Why are voluntary fights to the death illegal?

Why are voluntary fights to the death illegal?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=MT9a1kbXbt0
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Only the state is allowed to take a life

Dead people don't pay taxes.

Settling personal disputes with violence abhorent to both Christians and Enlightenment secularists. It was outlawed because it was seen as a barbarous and destructive practice.

>Letting Religion influence law

Wha da fug :D

Gladiators weren´t exactly voluntary. Well, the first ones were crazy enthusiast but afterwards they were slaves bought in mines and galleys.
One day they rebelled and it wasn´t nice.

>I watched Spartacus and I now know everything about gladiators

>He thinks Judeo-Christian values don't influence his beliefs
Hah.

WWE is exact copy of gladiator system. Executions isnt popular, sport with deaths is unprofitable.

Gladiator fights probably weren't nearly as staged/choreographed.

because it's inefficient

I unironically think because it would be a slippery slope.

It could started as real fights of everyone including slaves or prisoners. But:
1. More prepared fighter - more exciting show - more money for tickets.
2. Volunteers better prepare and fight.
3. Death of fighter - loss of investment by his manager.
So 100-200 years must be bringed it to WWE.

Why would we need real gladiator fights when idiots will pay billions just to watch WWE shit?

Too much of a hassle having to prove the guy who died actually consented

Read Moldbug. Don't believe him, but read him.

fresh and colourful human guts

Then I recommend Spartacus to sate your lusts, or if it's just blood you're after, then 300 2 is great as well.

Because you don't own yourself. Your life belongs to the state and not you.

Actually torture porn horror probably draws exactly the same crowd that would have been big gladiator fans. Well, them and boxing/WWE fans.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=MT9a1kbXbt0

They can see it however they want it solves problems and promotes cordiality when acting an ass on the train means that you might get challenged to 10 sword fights later and be forever seen as less than a man for turning them down. If you knew that you'd have to risk your pride or your life every time you were rude, then you'd be a much more pleasant person.

You know for people who apparently know about history, you guys know nothing of duels.

Not surprising albeit, as you are liberals.

Let us strip off the deceptive veils, remove the whitewash of illusion and subject the facts to a strict inspection. Let no one tell me, ‘A, or B, is a great man: he fought C, or D, and beat him.’ Gladiators fight and win; and that brutality gets its reward of applause. But to my thinking it would be better to be punished for any kind of cowardice than to gain the glory of that kind of fighting. Yet if two gladiators came out to fight in the arena, and they turned out to be father and son, who could endure such a spectacle? Who would not have the match cancelled?

It never has and never could work that way.

That was one of the most autistic things I've ever read. Speaking incomprehensible garbage in pretentious 25 BC prose.

I love how the modern equivalents to Roman stadium events are things only trash enjoy.

Oh please. The hippodrome races were for the noble people.

man what i would not do to see some modern day gladiatorial fights

Did this ever actually happen?

Naumaquias are recorded to have been immensely popular and lavish, yes.

Races were actually deadlier than gladiatorial combat

Also MMA, HEMA and BotN fags.

Honestly no idea why they aren't a thing, just with simulated blood and safer gear.

>naumaquias are recorded to have been immensely popular and lavish, yes.
So they would fill the stadium up with water just to have gladiators fight a complete naval battle to the death?
Under who's reign?

>what is UFC

> slippery slope
> civilized societies reject bloodlust
> leaves orphans and widows the state doesn't want to babysit
> will result in a shady industry behind it of gambling and corruption

on average, how big a percentage of the audience do you think had erections during the fights

If I may play devil's advocate...
>violent blockbuster films make billions every summer
>the government provides so many different benefits to countless people, so few widowed families would be a drop in the bucket
>bookmaking is already an enormous and legitimate industry

>violent blockbuster films make billions every summer
not even close to being the same thing

>the government provides so many different benefits to countless people, so few widowed families would be a drop in the bucket
no one wants more of that shit, it also creates social problems (children of single mother as so much more likely to be murderers and rapists it's frightening

>bookmaking is already an enormous and legitimate industry
the shit that would go on with gladiators would be on whole other league, you'd have people trading money for death behind the scene

By this logic, niggers should be pleasant to one another.

Gladiatorial fights were only rarely and mostly accidentally fatal, fighters were just too expensive to train

Because the state and law is there to protect lives

They cannot enforce or allow voluntary deaths because full liberty it is not the main goal of both the state and the law.

The main goal of law is to protect humans, some countries only allowed abortion because they changed the definition of life in those countries.

You don´t ever have the right to kill someone, even if they want...

And fights to death are even worse, because you will literally create a market which serves no purpose at all.

>I am rich
>I can force people to fight in those places easily(money, extortion, kidnapping)

Because people dying is bad

Matter of time, eventually mma artists will get weapons.

Because the government owns your life and can tell you what you can and can't do with it

yes, for instance if i do not pay their taxes, the people in the state will send me to prison to protect me

sports in general is not a thing intellectuals are known to care about. Bloodsports especially so

what part of "state is monopoly on violence" you don't understand?

anyone that tries to endanger that monopoly is a enemy of the state

In reality were gladiators the equivalent of star athletes like people say? Like if you had a popular fighter would they ever throw him under a bus or would they just keep putting him in fights he could easily win to keep the streak going?

If history teaches anything, a state does not function efficiently when its upper classes slaughter each other over petty slights. Shit, I don't think duels and the like were anywhere near as common for poorfags as they were for people too smart to be stabbing each other.

Do why not use death row inmates? Make it a yeatly event with last man standing in a ffa gets another year and a luxury cell. Gotta defend his crown the next year though.

the upper classes were in the stands only a few gladiators were rich before entering the arena and those guys were crazy anyway.

no you should look into clan feuds or family grudges or whatever they were called

basically hatfield vs. mccoy type shit where entire villages would end up taking sides

Oh fuck, I didn't know this was a real thing. Shit seems fucking awesome

tfw no Unreal Tournament irl

because we aint 16 anymore, edgar edgemaster

>tfw you will never been able to see an epic boat fight in the middle of a huge stadium

Yeah, except that gladiators weren't fake ass faggot with ridiculously staged fights.

The whole thread disagrees with you

A good answer, I'm slowly starting to become ashamed of my libertarian roots.

I think we was quoting someone...at least in the last 2 sentences. I remember a writing by either Pliny or someone in a history book about Roman civilization.

*and the people should they feel they are in immediate danger

Duelling caused huge problems in Europe, especially among the noble classes. It was frequently outlawed because it was such a pain in the ass.

yes but in special arena's around lakes, not in the coloseum

No you will go to the jail because you using the infra structure and enjoying the protection of the state and the union and not paying for them.

There is nothing preventing you to be homeless, and you only pay taxes in this case if you buy any product sold in the union. Go live in the jungle, some countries will offer you free health care, free schooling if you have kids(and they will be taken away from you probably because of your conditions of living, and they will even take care of them), all for fucking free and you will be contributing absolutely nothing to the union.

Well don´t be, moderation is the answer, you need a strong state but with a strong liberty to entrepreneurs

I live in a country that the state it is so big, corruption is generalized, and people get rich by entering in the government and extorting people and not becoming business man

Moderation will be forever the answer

I really enjoyed Margaret Atwood's exploration of exactly that concept in Mad Adam.

>not even close to being the same thing

Poppycock. That's what slippery slopes are all about and why they're a total fallacy, you crum-bum.