us by electing the Congressmen and President that appoints these people to their post for life. By that fact alone, we consent to it.

1.The mafia killings are different- they don't consent to being killed.  They might make elaborate agreements and schemes, but I haven't ever seen a mobster movie where any of them actually agreed to die if he got caught squealing or something. 

2.I can kind of see what you mean about creating an environment for these 'heinous' crimes to occur, but I still don't think they are crimes if the people consent to it.  It's like opening a bondage club or a fight club.  If everyone inside is happy to be there, then I don't see why it ought to be illegal.

3.  Hunting deer or even squashing a cockroach is all akin to snuffing out life.  Human life may be a bit different, but I still fail to see why responsible adults should not be allowed to agree to an assisted suicide pact.  If Mr. Hannibal enjoys killing and eating people, and I don't want my corpse to go to waste, and I'm gonna die in 6 months anyway...well, whats wrong with letting Mr. Hannibal have his way?  He'll be less likely to exercise his desires on someone who isn't consenting, I think.  Thats good, right?

4.  I don't know about you, but I didn't vote for any of those cats in DC.  I didn't ask any of them to rule over me.  Sure, they got elected by a majority, but tyranny by majority is still tyranny.  They're restricting my freedoms without my consent.  Murder park sounds way more respective of my rights than that.

What if you change your mind when you're inside? You're no longer agreeing to be killed; does that mean you have to be allowed out immediately? If you're killed after you change your mind, is that murder? I'd think so. Most contracts have some sort of clause for renegotiation/escape. A contract that's enforced on pain of death is essentially indentured servitude.

Here's a variation described by Larry Niven in the story "Cloak of Anarchy." What if the park has robot drones that prevent anyone from actually causing physical harm to anyone else? Anything else is allowed, but no direct violence. Is this allowable? Preferable? A good model for a society?

You're a real idiot if you go in there without being sure that you wanna stay...but just like signing a contract, you can't really back out once you've done it.  I can see the danger involved with this, but I still think the park could be a respectable institution. 

As for the robots...well, now your just taking the fun out of it.   ;D

[MHaji]

You're a real idiot if you go in there without being sure that you wanna stay...but just like signing a contract, you can't really back out once you've done it.

Stupidity does not cancel out basic human rights, and one can break a contract - it's just that there are financial or legal consequences for that. Contracts do not say "IF YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND, YOU DIE." That's not how they work in a sane society.

In other words, the park intended to be a place of absolute freedom turns out to be the opposite, a place of absolute tyranny, simply because once entering, one critical freedom is sacrificed: the freedom to leave alive.

It really is similar to the Mafia case. There's no explicit statement of agreement to die if you squeal after joining the Mafia, but it's definitely understood that in entering, you agree to that term. "Once you're in, you never get out." Likewise, the outlawed practice of indentured servitude resembles it, too.

[Greenthorn]

Typo.  I mean to say, "I don't see why suicide should be illegal."  My bad.

Zakharra, what I'm really wondering here is why these things are illegal if people want to subject themselves to it.  What gives government the right to take away a person's rights like this?  If they want to do it, how does government have legitimate authority to stop them?

Would you allow a 3 year old child to drink Clorox...or a 12 year old child to huff butane...or your 22 year old friend to drink themselves to death?  *shrugs* Someone has to think logically for those who do not!

[Zakharra]

 

1.The mafia killings are different- they don't consent to being killed.  They might make elaborate agreements and schemes, but I haven't ever seen a mobster movie where any of them actually agreed to die if he got caught squealing or something.

By joining them you accept the penalties that they can use to enforce their laws/contracts.

2.I can kind of see what you mean about creating an environment for these 'heinous' crimes to occur, but I still don't think they are crimes if the people consent to it.  It's like opening a bondage club or a fight club.  If everyone inside is happy to be there, then I don't see why it ought to be illegal.

The difference is in those clubs, people are not consenting to being tortured and killed. In those clubs who consents? Do they just grab anyone they want in the clubs and tie them up to play with? Or does the person have to consent in there?  I highly doubt that the patrons of the club do not have a choice while in the club to participate or just watch.

The murder park scenario you put forth is very limited in that once you enter, you 'agree' to have anything done to you. What if somone just wants to beat someone up? Not kill? It removes all freedoms.

3.  Hunting deer or even squashing a cockroach is all akin to snuffing out life.  Human life may be a bit different, but I still fail to see why responsible adults should not be allowed to agree to an assisted suicide pact.  If Mr. Hannibal enjoys killing and eating people, and I don't want my corpse to go to waste, and I'm gonna die in 6 months anyway...well, whats wrong with letting Mr. Hannibal have his way?  He'll be less likely to exercise his desires on someone who isn't consenting, I think.  Thats good, right?

I do not equate the life of a bug or deer close to being near a human life. If someone wants to kill themselves, there are ways to do it without involving others in the process. Tie rocks to your legs and jump in a lake. OD on pills. Step in front of a train, shoot yourself in the head.

The Hannibal example doesn't work. A person might like eating people, but he looked at people as a food source. Like deer or cattle, to be herded and killed when necessary for food. I would not want to foster that sort of attitude in people by having places that cater to that behaviour.

4.  I don't know about you, but I didn't vote for any of those cats in DC.  I didn't ask any of them to rule over me.  Sure, they got elected by a majority, but tyranny by majority is still tyranny.  They're restricting my freedoms without my consent.  Murder park sounds way more respective of my rights than that.

If you live in the US, you agree to be governed by them. The freedoms you want would lead to complete anarchy. We have freedoms, yes, but within reason to allow for a civilized society.  You also called it a tryanny, what makes it a tryanny? Because they make laws that do not let you do anything you want? You CAN take your own life if you want. The fact you live here means you GIVE consent to it. Don't like it? Leave.

If not a tyranny of  the majority, what about a tyranny of the minority? If the majority cannot make the rules and a minority can, what's to prevent them from becoming a tyranny that does not take the view of what is good  for the majority into consideration. Would you see that a good thing?

[Oniya]

4.  I don't know about you, but I didn't vote for any of those cats in DC.  I didn't ask any of them to rule over me.  Sure, they got elected by a majority, but tyranny by majority is still tyranny.  They're restricting my freedoms without my consent.  Murder park sounds way more respective of my rights than that.

Did you at least vote against them?

If someone wants to kill themselves, there are ways to do it without involving others in the process. Tie rocks to your legs and jump in a lake. OD on pills. Step in front of a train, shoot yourself in the head.

I'd leave the train out of that list.  I've heard the kind of trauma that can inflict on the poor engineer that sees a person on the tracks and knows that there's no way to stop the train in time.  *shudder*  (It takes over a mile for the average train to come to a stop, even on full brakes which risks derailing the train and killing those aboard as well.)

[Inkidu]

4.  I don't know about you, but I didn't vote for any of those cats in DC.  I didn't ask any of them to rule over me.  Sure, they got elected by a majority, but tyranny by majority is still tyranny.  They're restricting my freedoms without my consent.  Murder park sounds way more respective of my rights than that.

First off. If you just didn't vote. You still have to abide, you abstained you're saying, "I don't want to be a participant." If you can't vote there are issues elsewhere. However, by your philosophy any person of legal majority should be able to walk into a place and risk murder. Yet you're not willing to abide by a nation who has decide to elect it's political officials by vote; calling it tyranny?