Dueling? Murder so rare...


PDA






Titan6
May 2, 2007, 02:24 PM
Here is something you don't see much of anymore.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/01/dueling.death.ap/

What say you? Should we try to bring back duels as a way to settle things? Seems to me if you have two willing paticipants whose business is it anyway?

If you enjoyed reading about "Dueling? Murder so rare..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
geekWithA.45
May 2, 2007, 02:30 PM
Interesting question.

I'm not interested in seeing duel make a comeback over stupid macho stuff, like "you insulted my manly honor, besmirched my girl's virtue, etc".

For good or ill, dueling has been denigrated in favor of the theory that all legitimate wrongs can be addressed by the law and the courts, which has made gaming the law and the courts a high art, with a positive, overwhelming advantage to whoever has the deepest pockets.

That being said, I would think that the scenarios in which it would be legitimate for the parties to engage in mutual, lethal combat would be so rare that they'd approach nonexistent.

El Tejon
May 2, 2007, 02:36 PM
Ummm, no.

This country had a rough enough time destroying peckerwood culture to begin with. No need to bring parts of it back.:uhoh:

Outlaw Man
May 2, 2007, 02:40 PM
There'd be too many forms to fill out for liability and victim restitution for it to ever be worth doing, anyway. :D

Titan6
May 2, 2007, 02:40 PM
With that I doubt there are many with the means to ''buy'' justice who would take up such a challenge if offered. But you never know...

Old Fuff
May 2, 2007, 02:41 PM
The Old Fuff is all in favor of this dueling stuff, and suggests Derringers at 500 yards.... :D

alucard0822
May 2, 2007, 02:46 PM
West Virginia, Wild and Wonderful, Unfortunately stuff like this doesn't help dispel some of the less desirable stereotypes of one of the most beutiful, rugged and free states this side of the missisippi.

just wanted to put that out there before the jokes start a commin. A good part of my family still lives near Wheeling.

I wonder if they did the whole glove slappy thing first?

Geno
May 2, 2007, 02:47 PM
This sounds foolish on so many levels, that I scarcely know where to begin. Dueling, to me, is starting back-to-back, stepping out X paces, turning and firing. As I started reading, I anticipated dueling. When I completed the reading, it dawned on me that I had been duped into reading about one more prosecutor trying to grab national headlines by over-charging. Why was this not labeled "mutual combat"? Isn't that what it was? No…some crafty prosecutor decided to go to the graveyard and take notes from headstones. Who tipped-off CNN? The prosecutor?! Dueling?! Phffftt!

Soon, some anti will be screaming, "We have to protect people from themselves! If we don't get control of handguns, people are going to keep dueling! The fields and the forests will run red with blood!"

BigG
May 2, 2007, 02:50 PM
This country had a rough enough time destroying peckerwood culture to begin with. No need to bring parts of it back.
I'm basically on the same page with the Teej on this one. :)

AntiqueCollector
May 2, 2007, 02:57 PM
Personally, I'm against the idea of dueling. That said, if everyone involves agree, knowing what can happen, then I'd say they have the right to do so (as stupid as it may be).

BayouTeche77
May 2, 2007, 03:12 PM
Frankly, I believe it should be allowed and protected as a "life choice". Just like smoking, drinking, gambling, sex, driving, eating,(this list could go on forever) it has its inherent risks and they are very obvious and understandable. If the two parties involved would be required to sign a waiver of some sort, I say let them go at it. Its there life, let them live, or die, how they choose to. By the way, I also support assisted euthanasia due to the same ideal.

30 cal slob
May 2, 2007, 03:30 PM
speed is fine, but accuracy is final.

TheFederalistWeasel
May 2, 2007, 03:39 PM
I've always thought dueling should be a legal of settling disputes, have a legal process which takes place infront of a judge where two enter into a contract to duel, choose weapons etc...

Have the event open to the public, in a safe place, say inside a indoor shooting range type structure with concrete walls and bullet proof glass between us and them.

Think about the rock dwellers who would safely and blissfully remove themselves from the gene pool.

Geno
May 2, 2007, 03:43 PM
TheFederalistWeasel:

It might not be a fair duel! Just imagine what would happen if one person had a Colt 1911, and the other had a Kimber "1911"! The poor Kimber dueler would be doomed! :neener:

Doc2005

Crunker1337
May 2, 2007, 03:51 PM
Dueling has no place in modern American society. If you have a problem with someone to the extent it's really ticking you off yet they are not a direct threat to your safety, file harassment civil and criminal charges. No one needs to die for driving an ATV too loudly.

Dorryn
May 2, 2007, 03:54 PM
Im part of the pro-dueling camp. There ought to be some lines people wont cross at peril of their lives. And when your life is added to the equation, I believe people would find themselves being a little bit more polite. Its a system prone to abuse by "peckerwoods" but by and large would be fantastic.

It loses a bit of fun with rifled barrels, though, IMHO.

Zundfolge
May 2, 2007, 03:58 PM
For good or ill, dueling has been denigrated in favor of the theory that all legitimate wrongs can be addressed by the law and the courts, which has made gaming the law and the courts a high art, with a positive, overwhelming advantage to whoever has the deepest pockets.
So instead we should return to dueling which can be gamed by the better shooter who may actually be the one who was in the wrong in the first place?

I fail to see the superiority of that method over using the courts (even if the occasional rich guy gets to game the system).

Big Calhoun
May 2, 2007, 04:03 PM
Hehe, someone said "besmirched".

A couple of things come to mind...

Maybe society is moving forward. I mean, Neighbor A could have continued to help Neighbor C move while Neighbor B went back to his house and retrieved a can of gasoline and burnt down Neighbor A's house. If that would have happened, it would have been just another 'crazy nieghbor' story in the newspaper.

Who the heck remembers these laws or even makes the decisions to pull something like that out!?!? It's almost like someone was waiting to dust off that law and charge someone with it.

JesseL
May 2, 2007, 04:04 PM
Some posters seem to be forgetting that it's not a duel if both parties don't agree to it. No one has to accept a challenge to a duel.

To me, file this with gay marriage, prostitution, gambling, drug use, and suicide - ain't nobody's business if you do! Consensual crimes are an anathema to liberty.

