Comments on: Between consenting adults

By: Natalie Wright

Natalie Wright — Tue, 30 Dec 2003 00:33:11 +0000

Hello, I read your Web site and it is interesting, my boyfriend and I have followed the German courtcase and we have talked about it a fair bit. I am inclined to agree with Roberta, when she said that it was up to the individual. I have to confess that my boyfriend and I both think such things are erotic. Sorry if it offends but the thought that someone has desires to eat you is macarbely erotic. Valerie

By: Natalie Wright

Natalie Wright — Tue, 30 Dec 2003 00:33:01 +0000

By: Natalie Wright

Natalie Wright — Tue, 30 Dec 2003 00:32:49 +0000

By: Roberta

Roberta — Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:30:24 +0000

David, If this man were to have been the only one to have responded to the advert. Yes there would be doubts, however it would seem he wasn’t the only one. Surely it is up to the individual, if he or she consents then where is the crime? If a person agrees to be filmed, then they are part and pass of the act. In reality no one will ever know the truth, but I think the victim was a willing party. Roberta

By: David

David — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:55:33 +0000

well… I have only question… did the victim (so to speak…) consented to actually be kill, BEFORE HE WAS ON ANY INFLUENCE FROM ANY SUBSTANCE?(sleep pill, etc…). if yes… was he aware of beeing killed in such a way? I mean; by a knife in the neck? if yes… THERE IS NO PROBLEM…. once again, liberty is at stake. if no to all these question… KILL THE BASTARD… He is very dangerous…

By: David

David — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:55:28 +0000

By: Roberta

Roberta — Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:07:07 +0000

It has just struck me. If anyone would like to contact me about exotic meat, please do so. I would love to hear from you. Roberta

By: Roberta

Roberta — Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:06:54 +0000

It has just struck me. If anyone would like to contact me about exotic meat, please do so. I would love to hear from you. Roberta

By: Roberta

Roberta — Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:03:07 +0000

I read the articles in the press about the German cannibal trial. I think it is the ultimate experience anyone could ever invisage. It is something which I have always found erotic. I see nothing wrong for a person to offer themselves for such deeds, who can deny anyone the right to live their lives as they so desire. The very thought that someone would derive pleasure from eating your flesh is quite sensational. I have a sort of desire in that direction. Am I alone in the modern world, when I suggest that I would like to consider being eaten. Roberta.

By: sterlingspider

sterlingspider — Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:19:12 +0000

Just to clear up some terminology issues… The psychological concept of mental illness and the legal concept of sanity are seperate and, even (at times) completely mutually exclusive concepts. One can be deemed (by a jury, NOT a mental health professional) insane on the basis of an epileptic fit or even a sufficiently problematic blood sugar crash. The only place the concept of mental illness has in the determination of insanity is the determination of whether the defendants mental illness could sufficiently degrade their reality testing so as to render them incaple of making the determination that their act is wrong. In most states the basis of the insanity plea is that one does not know that what one is doing is wrong. Some states also add the “or cannot appreciate” clause which makes a bigger difference then one might think (all the difference in the Andrea Yates trial as a matter of fact). While I do not know german law on this matter, the statement that “obviously they’re crazy and as such unable to consent” doesnt really fly in the courtroom here.

By: Rick

Rick — Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:51:33 +0000

All I have to say is that anyone willing to have their penis cutoff and then eat it with some other freak has got to be one thing, FUCKED UP! It doesnt take a genius to see that these people are capable of incredibly hideous stuff and if they are willing to advertise that they are wanting to eat human flesh then they will do anything they have too to satisfy their incredibly desturbing desires. Call it what you want but its not only sick its WRONG! Im sure if this guy would not have gotten what he wanted he would go out to the general public and kill someone to get it. Dahmer is a prime example!

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:08:59 +0000

Sidereal, I don’t think libertarians need to even deal with the free will arguments, as long as they are consequentialists rather than deontologists. Further, your understanding is incorrect. Only some libertarians (namely: minarchists) think that enforcement of laws is a legitimate government function. Many others (namely: anarcho-capitalists), including myself, reject this view. Keith, I agree, it really is identical in my mind to an assisted-suicide case. But I acknowledge the existence of extreme social repulsion to canibalism (in addition to the less extreme social repulsion to suicide), which complicates the analysis. Zizka, While it is true that many liberals, both classical and modern, believe in the principle that no one can sell themselves into slavery or serfdom, this only applies in cases where a contract is written for specific performance and a court or abitrator is asked to enforce the contract. But in this kind of case, as in the case of assisted suicide, if we grant the principle of self-ownership, only the individual has a say in what may be done to his or her body, not the state.

