SB 557 Makes knowningly or intentionally participating in “combative fighting” a Class C misdemeanor. The redundancy in the description amuses me. Anyway, the bill defines “combative fighting” as a match with at least two contestants in which the contestants use hands and/or feet to strike each other and compete for a financial prize. (The definition further says that the match can be with or without gloves or with or without headgear, but I figure that part of the definition sort of cancels itself out.) But, then the legislation specifically excludes boxing, ultimate fighting, martial arts, professional wrestling, and a match where fights break out as an unplanned, spontaneous event. The bill makes a further stab at trying to identify what the hell it’s talking about by suggesting that “combative fighting” is synonymous with “toughman fighting” “badman fighting” and “extreme fighting”.
I can’t believe this dog of a bill passed 95 to 1. Believe it or not, it was even more vague as it passed the Senate. I think maybe they’re trying to get at unregulated or semi-regulated sports with some unspecified level of violence that surpasses some arbitrary standard of what’s acceptable. Their goal isn’t a bad one, but it’s incumbent upon lawmakers to articulate that which they seek to prohibit. “I know it when I see it,” just never works out.
[tags]SB557-2007[/tags]
Why is it a good idea?
As long as all the pugilists are consenting adults, what’s the problem?
Let’s work backward a bit. I don’t think it would be a good idea if we allowed consenting adults to fight to the death for money. So, we’ve established that I’m not a libertarian purist on this, and neither is anybody who would have similar objections.
Is there a lesser level of violence which is tolerable? I’d say, yes. I have no objection to boxing, for example.
Somewhere between boxing and fights to the death, there is a line between levels of violence society finds acceptable and that which it does not. Here, the legislature is attempting to articulate a line, but doing a poor job of it, in my ever so humble opinion.
“I don’t think it would be a good idea if we allowed consenting adults to fight to the death for money.”
Why?
“there is a line between levels of violence society finds acceptable and that which it does not.”
What “society” finds acceptable is irrelevant, because “society” is not participating. All that matters is what the individuals involved find acceptable.
Because I’m a squeamish, tender-hearted statist, I suppose.
I think I agree with Hobbes on this one. He figured that, in a State of Nature — which is what I think you describe when you advocate ignoring societal wishes and only respecting the wishes of the individual — Hobbes suggested that in such an environment, life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
See, here is the thing. We depend on “society” to make sure our life and property can’t be taken against our will. Part of the bargain for that protection is that we can’t do what we want, whenever we want, at all times. We get stuck having to live with the dictates of “society’s” delicate sensibilities from time to time. Sometimes, I disapprove of these delicate sensibilities. But, in the case of prohibiting pay-per-view death matches, I’m on board.