Patrick_Henry
May 2, 2007, 04:10 PM
It would seem to me that a lot of America's problems are from changing laws that go back to constitutional rights and even pre-date the constitution. Pro-gun people always argue the second amendment in support of legally owned firearms, and well they should. But dueling has been illegal since before our first secretary of the treasury died in one while Washington was president. It seems to me that the last thing this country needs is to over turn more old laws. The ones we have or had until a very short time ago have served us well for well over 200 years and I think we should stick to 'em!

araiford
May 2, 2007, 04:22 PM
So they are using a law that predates WVA statehood?
Since WVA was part of Virginia prior to the Civil War, does that mean they are using Virginia law to prosecute a West Virginia case?
Odd.

AntiqueCollector
May 2, 2007, 04:31 PM
I'll bet a good defense lawyer will use that fact in his argument.

Titan6
May 2, 2007, 04:31 PM
Interesting that so many are of the mind that only the state should have the power to settle disputes through armed conflict. Good for rule of law (or as some believe the illusion of it) though.

An unfair duel where one is more skilled than the other is the near the same as unfair legal battle. The stakes are higher is all.

Lupinus
May 2, 2007, 04:36 PM
dueling was a very formalized sane thing, and as far as I am concerned if two people feel the need to settle their dispute in mutualy agreed to violence? I don't see how it is my or the governments buisness. We aren't talking someone ticks you off so you shoot them, that isn't a duel thats murder and always has been. No one was ever forced to duel, to not do so may have lost them their honor and to some that was enough.

But if two people insult each other and they feel the need to fight it out? Not my place to stop them, and not really yours either. The only thing I can see saying no guns should be allowed in the middle of the street for the safty of bystanders. Beyond that? If one or both end up dead they knew the risk when they agreed to fight.

Outlaw Man
May 2, 2007, 04:44 PM
The Old Fuff is all in favor of this dueling stuff, and suggests Derringers at 500 yards.... :D
Oh, come on. At least shorten it to 50 yards.



That way they can throw them at each other. :D

Old Fuff
May 2, 2007, 04:49 PM
The Old Fuff believes in being careful... :neener: :D

dave_pro2a
May 2, 2007, 04:50 PM
I think the proper term would be "mutual combat" with agreed upon terms.

Sure, why not. So long as reasonable steps are taken to avoid injury to bystanders.

Land of the free, and all that jazz.

kellyj00
May 2, 2007, 05:02 PM
oh, wow... dueling laws? hmmm.

so, by that law this is a murder. Otherwise, it would be a ...uh... man slaughter? The other guy had a gun and was shooting back, but it's obvious that you had the opportunity to flee because you went home and got your gun then returned. So, what exactly is this? Murder, manslaughter, felony murder?

"Judge, I wasn't intending to kill him... just scare him."
"ok, so second degree murder"
"he was shooting at me!"
"ok, so it's self defense. Could you have avoided the incident?"
"yes, I went home to get my pistol"
"ok, so it's murder again."
"but, he was shooting at me too!"
"Ok, so it's self defense. but, you said you went home and got your gun then came back?"
"yep"
"ok, so it's murder"

who's on third?

walking arsenal
May 2, 2007, 05:37 PM
Why is everyone assuming that we'd have to duel with guns?

Smithsonian magazine had a good article in it years ago http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2004/march/duel.php about dueling.

People dueled with everything from guns to swords to pitchforks and pig dung.

I think dueling in modern times would be great. Instead of "Who ever is richest and can hire the best lawyer wins" we'd have Duels that'd require the smuck to put somthing meaningful on the line.

If it was run proper by the courts i'd have no problem with it, folks would be a lot more polite.

Read the article.

ravencon
May 2, 2007, 05:37 PM
If anyone is interested in a book that provides an entertaining, accurate and informative overview of the topic of dueling I highly recommend:
Dueling with the Sword and Pistol by Paul Kirchner, published by Paladin Press.

The author is a gun guy and was a student and friend of the late Col. Jeff Cooper. Most contemporary books on dueling are cut and paste jobs by ignorant hack writers. This book is an exception.

Werewolf
May 2, 2007, 05:53 PM
People obviously don't own their own bodies - the government does - else suicide wouldn't be illegal.

Since the government owns our earthly bodies it isn't in the government's best interest to allow us to waste ourselves in silly, anachronistic and beastly practices like dueling - no matter how practical it may be to allow them in certain cases.

Wouldn't want to allow people who mutually agree to do combat to the death to do so - why not only would that be wrong but it'd be a waste of a darn good tax payer in most cases. Can't have that now can we. Government's gotta eat afterall. :neener:

230RN
May 2, 2007, 06:02 PM
But, but... Isn't that the root concept behind the oft-quoted phrase from Heinlein: " An armed society is a polite society"?

Google "code duello."

A very interesting highly ritualized procedure.

(Notice I said "root concept.")

Correia
May 2, 2007, 06:16 PM
You guys thinking that dueling would be more honorable than the courts, and that it wouldn't be as biased towards the rich, need to think again.

If they legalized dueling, I'm about 99% sure that there would be a clause for the rich guy to have a stand in. And since they can hire talent...

"Okay, here's my stand in, Rob Leatham. Pistols at twenty paces. Have fun."

Well, if they came about, at least us gamers, 3gunners, and IPSC guys would get more respect. :p

Biker
May 2, 2007, 06:18 PM
Two men agree to square off and settle some final business, fine by me.

Biker

CajunBass
May 2, 2007, 06:24 PM
Lock 'em in a room.

Toss in one ax.

Whoever comes out, wins.

Titan6
May 2, 2007, 06:38 PM
Rich guy stand-in for duels? Sounds a little like what we already have with war. Also sounds like steady employment for a talented enterprising person.

akodo
May 2, 2007, 06:47 PM
I am against dueling for 2 reasons

Who gets stuck cleaning up the mess, paying for the schooling cost of the kids, etc etc? Us taxpayers. Maybe if before you could duel you had to buy insurance and set up a trustfund for your kids...or just be single and have no progeny.

Second, lets say you do have a guy who ends up bieng quite good at dueling, does he now have carte blanche to cause trouble? Whenever there is socially acceptable dueling, frequently you get some guy who is quite good, but twisted inside who goes about causing trouble, or at least that is what my reading on the subject (fictional and non-fictional) leads me to believe. Along the same lines, we have cowards who commit suicide-by-cop, won't those guys just move to suicide-by-duel?