By: Ted Barlow

Ted Barlow — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 20:55:41 +0000

“To my mind, it’s an assisted-suicide case.” Keith M. Ellis I tend to agree. I think that the job of the legal system in a case like this should be to force the killer to prove that the dead person was truly consenting (and was capable of consent.) It’s shouldn’t be the job of the legal system to force the killer to prove that the dead person had an adequate reason to want to die.

By: D. Citizen

D. Citizen — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 20:49:21 +0000

Sidreal: Maybe I was taking your point too literally, and I do understand your concern for the effective enforcement of societal norms in terms of the costs of negative externalities—i.e. “the degradation (in terms of personal safety, family safety, quality of life, etc) that occurs when it becomes sufficiently societally normal to engage in certain acts that typical people looking for acceptance or alternatives begin to engage in those acts.” My argument with your critique is that you (and the vast majority of people who hold the same view—which may indeed be the vast majority of people) don’t distinguish between libertarianism as a philosphy and libertarianism as a political orientation. Personally, I tend to the libertarian in my political views (more akin to someone like Milton Friedman rather than Harry Browne) and more to the rational conservative in my philosophical outlook (sorry, I have no good example here). In the case that inspired this post, my rational conservative side screams out “OHGOD!” while the libertarian in me doesn’t see much “there” there. What you interpreted as “libertine” was simply me looking at the situation from a legal perspective that does not involve my personal predilections one way or the other. From this point of view, I am only concerned with the consistent application of legal rules irrespective of the “yuck” factor. On the other hand, if the way that everyone conducted their lives was up to me, such behavior would be per se illegal for a variety of reasons, some of which you mentioned, but primarily because I believe that people should have more respect for themselves than is displayed in such wanton acts. The amalgam of my views leads me to desire a regime that does not infringe on one’s right to make bad decisions, unless such decisions infringe on the rights of someone else,* while at the same time demanding a level of personal responsibility that discourages and prevents such abhorant behavior (in as much as it possibly can be prevented). I manifestly do not believe that morality can be legislated, which is what lead me to discover the libertarian milieu in the first place. In short, I think that a libertarian can consistently assume the primacy of one’s mind and will and still be very concerned about the outcome of one’s actions, even when those actions only harm one’s self. In my opinion, it is really only those who do not separate governance from personal philosophy that would face such a dilemma as you posited. *I expect that the definition of “rights” is the true point of contention between our views.

By: sidereal

sidereal — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:49:40 +0000

d., I do acknowledge that I’m bundling up and averaging various beliefs and labeling them as libertarian and I apologize for the oversimplification, but I think my point still stands. First, I don’t necessarily agree with your distinction. My understanding is that one of the (few) roles of government in libertarian thinking is the enforcement of laws based on agreed-upon societal norms (like the primacy of individual will), as the alternative is might-makes-right. The argument would be which norms deserve to be enforced, but that’s different terrain. Second, upthread you say ‘If there was mutual consent, what’s the problem?’, which indicates that either you’re a libertine or you do not think that this act qualifies as something to be excluded. Here’s the rub, and it relates to many of the things keith m ellis wrote that resonated with me. He wants a rational deciding principle, and I think it has to be cost. You have to acknowledge the degradation (in terms of personal safety, family safety, quality of life, etc) that occurs when it becomes sufficiently societally normal to engage in certain acts that typical people looking for acceptance or alternatives begin to engage in those acts. If the cost of preventing acts forcibly (in terms of loss of personal liberty, lack of equivalent alternatives, palpable harm, etc) is less than the cost of permissiveness, then forbid it. At which point you can’t avoid figuring out the calculus to weight these costs, and I don’t know if anyone’s done that satisfactorily yet. My problem with a majority of the libertarianism that I’ve encountered is that it either sets the cost of liberty at 0, which I think is just ignorant, or it concludes that since measuring the cost is so arbitrary and complex that it’s better to pick an absolute and suffer the consequences. Unfortunately, that same argument can be flipped and equally rationally defend repressive environments like Wahabi Islam. . . you just have to pick the other absolute. I’d much rather try to fight my way around a slippery slope than jump off the mountain.