[discostu]

My jury is still out on which one was the more out to lunch. Definitely voluntarily having your thingy cut off and eating it is pretty far out there. But wanting to cut somebody's thingy off and feeding it to them (openly) isn't particularly sane either.

A person's ability to hold down a job isn't necessarily a sign of sanity. Especially not in the wild and wooly computer industry (strange folks in this industry, that's why I enjoy it).

Remember there's a few things said about almost every serial killer (after they finally get caught): he was so quiet, never caused any trouble, a great neighbor. Then they go digging around in the basement and find out why there haven't been any stray animals in the neighborhood since he moved in. Many SERIOUSLY F'd up people do a very good job of appearing quite normal. Ted Bundy was apparently a really cool guy 95% of the time, worked at a rape crisis hotline, nice caring softspoke man, problem is he had this need to rape and murder women (IMHO that's one of the reasons he got involved with the hotline, kind of a substitute to get him through the day). In a situation like this what's important isn't how they were most of the time, the teller is that on video they voluntarily participated in mutilation and cannibalism. Obvious nut jobs.

[ModelBreaker]

Obvious nut jobs.

We agree on that. But the rest of your post really cuts against the argument that these guys were unable to make a choice.

By pointing to Ted Bundy, you really make my point. Bundy was smart, together, personable and clearly in control of his life and able to make choices and to understand them. It's just that the choices he made were very very evil.

The victim here looks somewhat like a masochist's version of Ted Bundy. Employed, responds to an ad appropriately (ie he got what the ad promised) and participated voluntarily in the slaughter and the rest of that sick stuff voluntarily. My take on this is that the guy was able to make and understand his choices, its just that, like Bundy, his choices were also evil.

We give Bundy a trial and an execution precisely because he understands his choices. Of course, Bundy's choices did not involve choice by his victims.

That's what makes this article interesting. There was clearly no coercion and the victim seems perfectly capable of making choices and understanding them.

It seems to me that Libertarians ought to be giving the victim here the right to make his own choices, no matter how weird, as long as they don't hurt someone else.

After all, the perp here looks like he is just helping the victim in an assisted suicide--a really weird one, but an assisted suicide nevertheless. In that case, why should Libertarians put the perp in jail?