Now, an often forgotten rule in dueling was that such duels frequently didn't ever occur. People worked as gobetweens to come up with a amicable solution. On the occurance that duels did come about, they were often to 'first blood' 'three passes' or somethign similar. Pistol duels were never to the death (at least not in the planning stage...because unlike swords, how much powder and lead do you bring? is the winner the man who doesn't run out of ammo? they didn't want duels to be won by logisitics) Three bouts was the standard. What this meant was 3 times back to back, pace off, turn, aim, and shoot. After that, if both men were still living, they shook hands, and even if they both believed the other was absolutely wrong, they both aknowledged that the other was a standup courageous guy, to a degree that it overshadowed the dislike caused by the difference of opinion.

But most of the item, such pistol duels were kind of a game of chicken, and the ones that did one bout of back to back, pace off, turn, and then at that point both men had demonstrated that they had both honor, courage, and conviction, and could agree to disagree, and they would discharge the pistol into the air or into the ground

Here are a few snippest from the pbs special about the burr hamilton duel

JOANNE FREEMAN: Our image of the duel is that someone says a hasty word, and someone slaps someone else, and instantly they run off to the field of honor. But the fact of the matter is, that they were very deliberately provoked, and very often in this period, they were provoked after elections by either the person who lost the election, or one of his friends as a way of making up for the damage to their reputation in having lost.

JOANNE FREEMAN: You were not necessarily counting on the fact that you were actually gonna end up with a gun in your hand shooting at someone. You were counting on the fact that you were gonna have a chance to prove that you were willing to die to defend your character! So the code of honor really is being manipulated as a political tool among national politicians in this period, to a really extraordinary degree.

JOANNE FREEMAN: A duel was really a sort of game of dare or counter dare. It really was a case in which one man would step forward and say I'm willing to die to defend my name and the other man would have to step forward and say, I will meet you. And that, as a matter of fact, that was a phrase that they would use. Ritualistic phrase. I will meet you as a gentleman.

NARR: For Hamilton, the goal was to make a dramatic public statement in defense of his honor, not to shoot Monroe. In fact, once tempers cooled, the vast majority of affairs of honor were resolved before ever reaching the dueling ground. Such was the case with Hamilton and Monroe.

But while this duel of Hamiltonís turned out to be for show, there was another on the horizon, with a man far more determined to fight

NARR: With negotiations at an impasse, the code of honor required that Hamilton and Burr meet, as gentlemen, on the dueling ground. Failure by either man to appear would mean public humiliation and political death.

NARR: Once Hamilton and Burr had loaded pistols in hand, the rules mandated that they take up positions 20 feet apart. When the signal was given, they had three seconds to fire.

It was at this point that the two seconds gave completely different accounts of Hamiltonís actions. According to Judge Pendleton, Hamilton had made a fateful decision: that it would be morally wrong to shoot at Burr.

NARR: But according to Burrís second, William Van Ness, Hamilton showed every sign of intending to shoot his rival.

NARR: Van Ness claimed that Hamilton shot at Burr but missed.

NARR: Whatever Hamiltonís actions, both seconds agreed that after Hamilton fired, Burr stood unhurt. Now, Hamiltonís fate was in Burrís hands

(Hamilton' second)JUDGE PENDLETON
The fire of Burr took effect, and Hamilton almost instantly fell. Burr then advanced toward Hamilton with a manner and gesture that appeared to be expressive of regret, but without speaking turned about and withdrew. .

JOANNE FREEMAN: The few instances among these political duels when someone actually is killed, ended up being very bad for the for the person who's done the killing. Instead of appearing to be a noble man defending his honor, he instead appears to be bloodthirsty and somehow vicious. Heís crossed a line.

redneck2
May 2, 2007, 07:00 PM
"Okay, here's my stand in, Rob Leatham. Pistols at twenty paces. Have fun."

Two things to consider.

First, the plates aren't shooting back. Rob may or may not be as good with a truely "reactive" target. Probably is, but there's only one way to find out.

Two, if someone really hurt my kids or grandkids, I'd put my life on the line to kill the SOB. I may die in the process, but some things are worse than dying. We have guys in Iraq and Afghanistan that are proving that every day. We're all gonna die anyway. Might as well make it worthwhile.

Lucky
May 2, 2007, 07:00 PM
Frankly, I believe it should be allowed and protected as a "life choice". Just like smoking, drinking, gambling, sex, driving, eating,(this list could go on forever) it has its inherent risks and they are very obvious and understandable. If the two parties involved would be required to sign a waiver of some sort, I say let them go at it. Its there life, let them live, or die, how they choose to. By the way, I also support assisted euthanasia due to the same ideal.

+1000

But people don't want to respect ALL people's choices, they only support 'diversity and freedoms' in so far as the other people's choices mimic their own. Guys consensually having bum-sex is 'diverse' in a 'good' way, guys consensually smoking drugs is 'experimenting with their bodies' in a good way. Guys consensually shooting at each other under strict rules that don't jeopardize bystanders - different and diverse, but not in a 'good' liberal way.

Rules I'd go by would be limiting the shots, enforcing FMJ and same caliber, minimum distances, etc.

Biker
May 2, 2007, 07:07 PM
Duels involving women would be conducted weaponless, in the nude, in a large vat of grape jelly. The loser would be the one who...the one...who cares? Video at 6:00.

Biker

ilbob
May 2, 2007, 07:10 PM
You guys thinking that dueling would be more honorable than the courts, and that it wouldn't be as biased towards the rich, need to think again.

If they legalized dueling, I'm about 99% sure that there would be a clause for the rich guy to have a stand in. And since they can hire talent...

In many cases, especially in Europe this is exactly what happened.

junyo
May 2, 2007, 07:10 PM
You guys thinking that dueling would be more honorable than the courts, and that it wouldn't be as biased towards the rich, need to think again.

