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?