Timeline for Selling the right to kill one's convicted abuser: how could an NGO make this profitable?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
58 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 7, 2021 at 19:53 | vote | accept | Green | ||
| Dec 18, 2018 at 22:03 | history | edited | Green | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 146 characters in body
|
| May 11, 2018 at 6:09 | history | edited | Brythan |
edited tags; edited tags
|
|
| May 9, 2018 at 19:41 | comment | added | rlms | @Green It sounds like you're trying to come up with a realistic solution, and my point is that the assumption that a murder right is valuable is not realistic; what would and does realistically happen is that the victims would pay someone to exercise the right, not be paid. If you want to stipulate the opposite, you can, but it's like saying "In this market based system, someone buys the right for people to give them free stuff. How could they use that?" -- the actual answer is "they can't". | |
| May 6, 2018 at 10:58 | answer | added | user_1818839 | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 5, 2018 at 16:22 | comment | added | Robbie Goodwin | Doesn't Hollywood broadly deal with that every few years, as The Running Man and many another? Either way, don't you think "kill/execute/punish/vengeance…" or even "assassination-right"should trump "murder-right"? How could it remain murder if you had a licence? | |
| May 4, 2018 at 20:32 | comment | added | Richard | This service already exists and is moderately profitable; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_hunting | |
| May 4, 2018 at 11:48 | answer | added | Trish | timeline score: 4 | |
| May 3, 2018 at 16:50 | history | protected | James | ||
| May 3, 2018 at 12:21 | comment | added | Anthony | Which, for what it's worth, would then be the opportunity for the abuser to negotiate his rights and property in exchange for that breach of contract. This is the abuser's position to offer or require to provide, not the abused. They only retain their right to kill the abuser, not the abuser's personal rights. | |
| May 3, 2018 at 12:18 | comment | added | Anthony | Were the abuser to obtain the contract through quasi legal means—let's say the contract were bought as part of a group of contracts by his dear uncle's single-ownership company, and that the abuser inherited the entire company and its assets—if the abuser violates the restraining order and doesn't immediately kill himself (or arrange for his own murder), he would be in breach of contract. Small compensation if he kills or harms the abused, but legally giving the right to the abused or their survivor to sue the abuser. | |
| May 3, 2018 at 12:13 | comment | added | Anthony | @mattbowyer - welcome to every other suggestion and every third comment throughout this post. Everyone has speculated on if the abuser can buy their own contract and if the NGO could profit by selling them their own contract. My opinion is that it would be a breach of contract to sell the abuser their own contract, either because the contract would explicitly state as much or because it would represent bad faith in the contract terms being fulfilled. Thus the contract would be nullified and the abused could resell their rights to another NGO. On the flipside to that… | |
| May 3, 2018 at 11:13 | comment | added | Matt Bowyer | Quick thought on gaming the system - is there anything stopping the abuser from buying their own ticket to avoid getting killed? Because then you could make plenty of cash on rich abusers; buy the ticket off of a victim and then sell it to the abuser at a profit. | |
| May 3, 2018 at 8:37 | answer | added | Blade Wraith | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 3, 2018 at 6:37 | comment | added | Tom | @Anthony There are historical examples of regulated military markets for example the sale of commissions and the rights to colonise territories by the British Empire to commercial entities | |
| May 3, 2018 at 6:35 | comment | added | Anthony | Duh, if the person loses all rights, you take their money, make them do any labor you want, pimp them out to anyone for any sex act imaginable, film the whole thing and sell the tapes, then when they die, auction off their body. If they lose all rights, my question is why you have to even ask what makes this profitable? | |
| May 3, 2018 at 6:20 | comment | added | Anthony | @TomH can we think of the military as a "regulated market" on killing people (and blowing stuff up, etc)? Alcohol is a good example, but it still is only illegal to sell because you aren't selling it legally. Versus killing people (or blowing stuff up) is by default illegal with exceptions on when it is legal. If I give my buddy a ride and ask him for 10 bucks, my only crime is that I am not a state sanctioned taxi driver. | |