If they legalized dueling, I'm about 99% sure that there would be a clause for the rich guy to have a stand in. And since they can hire talent...
It wouldn't even be that. Who is more likely to be a proficient duellist, a) the guy with nothing but time and cash, who can afford lessons, custom smithed and fitted weapons, and a few hours of practice a day, or b) Al, the bus driver? Sure, occasionally an Al would get lucky, or just be a natural shooter, but mostly it would be rich guys killing poor guys. And for the guys that didn't feel like doing that, their entourage includes Rob Leatham, and he's the one that smacks you with a glove and calls you Sally. The clause is built-in. Kinda like in medievil times; knights weren't knights just because they had the armor and horses, knights were knights because they had the money and land to support a stable full of war mounts, a smithy to make the armor, time to train and practice, and employed 15 other bruisers.

The other problem I have with dueling is the concept of you've got a beef so big you're willing to kill over it, but let's throw some nice frilly rules and ceremony on top of it? If I'm in a fight to the death, I'm in a fight to the death. If I miss, I'm not calmly waiting for your shot, I'm reloading and moving, and just as soon as I'm reloaded I'm gonna shoot some more. And I'm going to keep shooting until I'm out of bullets, then expect to be bitten or hit with a rock. Screw playing by some stupid rules, when your life is on the line.

Lupinus
May 2, 2007, 07:13 PM
biker, a lot of female forms who would truely pain anyone watching that come to mind. Seriously would you want to watch Hitlery and Coulter naked in a vat of grape jelly?

Biker
May 2, 2007, 07:18 PM
Well, Lupinus, as I write this, I have a couple of country style boneless pork ribs on the BBQ along with a cob of corn smothered in butter and lemon pepper and wrapped in foil.
Thanks to you, my dog is going to eat well tonight.


Christ man, I thought we were kinda buds. Jesus...whydja have ta go and do that?

Biker

Lupinus
May 2, 2007, 07:25 PM
Biker, what kind of bud would I be if I didn't point out potential serious life altering flaws in your plan?

hqmhqm
May 2, 2007, 07:30 PM
http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2004/march/duel.php

Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, they all had to side-step challenges for a duel..

Biker
May 2, 2007, 07:33 PM
Thanks to Lupinus, I may now be gay.

Biker

Titan6
May 2, 2007, 07:35 PM
Thanks to Lupinus, I may now be gay.

Biker

I could have lived my whole life and never seen that. Now I may have to add it to my sig line.....

shuto
May 2, 2007, 07:45 PM
the legalization of dueling would contribute to good manners.

Lupinus
May 2, 2007, 08:00 PM
It's nice to know you love me like that biker, but I already have a girlfriend, and shes into firearms so you don't even have that over her :neener:

Biker
May 2, 2007, 08:23 PM
Ah well, I'm not gonna worry about it too much unless I get an irresistable urge to sell my '49 Harley and buy a mauve Yamasuckie.

Motorcycle Enthusiast:uhoh:

Gifted
May 2, 2007, 09:15 PM
Some duels were nice, but for a long time in Europe, they were more trophies than anything else. You had no prestige unless you've been in a few duels. I'm actually reading Gentleman's Blood, a History of Dueling by barbara Holland. Ironic choice considering this thread, but she includes many examples of duels and the reasons. She recounts a certain gentleman who was told to go get a few duels under his belt by his would-be father-in-law before he'd be allowed to marry.

I recall from somewhere that there's a European nation that still allows duelling, but both participants must be registered organ donors.

Speer
May 2, 2007, 09:46 PM
Dueling. :rolleyes:

Gotta fight to settle an issue? Put on the friggen boxing gloves and spare the wife and kids the loss of their husband/father.

Lupinus
May 2, 2007, 09:59 PM
and who the heck are you speer to spare them that? I suppose we shouldn't go to war either? Spare the wife and kids of our dead soldiers? I mean after all theres no real reason to go to war is there? I guess finishing things with violence is only an option for the gubment, and only they are imune from sparing the children.

Correia
May 2, 2007, 10:48 PM
First, the plates aren't shooting back.

With a sub 1 second draw, pinpoint accuracy, and the fact that somebody like that will shoot you four times, center of mass, and twice in the face, before you complete your draw stroke...

Think of yourself as a big, fleshy, plate. :D

And if there was dueling, it doesn't have to be somebody like Rob. He's actually a really nice fellow. It will be somebody that fast, only really really mean.

But you get the point.

perpster
May 2, 2007, 11:25 PM
Bring back duelling, but make it with paintball or simunitions and require eye protection. Then go have a beer together afterwards.

Geronimo45
May 3, 2007, 12:12 AM
Sure. That way, hotheads ought to be a bit fewer in number, 'cuz they'll shoot each other.

Then again, I think a 'duel' as you see in the final gun battle of "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" would be a great way for congress to decide who the Majority Leader would be. 'Course, Feinstein would bring nothing but a barrel shroud (shoulder thingy that goes up), so it might not be too fair.

Augustus
May 3, 2007, 01:08 AM
Bring it back. The press and red surrendercrats would be more civil.

heypete
May 3, 2007, 01:46 AM
I'm of the opinion that anything that two consenting adults agree to without duress is nobody's business but their own, be it sexual relations, contracts, marriage, or duels.

If someone is forced under duress into accepting a duel, that's a different story and should be punished by law. But as long as the person being challenged is perfectly able to decline the duel and walk away, so what? Duels tended to be organized, supervised affairs with seconds and neutral observers.

Personally, I think the concept of a duel in modern society is antiquated and silly, but who am I to tell someone "no, you can't do that"? So long as waivers of liability (it would suck for the winner to have to get sued) were signed and both parties posted a bond sufficient to pay for medical and/or funeral costs if they were to be the loser, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to do so. With modern medical care (probably with an ambulance standing by), it's likely that the loser would live.

General Geoff
May 3, 2007, 02:43 AM
I have no problem with dueling. As has been said, it's a social contract between two consenting adults. Who am I to tell them they can't do what they want?

ZeSpectre
May 3, 2007, 03:58 AM
Hrmmm, the implications of reviving a code duello are pretty astounding in an era where Enron execs utterly ruin the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

Would we have people behaving more responsibly or would we have people start using legalized duels to perform a sort of legalized vigilante justice?

This is a very interesting philosophical and moral topic for me to ponder for a while.

