Uh.... what??



I'm sorry, I'm lost on this one.

__________________

See post #22. . .

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

Would it be self-defense if you both went there with the intent to duel to the death?

__________________
The apocalypse is coming... we're gonna need more ammo.

The mechanics of the process are actually very simple. As to how one could submit to and even participate in such an activity, 'mentally unstable' seems like a good starting point.

__________________
During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent act of stupidity.
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and his Shadow

All good socialists have villas in Southern France. That's not the point.
-Eurosocialist

No, I will have to give credit to Walter Block for this one.

Why shouldn't it be legal?

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

Liberty, do you seriously feel that dueling should be legal?

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

alright lets say:
1.that the potential for abuse is so large that there would be no way to make sure people weren't actually being murdered.

2. as Mark pointed out, are you seriously ok with dueling seems a little 17th century to me.

3. as a society we shouldn't let people kill each other for entertainment. It would just prove the things other nations say about our culture being "evil"

4. The people who would actually want to participate in this thing would qualify to be clinically insane in my point of view

5. last in my long list, who ever owned the thing would be making money of people killing each other. Also seems a little evil to me.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

I see.

__________________

Actually, that's not entirely true; legally the government has the right to actively work to prevent you from giving up your own life, which is why if you try and kill yourself people are allowed to stop you, save your life, and possibly put you in an environment where you're less able to harm yourself again in the future.

People have recognized that we are not to be entirely or completely trusted with preserving our own lives at all times. We have thus empowered the government to prevent us from making certain exceptionally idiotic and irrevocable decisions (such as killing ourselves, selling ourselves into slavery, or contractually surrendering our right to vote).

To get into the legal specifics:
Life, liberty and the franchise are granted by our highest legal authority: the US Constitution. That document trumps any other legal agreements, thus effectively nullifying any contract or wavier you'd sign allowing someone else to murder or enslave you.

Also, I note that you didn't address the exceptional potential for the abuse of such a system or the problem of "soundness of mind" in someone who wants to be murdered.

Oh, pardon. I suppose the name "MURDER Park" must have confused me, as did the phrase "People go into this park, pay their money, and kill each other" from the OP. For some reason I thought such things implied that death was an integral part.

The fundamental flaw in this argument is that our rights DO NOT come from the US Constitution. Evidence of this can be found within the Declaration of Indepedance and in the Constitution itself. The entire purpose of the Constitution is to LIMIT the powers of government. Using this document as a means to expand the powers of government is insane. We have rights because we are people, not becuase of the Constitution. Again, evidence of this is found in the Constitution. Read the 10th Amendment and the Declaration of Independance, and then try to justify your position.

What would you like me to say about the "fine print?" We could say this about anything. Perhaps people shouldn't be allowed to sell our houses because of the potential of "accidently" selling your house because of fine print.

One must not die in Murder Park. He might kill others and survive.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

No, it would be premeditated murder, after all, you thought about killing the other person and the put yourself into the position to do so, assuming you "won", if you came in second it would just be stupid, but if I was an insurance company, I might argue that the loser was a suicide, if they had a life policy with a suicide exception.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Yes, why not?


Plus Aaron Burr did the country.

WHOA! Edit:
Aaron Burr did the country a favor.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

and that doesn't seem wrong to you?

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

Actually the "fundemental flaw" there is that I was attributing the "life, liberty" line to the Constitution instead of the Declaration. I don't know what I was thinking.
Note to self: Drink more caffeine in the morning.

But if you want to argue from the position that our rights to life and liberty come to us without the aid of any legal device, then it follows naturally that no legal device (such as a contract) can void those rights.

But for me, the most fundamental issue is that letting people sign away their life and liberty would lead only to atrocities on a hideous scale, so much so that I'm willing to empower the government to prevent it.

I would think its fairly obvious that there's a difference between "accidentally" selling your house and "accidentally" selling your right to live.

...and then be arrested.

Why not just work for a tobacco company and kill people legally?

__________________