Should Adults Be Legally Allowed to...

@BluRayHiDef: Couldn't someone be forced into fighting and be legally killed? I think that's the major problem.

Tc makes me uncomfortable

Boxing, UFC, MMA. Let's keep it regulated.

Should Adults Be Legally Allowed to...

yes. from prostitution to organ selling(as long as it is theirs to sell), from physical sports to playing chicken in cars. adults can best judge for them selves, if not, Darwin awards give many a laugh.

What kind of fighting doesn't hurt? Slapping each other?

No, what I'm saying is that someone who wanted to kill someone else could force them to fight and kill them without anyone knowing that the now dead person didn't want to fight. I'm probably not making sense but oh well.

You mean someone could be pressured into fighting....perhaps even fighting a much stronger opponent....and killed as a result. Which would be legal in this hypothetical situation....???

our government and social activists get involved in things they have no business getting their noses in. IF someone wants to do drugs,fight,have 10 wives,or sex with minors "yes i said it" its nobodies business but the ones involved. PERIOD..we only think we live in a free country. UNTIL you start looking into it. We pay taxes on money that we shouldnt have to pay on. lol..its all around us. MOST are just too stupid and watching "honey boo boo" to notice.

I definatly think adults should be allowed to engage in activities that could potentially harm themselves, if certain conditions are met.

1.) If you're fighting, both parties (fighters) must be fully aware, and consenting, prior to the fight beginning.
Example: If you sucker-punch someone, and they get pissed off and want to fight you after the fact, you still sucker-punched them, which should be assault.

2.) No-one else is endangered.
Example:If you want to full two cars with people shooting paint-balls at each other. Do it on a track, or in an open field somewhere, not on the road with normal people.

I'm sure there are other conditions that could be listed, but you get the idea.

that's a tough question to answer. For me, I guess sure they should be, as long as they don't promote it to kids and stuff. I can hoenstly seee why something like in the movie Fight Club would appeal to guys. sometimes you just want to put your fist through a wall. but I wouldn't want kids knowing about it or anything like that.

I was talking to ExtremeBanana. Im aware what was meant in the OP.

Regarding the possibility of someone being killed, in a society in which the right I proposed is legal, killing would be legal if the parties or one of the parties involved consented to it explicitly or consented to the possibility of it occurring.

An example in which there exists only the possibility and not the assurance that someone who consents to engaging in a potentially deadly activity will be killed is a fight to the death. Only the loser dies; the winner lives.

It should be lawful because, well, I don't know...YOU CONSENTED TO THE POSSIBILITY! What part of that do you not understand? The entire point of the right I proposed is to allow adults to willingly engage in risky behaviour (that is a risk to only those involved).

Examples include euthanasia, drug use, prostitution, fighting between non-professdional fighters who want to settle a conflict, etc.

You don't get the point of my proposed right. In countries like the US, if two adults willingly engage in a fight (excluding professional fighters), they can be charged with assault, battery, disorderly conduct, and whatever other legal penalty is applicable, even if neither of them presses charges.

By having a legal right to consent to the possibility or assurance of being harmed, two adults can dig it out, if they choose, without incurring criminal charges.

I'm talking about intentionally created, controlled situations, not chance encounters.

I misunderstood you. I thought your example entailed explicitly consenting to being harmed while walking outside, thus removing the threat of legal penalization on anyone who harms you. However, I now understand what you meant.

I hope you understand me.

So they essentially have to give permission to be murdered?

that could easily become a legal clusterf***, where people could kill and simply lie and say he had permission.

random street fights to the death just wouldn't work.

The consent would have to be documented in some way and taken note of by an agent or agency of the government.

Ah, this is a touchy issue. Should people be allowed to make self-detrimental decisions if the results don't harm anyone outside of themselves? We already allow some forms of this, with alcohol, tobacco, fighting for sport, the emerging marijuana market... while impeding it in other ways that people claim as infringing on their personal liberties, e.g. - suicide, dueling, seatbelts, hard drug use...