WeedWhacker
May 3, 2007, 04:22 AM
Dueling is illegal 'cause otherwise we'd be able to replace Congress in less than six years! ;D

Mannix
May 3, 2007, 04:59 AM
Paintball dueling is fun, we just get a couple 10 shot tube hoppers loaded with 3 shots, we stand back to back, go 10 paces, turn and see who gets a couple welts(we do it in swimming shorts only, besides the mask, so we get some good ones :D).

Of course were talking about more serious dueling here, but if both people consent, I see no problem with it. They'd bring back flint lock pistols for it though. With the accuracy and capacity of today's pistols, it would seem more "sporting" to use a one shot pistol from ye olde times(not that some of people on these forums don't have one, or two, already.)

FSCJedi
May 3, 2007, 05:33 AM
It's funny that Code Duello was mentioned. I have had that on my computer since October of '01. I am in favor of dueling as long as there is a codefied set of laws surrounding the circumstances and how it is carried out, such as being governed by the courts. If two adults feel that they have been sufficiently insulted to warrant attempting to take each other's life, then so be it. I could see this being used as a way to get back at criminals who have harmed you or your family, as well. Duel instead of jail time.

PaladinX13
May 3, 2007, 10:14 AM
It's absurd to look at dueling as a superior equalizer than the courts. If one of the injured parties has a monetary advantage that you presume he will use in the courts, then why would he consent to a duel? If he's "honorable" enough to consensually enter the duel, then why presume he would leverage his wealth against you in a court case?

The only way- lacking a significant talent advantage- the man with a pre-existing monetary advantage that he would have used (that is, a "dishonorable" person) would enter a disadvantageous duel is he was baited into it by passions and emotion. In other words, dueling is nothing but the vestiges of our lowest traits and vices. Absent a [non-artificially created] threat against life, there's nothing better solved through death than life.

It's simultaneously legalized murder and suicide while degrading people into enpassioned animals acting on emotions of anger, fatalism, and vengeance rather than reason. Persons shortsightedly seeking immediate gratification of injuries rather than considering any future potentials or outcomes.

It is not in the public's interest to support any of these mores legally. Let's put it another way. If the two men could truly divorce their actions from their passions and conspire to kill one another with nobility and with the intent that any survivor escape the consequences of the law for the action... no law could stop them. In that very process, though, I'd imagine they'd find themselves able to work to agreement despite their differences. So, the truth of it is that legalized dueling is hand-holding of emotional infants... people without sufficient rational conviction behind their passions to act towards a greater interest (EVEN a mutual one of mutual murder-suicide). For those serious about actually doing it "proper" (as it were), it's impossible to stop anyways.

Biker
May 3, 2007, 10:23 AM
Nice post, Paladin, but there are times when it is morally acceptable - at least for some of us - to get in touch with our inner-gator.;)

If you don't care for the practice, don't participate, but if two men consent to a duel, it should be their choice to make *legally*.

Biker

PaladinX13
May 3, 2007, 10:35 AM
If you say, "there are times", can you express any specific instances that would be in the public's interest to support legally and resolved better through a duel than otherwise?

Biker
May 3, 2007, 10:43 AM
Personally, I'm not necessarily concerned with the public's best interest. "The public" is a nebulus and sometimes malignant label, what with mob rule and all that. Besides, I'm part of "the public".
Having said that, if I take a child molester or rapist or murderer off the street, isn't that serving the public's interest?

Biker

PaladinX13
May 3, 2007, 10:52 AM
Personally, I'm not necessarily concerned with the public's best interest. "The public" is a nebulus and sometimes malignant label, what with mob rule and all that. Besides, I'm part of "the public".A lot of bad laws doesn't mean there are no good ones. Without getting into civics and social contracts, whether you care about the public, they care about you and pass the laws in their own interest. It's irrational to expect a law to do nothing but serve your own self-interest, otherwise one should simply say, "There oughta be a law where everyone pays me tribute." Laws aren't about you [and you alone] they're about us [corporately].

Having said that, if I take a child molester or rapist or murderer off the street, isn't that serving the public's interest?By way of duel, not really, because there's a significant chance your phantom consenting criminal takes YOU off this Earthly plane in the process. So a person who would have been accountable to the law for their crimes anyways also gets to legally claim YOUR life? That completely undermines justice and also underscores the irrationality of the duel... both tend to assume they're going to win.

Biker
May 3, 2007, 11:01 AM
No offense meant here, Paladin, but I do not believe that we're going to come to an agreement here as a result of basic philisophical differences.
I don't believe that the public necessarily cares about me and the public's interest may not coincide with my own. For example, if 51% of the public thought that it was in the public's interest to deny the other 49% the right to Free Speech, would you agree with this?

Biker

Correia
May 3, 2007, 11:02 AM
Realistically, a child-molester, rapist, or murderer isn't going to consent to a duel anyway.

And if they do, it is probably because they're REALLY GOOD AT IT.

Which means that they plug you first. So then what? Rapist/molestor guy kills you too, and gets off.

Biker
May 3, 2007, 11:07 AM
Well, call me over confidant, but I believe I'm better than them and I know how to appear weak when I'm strong, thank you Sun Tzu and Muhammed Ali.;)

Fact is, some things are worth fighting, killing and dying for and those choices should be mine to make.

Biker

ZeSpectre
May 3, 2007, 11:11 AM
Eureka... Nobody duels for themselves, we hire lawyers and THEY have to duel. Darned if I can find a downside to that one. (tongue firmly in cheek by the way).

Correia
May 3, 2007, 11:18 AM
Biker, but under Code Duelo, they scumbags are just going to turn down your challenge anyway.

And if one accepts, then it is a roll of the dice if you live or die. Where is the gain?

If you win, you may get the personal satisfaction of killing a dirtbag. (can't really fault you there).

But if you lose, then you die. More glory for the scumbag. And since it will be my friends who are the kind of people that will go around challenging scumbags to duels, I don't really want to lose you guys. Think how quiet THR will be? :p

The only people who would accept a duel are the stupid, the crazy, and the really fast.

Our current system where we can prosecute bad people, without giving them a chance to shoot a decent person, seems a bit smarter.

So let's say that a bad guy gets off in court. We know he's a bad guy, but he got off on a technicality. So you challenge him to a duel.

Odds are that he turns you down anyway. Unless he is a bonafide killer, and then it doesn't matter how meek and slow you look, he isn't going to turn, and centerpunch you any slower.

The whole thing is kind of just wishful thinking.