| May 3, 2018 at 6:15 | comment | added | Anthony | Which is to say that there aren't enough people who want to watch the same murder show over and over, or want to pay to kill, etc. To make it a scalable business. Even if those options were legally allowed. Organs are a great idea, but they aren't the NGOs to sell and in the current real world, only one country allows for an organ market. What are some non legally questionable ways owning the right to kill somebody could be profitable? | |
| May 3, 2018 at 6:11 | comment | added | Anthony | The most straightforward avenues for profit would be ad-based, subscription-based, or "value added reselling". Insurance is a good avenue for profit because the insurer is banking on making more on premiums than paying out. Any other potential profit opportunities are probably not going to scale well enough to make this NGO have a sustainable business model. | |
| May 3, 2018 at 6:07 | comment | added | Anthony | You also can't just find psychopaths who have a blood lust, unless they were registered to be legal killers. Trust me, it would come up as a liability issue. The NGO would want to have as little liability on murder gone wrong as possible. So no safaris or cage matches either. | |
| May 3, 2018 at 6:05 | comment | added | Tom | @Anthony I think whether a decriminalized "crime" should be regulated depends on the context. For example I don't think there was much need to introduce regulation of witchcraft once that was decriminalized, but I think it was appropriate to regulate the sale of alcohol post-prohibition. But my previous comment was just pointing out that this scenario doesn't qualify as a free market in economic terms. | |
| May 3, 2018 at 6:04 | comment | added | Anthony | What is really disappointing is that no one is trying to offer ideas that don't violate the target's rights. I know it sounds like I'm not getting it, but I think everyone else is actually missing the challenge. Assume we live in our current world, where you can't make someone a slave, you can't torture them, you can't take their money or property, etc etc. The one thing you can do is legally kill them under specific conditions. Where is the potential profit? | |
| May 3, 2018 at 5:42 | comment | added | Anthony | @TomH that's a good point, but in the case of gypsy cabs, their primary crime is not having a medallion. Versus with execution, it seems that the crime is murder if you aren't licensed. Which is to say that murder would exist as a crime even if "regulated execution" existed (or even unregulated execution somehow were possible). You're saying that if a crime were to become decriminalized in some contexts, it would have to regulated, right? | |
| May 3, 2018 at 4:03 | comment | added | Tom |
I would quibble the use of the term free market to describe the scenario. In economic terms the government (or society rulers) have granted a monopoly on the right to perform certain actions, and permit this right to be traded, in effect creating a tradable commodity similar to taxicab medallions or a letter of marque. This is a government granted monopoly and would be considered a regulated market
|
|
| May 3, 2018 at 2:20 | comment | added | ivanivan | The Ankh-Morpork model. Legalize Assassination, let an Assassins' Guild form, let them charge big fees, of which a healthy portion is paid back to the City as a tax. | |
| May 2, 2018 at 23:09 | comment | added | Green | @rlms nope. You can exercise force yourself or someone else pays you for the privilege because they believe they can make a profit from that right. | |
| May 2, 2018 at 21:47 | comment | added | rlms | This question doesn't really make sense. I have the "right but not the obligation" to e.g. exercise force in defence of my property, but if I want to transfer that I will pay them for the privilege (e.g. by employing security guards), not receive payment. | |
| May 2, 2018 at 20:08 | comment | added | Anthony | Oh also, I've been meaning to mention that some similar "market based" death for profit models that this reminds me of are "dead pools", tontines, and assassination markets | |