This is a very tough subject to argue either way. I myself am on the fence. The basis of most of these laws is to prevent self-inflicted harm and to prevent a "slippery slope effect", like legalized brawling. Some think that if we allow brawling to settle issues, it'll lead to the foundation of fight clubs that could potentially lead to reports of manslaughter with no legal repercussions, or possibly the reemergence of dueling. Violence becomes widespread and accepted, blah, blah, blah. At the same time, these laws do infringe on the basic rights of people. A personal right to life should allow for the right to take away your own life. As a Christian, I do see suicide as a sin in the eyes of God, but I do not believe it is the rights of others to make this an illegal act. It's a personal decision and should not be interfered with (but even that is dubious. Suicide has the potential to harm others, emotionally and physically).

I just honestly don't know. Too many potential ways each of these actions can be interpreted. Smoking causes second-hand smoke, Drinking causes wild emotional responses in the recipient that could lead to assault of some kind, brawling could lead to accidental death, suicide causes deep emotional trouble for those that were close to the deceased, not wearing a seatbelt could turn you into a meat bullet... It's one of those situations where both sides are both incredibly right and horribly wrong.

I think i'm slight agreement with WiiCubeM1.

I think the biggest issue is that the OP asks a blanket question "if two adults consent, and it will only harm each other, should they?" and the only sensible answer is "it depends."

You can walk into a BDSM club, be tied, then whipped and beaten by strangers and no one would face any assault, sexual assault, false imprisonment, or unlawful restraint charges. And that's with laws of today. But fighting will get you legally in trouble... So, Whats the difference between these two, from a legal perspective, if they are all from consenting adults?

I'm guessing its likely to do with disincentive certain behaviors. Thats not to say the laws are promoting BDSM, but they aren't discouraging it either. I think, in general, its probably a good idea to disincentive violence as a form of resolution conflict since, well, its a pretty poor form of solving any issue.

So, i guess the answer to your question is really a slightly more nuanced "it depends."

Yeah, mindless violence should definitely be accepted in society.

are they both gonna be responsible to for payment to treat injuries/ funeral cost -death both cause each other OR tax payers going to pay the bill?...if them both are gonna pay for it ..then go for it :P

I have an uncle who is a police officer that specializes in narcotics. He says that the biggest problem isn't the drugs themselves, but all the crimes that people are committing to fund their drug addiction. That's sort of the issue that addicts have when they're shooting up $300 worth of drugs a day and don't have a job.

i have a question is that fight or fight club will definitely sort out that problem? are you sure about that?

I can see a new industry of 24 hour, on-call public notaries just to cater to drunken bar fights.

I think so. I think that adults should be able to do anything that they want that doesn't directly cause harm to someone else. This includes Fighting (which is already mostly legal if done in a controlled manner), Prostitution, many kinds of drug use, and suicide.

with universal healthcare, hurting somebody hurts everybody.

Yep.

For example, if someone is a drug addict, that will probably harm their friends, family and society as a whole indirectly. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to do that drug. I believe there are ways to mitigate some of those negatives to people, but I don't think that making a drug completely illegal is the best way.

If a bunch of people were to get attacked by a user of a certain drug as a result of a psychological effect of that drug, that drug should probably remain illegal (or at least make it illegal to be under the influence of that drug in public).

That is not indirect harm.

I didn't think the Purge was that good of a movie...

I agree. I thought it was a terrible film.

I think risk comes down to intention and a mutual agreement of that intention. If two people wanted to engage in an Old West style shootout then they obviously both know the risks are are willing to die to do it. But if one person does not consent to it then that should not be allowed, whatever the activity is. Doing drugs and voluntary fist fights should be legal, murder and rape should not. One is a risk we agreed to, and another is a risk we did not agree to simply because we exist - there is no physical way to say no to the risk and therefore should not be taken advantage of.

Depends on if this is going to involve leather cups and gimp masks.

Yeah. Remember the Fight Club philosophies, "Danger is a great way for self-discovery,to test to see how far you as a person can go."

Not even going to bother reading the rest of the OP. If what comes after that is any activity in which no non-consenting party is physically harmed, or has their property damaged and/or stolen, then yes, it should be legal. Period. The government has no right to stop anybody from doing anything unless what they're doing is directly harming another person, who hasn't consented to it. Or, in some cases, if the activity in question is extremely likely to harm a non-consenting party, such as driving while drunk and/or on hard drugs.