PaladinX13
May 3, 2007, 11:19 AM
No offense meant here, Paladin, but I do not believe that we're going to come to an agreement here as a result of basic philisophical differences.None taken, although I don't think our differences are where you think they lie.

I don't believe that the public necessarily cares about me and the public's interest may not coincide with my own. For example, if 51% of the public thought that it was in the public's interest to deny the other 49% the right to Free Speech, would you agree with this?That's the Tyranny of the Majority, which the Founders understood and protected against by way of the Bill of Rights... for that to be overturned legally you'd need a much greater consensus (in theory) that it really was the will of The People (and not simply the Majority). Unlike the Freedom of Speech, there is no great consensus, no Founder foresight, no constitutional protection for murder-suicide. It is FAR from a fundamental right and as debatable as those who claim they have a right to consensual sex with undeveloped minors.

Yes, there will always be tensions between the rights of the minorities against the wants of the majority, but that's far and away from a justification for saying any minority action is justifiable because otherwise its simply the majority bullying them. Laws are meant to be for the good of everyone. Whether they are or not is a separate issue.

To argue that something you personally endorse should be law- something that will affect everyone- you have to establish that it's good for everyone in a broad sense.

Biker
May 3, 2007, 11:25 AM
Wishful thinking indeed, Correia. Our society would never allow it. We can't even go "out back" and settle our differences hand to hand nowadays without going to jail.
Last I checked, it'll cost a guy a $500 fine, a weekend in the County clink, 6 months probation and 8 anger management classes at $40 a pop.

It was worth it.
:)

Biker

JesseL
May 3, 2007, 11:43 AM
To argue that something you personally endorse should be law- something that will affect everyone- you have to establish that it's good for everyone in a broad sense.

Yes, that is precisely correct. However in this case it is being argued that something should not be law. IMO, that comes with a much more lax standard for justification.

PaladinX13
May 3, 2007, 11:47 AM
JesseL, I agree, so other than the endorsement of the mores I mentioned (passion over rationality, short over long term, devaluation of life, etc)...

The other problem with legalized dueling is similar to the issues with legalized suicide. When dueling was in vogue the primary thing that pushed people into it was social fear of being seen as a coward. It would be easy to see how legalized dueling could be abused as a way of a majority legally killing a minority.

For an individual to be socially pressured until they accept a duel they wanted no part of, killed, and the conspirators free from justice. This is similar to the argument against legalized suicide, which could involve people pushing, manipulating, or pressuring individuals to take their own lives.

Legalized dueling could essentially be used as a way for a community to get away with murder, basically.

Titan6
May 3, 2007, 11:56 AM
The other problem with legalized dueling is similar to the issues with legalized suicide. When dueling was in vogue the primary thing that pushed people into it was social fear of being seen as a coward. It would be easy to see how legalized dueling could be abused as a way of a majority legally killing a minority.

For an individual to be socially pressured until they accept a duel they wanted no part of, killed, and the conspirators free from justice. This is similar to the argument against legalized suicide, which could involve people pushing, manipulating, or pressuring individuals to take their own lives.

Legalized dueling could essentially be used as a way for a community to get away with murder, basically.

Yes and no. A society might be able to drive away unwanted members by placing stressors on undesirable elements of that society. Certainly there would be other places such a person could reside (say California).

If the rules as put forth here were to allow an individual the right of refusal than there really is no risk to the person remaining in that society so long as they do not mind living with their reputations of cowardice (or wisdom). Remember dueling was outlawed because many disapproved of it. Even legal there would be a large segment of the population that would disapprove and take the side of the one who refused the challenge.

More likely I see this is a way that the a talented minority could hold sway over a majority. Much as what we had in this country for the first 150 years or so.

PaladinX13
May 3, 2007, 12:10 PM
The premise of even dueling to begin with is of empassioned persons who can't work out their issues normally. I can guarantee you that a principled individual could be goaded into dueling when it's not in his interest. [Heck, even more telling, this is exactly what Biker wants! To bait people he wants to legally kill into dueling with him. By his own admission, "to appear weak", etc.]

I don't agree with allowing a majority to exploit an individual during an abnormal emotional state or that gives them incentive to put them in that state. To imagine that as good for a People seems backwards.

floridaboy
May 3, 2007, 12:12 PM
I'm in favor of it. Legal dueling might do a fine way of solving many of society's ills. Who here hasn't wished just once that they could take something into their own hands? And winning one may not be all about speed with a weapon, or even skills. I read once that the worst fear of the famous gunfighters of the old west was being shot in the back. Sort of like Bill Hickok. 2nd was a lucky amatuer.

ranger335v
May 3, 2007, 12:17 PM
I don't think dueling should be illegal at all. At the worst, it would improve the gene pool. Think of all the bro's who "dissed" each other, we could see about half of them eliminated at no cost with simple duels at sundown. ??

JesseL
May 3, 2007, 12:18 PM
I don't think that legalized dueling would result in a rampant social plague for the following reasons:


Even when it was popular, dueling was usually illegal. It seems that people inclined to duel don't really seem to worry much about the legality anyway, much like suicide.
Traditionally the choice of weapons goes to the challenged party. This makes for a pretty good disincentive to people that might be inclined to issue challenges at the drop of a hat.
People seem to value their lives more today than they used to. Since there is a non-zero chance of serious injury or death to both parties in a duel, I don't think that many folks are really that inclined to take the risk (especially those with families/dependents).
No one is suggesting that dueling completely take the place of the conventional legal system.


But regardless of the social risks and implications; when it comes down to it, I would rather see society go out in a blaze of liberty than languish and die under the oppression of an overreaching nanny-state.

Titan6
May 3, 2007, 12:24 PM
The premise of even dueling to begin with is of empassioned persons who can't work out their issues normally. I can guarantee you that a principled individual could be goaded into dueling when it's not in his interest. [Heck, even more telling, this is exactly what Biker wants! To bait people he wants to legally kill into dueling with him. By his own admission, "to appear weak", etc.]

I don't agree with allowing a majority to exploit an individual during an abnormal emotional state or that gives them incentive to put them in that state. To imagine that as good for a People seems backwards.