| May 2, 2018 at 19:46 | comment | added | Anthony | Everyone is suggesting ideas that assume the abuser loses all rights and that no laws are applicable to either the murderer or the abuser. This is absurd and outside the scope of the question. All suggestions that involve harvesting organs, enslaving the abuser, etc suggest that the abused has the right to sell things that belong to the abuser. The NGO is buying something from the abused, so answers should be limited to things that the abused can actually sell or the NGO can leverage. | |
| May 2, 2018 at 16:56 | answer | added | Green | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 2, 2018 at 16:02 | answer | added | atroon | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 2, 2018 at 15:51 | comment | added | José Matos | Build a coliseum, put 2 abusers in the pit, give each of them the right to kill the other, the one who survives goes home alive. Stream the entire event everytime it happens, create a bidding system and go full Roman on their asses. | |
| May 2, 2018 at 14:22 | comment | added | Green | @AlexP We're arguing about a legal construct in a legal system that may or may not include the U.N. Since there's no statement that this NGO is associated with the UN or with the EU, we must assume that it isn't. Further, the term NGO is appropriate since this organization is engaged in protecting abused persons. The Wikipedia article you linked says "...are usually non-profits..." which does not preclude for-profit organizations; it's just unusual that they would be for-profit. | |
| May 2, 2018 at 14:12 | comment | added | AlexP | Can you please give an example of a for-profit organization calling itself an NGO? For example, the U.N. Department of Public Information explicitly requires associated NGOs to "operate solely on a not-for-profit basis", as does the European Convention on the Recognition of the Legal Personality of International Non-Governmental Organisations. | |
| May 2, 2018 at 13:35 | comment | added | Green | @AlexP NGOs are often but not always non-profit organizations. Given the lethal nature of the work they're doing, I'd be very surprised if this category of NGO wasn't for-profit. | |
| May 2, 2018 at 13:05 | comment | added | AlexP | "How could an NGO make this profitable"? Well, they could begin by re-registering as a for-profit corporation... or else they would have no legal means to keep any profit they might make. | |
| May 2, 2018 at 12:59 | answer | added | Drigan | timeline score: 12 | |
| May 2, 2018 at 12:45 | comment | added | Green | @Kallmanation I'll be happy to discuss this with you in the linked chat above. | |
| May 2, 2018 at 12:20 | comment | added | Kallmanation | Could this murder-right be transferred posthumously? i.e. I accidentally run down abusive adam in my car. Now I have manslaughter charges against me. But wait, NGO comes along and is willing to sell me the murder-right to adam, for a price. Now I basically have the opportunity to buy a get out of jail free card. | |
| S May 2, 2018 at 3:37 | history | mod moved comments to chat | |||
| S May 2, 2018 at 3:37 | comment | added | Monica Cellio | Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. | |
| May 2, 2018 at 3:36 | history | edited | Monica Cellio | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
trying to make the title less alarming (especially out of context) while preserving accuracy; feel free to further refine
|
| May 2, 2018 at 1:29 | history | edited | Green | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| May 2, 2018 at 0:44 | answer | added | Thorne | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 2, 2018 at 0:32 | answer | added | Phreakbert | timeline score: 7 | |
| May 1, 2018 at 21:10 | answer | added | Jesse | timeline score: 4 | |
| May 1, 2018 at 20:41 | history | edited | Green | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 19 characters in body
|
| May 1, 2018 at 19:22 | answer | added | Philipp | timeline score: 4 | |
| May 1, 2018 at 19:02 | answer | added | Anthony | timeline score: 5 | |
| May 1, 2018 at 16:19 | answer | added | Ivana | timeline score: 38 | |
| May 1, 2018 at 15:29 | history | edited | Green | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 240 characters in body
|
| May 1, 2018 at 14:45 | answer | added | Separatrix | timeline score: 11 | |
| May 1, 2018 at 14:27 | history | edited | Green | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 94 characters in body
|
| May 1, 2018 at 14:22 | history | edited | Green | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 94 characters in body
|
| May 1, 2018 at 14:21 | answer | added | AndyD273 | timeline score: 29 | |
| May 1, 2018 at 14:15 | answer | added | Secespitus | timeline score: 75 | |
| May 1, 2018 at 14:12 | answer | added | Legisey | timeline score: 17 | |
| May 1, 2018 at 14:01 | history | asked | Green | CC BY-SA 3.0 |