I think the idea here is the opposite. I don't see individual combat as a way for the majority to exploit anything. If what you are saying is true than dueling would have been a lot more common when legal instead of the rarity it was. Also as discussed all duels do not have to be to the death, although that should be considered a possibility. As others have pointed out the bully's generally came to a bad end. None seem to have died of old age in bed.

There is always a bigger fish. There is always someone faster, better. No one person can win them all.

Titan6
May 3, 2007, 12:26 PM
Removed after thinking about Junyo's post. Ref Post #82.

junyo
May 3, 2007, 12:41 PM
Think of all the bro's who "dissed" each other, we could see about half of them eliminated at no cost with simple duels at sundown. ??

Why not just man up and advocate the direct elimination of the "bro's"?

Biker
May 3, 2007, 12:47 PM
Yes Paladin, the vast majority of violent criminals - and I include child molestors in this definition - are predators. They prey on the weak and avoid the strong. So yes, I will use any and all tools at my disposal to accomplish my goals. I didn't see the SOBs giving a fair break to their victims.
Bullies don't like to fight - they like to beat people up. Use that to your advantage.

Biker

helpless
May 3, 2007, 12:50 PM
I had a guy disagree with me on an internet forum and after I smugged him, he challenged me to a boxing match. He boxes, I do not box anymore myself.

Titan6
May 3, 2007, 01:03 PM
In my first leadership postion as an officer in the military I allowed the men to resolve their differences through boxing in the gym, with gloves and head protectors. The unit had some issues internally and some discipline problems. We had a ref and everyone who wanted to; was invited to attend. We never had an incident where those fighting were badly mismatched, even when one was bigger than the other.

After about six months of this the unit was bonded stronger than it ever had been and the discipline problems were a thing of the past. Everyone got along well and knew who would watch whose back. One day one of the commanders of another unit saw us boxing and reported it to my commander. While he could find nothing wrong with what we were doing he did order us to stop. I noticed about a year later that discipline was starting to slip some. I left soon after and sure enough they began having many issues again.

I doubt I would have allowed dueling even if legal but the boxing did allow the men a safe way to work out their differences.

REOIV
May 3, 2007, 01:08 PM
Dueling is a romantic idea but down right annoying and ultimately causes more problems than it solves.

It creates quite a bit of posturing and situations where people are killed because they wanted to look good infront of their lady or friends and chose the duel option to shut a person up and then got called on it.

Plus the problem with duels is you will get friends or family of the loser angered and possibly challenge the winner to subsequent duels. Just creating this nasty feuding cycle.

Plus we have issues as a society where companies don't want to hire felons, or ex cons already, put yourself in the boss's shoes and imagine having to hire a guy who has won quite a few duels. Do you not hire him and risk him challenging you to a duel? or do you hire him and risk a duel if you tell him to do something he doesn't like, or have to lay him off on down the road.

How about cutting someone off in traffic and risking a duel, or going out for drinks and being full of alcohol induced bravado signing up for a duel you don't remember the next day and would never have agreed too.

Then of course you get into the issue of seconds, if they are allowed or required. There is just too much baggage to deal with dueling.

Seancass
May 3, 2007, 01:15 PM
i'm almost in favor of this because i'm the best shot i know. but really, it'd just come down to a fancy suicide.

but, an interesting way to do it would be have them at 50-100 yards and give them 1 or 2 shots. that way if they both live, they have to agree that they didnt want to win bad enough, so they must agree to disagree.

so many wonderful posts based from a completely rediculous charge, all i can say is this thread is bunk.

oh yeah and "besmirched" hahaha

cassandrasdaddy
May 3, 2007, 01:18 PM
called noted american duels. had some funny ones sipposedly lincoln was challenged he chose broad swords as a weapon. another one was a short guy great duelist challenged the village blacksmith. the smith chose slegehammers in 6 feet of water. the code duello would cut out a lotta nonsense

JesseL
May 3, 2007, 01:19 PM
REOIV:
I'll point this out again:

Under the normal definition and rules for dueling no one has to accept a challenge to a duel.

If someone challenges you to a duel, you decline, and they shoot you anyway - it's not dueling, it's murder.

Biker
May 3, 2007, 01:20 PM
I'd like to read that book.

Biker

KDBurton
May 3, 2007, 01:31 PM
BayouTeche77
By the way, I also support assisted euthanasia due to the same ideal.

Do you think that physicians should do it? Even though the oath they take says "First do no harm"?

mdao
May 3, 2007, 01:43 PM
I'd rather not have dueling reinstated.

Mainly because I'd hate to see what it'd do to ammo prices and range time. :uhoh:

PaladinX13
May 3, 2007, 02:04 PM
I don't see individual combat as a way for the majority to exploit anything.You said it yourself, you could see it as a way of running people out of town. If you know the person won't accept, it's also a way of legal, en-masse death threats. People effectively saying, "I would kill you at the risk of my life given the chance." I'm sure you could imagine a wonderful scenario of a sex offender, pacifist, or Democrat driven from town... it could just as easily be a minority, a gun-owner, or you.

If what you are saying is true than dueling would have been a lot more common when legal instead of the rarity it was.Untrue, because during the same period: 1. The law was more draconian to the point that accusation was sufficient to finish off your enemies. 2. Enforcement was such that if you wanted to murder, you simply did. 3. It was only legal for society's "betters" who had little to gain from it. For wholesale legalization in today's society there would be plenty of room for exploitation of the system.

Also as discussed all duels do not have to be to the death, although that should be considered a possibility.Then what are we talking about? Pretty much anything short of death can be legally arranged right now. The only thing that requires legalization would be ones with death in play.

But regardless of the social risks and implications; when it comes down to it, I would rather see society go out in a blaze of liberty than languish and die under the oppression of an overreaching nanny-state.This is pretty silly because all you're basically saying is that any law is an over-reaching and oppressive law, which is nonsense. The First Amendment is a law. The Second is a law. We can complain about the Tyranny of the Majority under the law and a democratic system, but imagine who rules without law? That would be literal mob rule. The law is meant to afford protections... so what does an anti-dueling law protect?

Essentially, the honest freewill desires of individuals.

Why are there laws against pedophilia even if "consensual"? Why is the punishment for crimes of passion mitigated even if the action is the same? Why are confessions given under coercion inadmissible even if true?

Because the will- rational thought and choice- is compromised.

In the victimized youth, it's because they lack the maturity or independence to make an informed and rational consensual choice. For the crime of passion, it's because we recognize a person with their emotions inflamed lacks the rationality or will to overcome their animal nature and act as they normally would under other circumstances. For the confession, it's because will is compromised by duress.

Insult some men and their ability to conceive rational thoughts plummets to the level of a teenager or child or worse. These aren't the circumstances we want people making life or death decisions under without consequence. Again, if the individuals are serious about it, they're free to do it- no law can stop them- but short of that kind of conviction I see no reason or justification for the law to allow it anymore than has been given for child-"loving".

Patrick_Henry
May 3, 2007, 02:48 PM
General dueling procedure is that the challenged person chooses the weapons. So if anyone challenges me to a duel. I'm going to accept and then choose soda straws. :neener:

JesseL
May 3, 2007, 02:50 PM
PaladinX13:

You don't create a free society by assuming that adults will act like children. Some do of course, but I think we need to assume that people will act like adults until they prove otherwise.

I think you've got to make a choice. Do you consider people to be sovereign individuals, free to make their own choices and responsible for the consequences of their actions; or do you consider people to be marginally rational animals that need to be controlled for the protection of themselves and others?

I don't beleive you can form a consistent and logical moral or legal code without choosing one or the other.

PaladinX13
May 3, 2007, 03:25 PM
You don't create a free society by assuming that adults will act like children.You're making this more broad than it is. By the same argument, I could claim that rational adults would never need a First or Second Amendment. "The responsible adults and sovereign individuals comprising the government would surely never want to infringe upon what are God given rights!"

So far you've yet to show me reasoning that accepts anything as a good law to begin with and anything that shows that reasoning, responsible adults require dueling to the death as the best means to any end. How does legalized dueling benefit anyone- even the duelists themselves who may feel differently under other, less heated circumstances?

By contrast, I've shown the number of ways that show important reasons to preserve the law consistent with other legal protections already in place and largely agreed upon (no pedophilia, no coerced confessions, etc).

Read: http://www.anvilfire.com/21centbs/stories/blacksmith_duel.htm

An illegal duel, to be sure, but regardless, imagine the total waste of two statesmen, lives, and future friendship if one or the other had real bloodlust. Further, see how Humble was completely coerced into the duel. I've yet to see anything good about dueling that can't be either handled by courts, legal fighting absent death, or something that isn't a broad indiscriminate "freedom" argument that encompasses even consensual pedophilia.

Lacking a rational reason for it, being "gator-minded" means that wanting to duel is inherently child-minded in practically all cases. I pretty much begun on this argument. That legalized dueling honestly IS dealing with emotional children. Those who can master their emotions enough to be rational but still want to duel without facing the consequences of the law can already do so... the only people that need it legalized are the ones who AREN'T being rational.

JesseL
May 3, 2007, 03:40 PM
I support laws that protect individual rights (and the biggest threat to individual rights is the government it's self). Restricting the power of government (as in the 1st and 2nd amendments to the COTUS) is completely different than restricting the rights of individuals.

Laws against dueling are not protecting anyone's individual rights. They are restricting them.

Laws against coerced confessions, pedophilia (sexual exploitation of people legally incapable of consenting due to their not having attained the age of majority), are protecting the individuals right to not be tortured or sexually abused.

I wholly support the right of adults to engage in stupid behavior as long as they limit the immediate impact of their behavior to people that have given their informed consent. I think dueling is monumentally stupid and will rarely solve anything, but it's none of my business, none of your business, and none of the governments business.

PaladinX13
May 3, 2007, 03:55 PM
Laws against dueling are not protecting anyone's individual rights. They are restricting them.That's where I disagree. Like I said, you have a right not to be driven out of town, to not have legal death threats made against you, to not be put into a state where your emotions compromise your decision making, and have your killers get held responsible.

In Humble's case, he has a right to protest a political opponent's views without having his political career, character, and business become ruined based on a refusal to duel.

I think dueling is monumentally stupid and will rarely solve anything, but it none of my business, none of your business, and none of the governments business.This is going back to "pure self-interest". It's none of my business until you, out of the blue, challenge me. Again, if people really want to duel such that no one else, including the government, becomes involved- they can do it. Legalization there is irrelevant.

It's only in cases where one- or both- of the parties have their decision-making so compromised, do they need the government to hold their hand through it- or arguably rescued from it if they are being coerced. The law is there to protect against that coercion (violation of freewill/rights) and against that poor decision-making state.

I'm curious... should drunk driving be legalized?

Beachmaster
May 3, 2007, 04:06 PM
I can see the new signs now..........DUEL FREE ZONE

Titan6
May 3, 2007, 04:09 PM
I've yet to see anything good about dueling that can't be either handled by courts, legal fighting absent death, or something that isn't a broad indiscriminate "freedom" argument that encompasses even consensual pedophilia.

This is the only arguement that you have made that I will accept (tentatively). I think however that this might be a lot like the millions of uses of handguns in self defense that we never hear about. We know a lot about all the bad things that came out of duels but what about the differences that were resolved? This is less tangible. After all if they lived how exciting is that to history?

I'm sure you could imagine a wonderful scenario of a sex offender, pacifist, or Democrat driven from town... it could just as easily be a minority, a gun-owner, or you.

Historically we have never needed dueling as an outlet to do these things. They still happen every day.

Why are there laws against pedophilia even if "consensual"? Why is the punishment for crimes of passion mitigated even if the action is the same? Why are confessions given under coercion inadmissible even if true?

Because the will- rational thought and choice- is compromised.

In children rational thought and will are not yet developed, not compromised. Therefore your whole comparison of dueling to baby raping rings false. A mature adult has the capacity to reason but many choose not to. This is a choice, not a physical impediment. Certainly the mentally defective would be prevented from dueling or else the challenger would face great shame. If people can not work out their differences and emotions logically there should be other outlets. Also I have never agreed with the whole "crime of passion" or "temporary insanity" plea. After all the act taken is still likely that the person would have liked to see happen anyway.... Furthermore I have no idea what you are talking about with confessions under coercion not being allowed. The right against self incrimination was repealed with the Patriot Act. In fact I think we just had a couple of high profile "trials" whereby the person was tortured into giving a confession....

Our government has taken a few huge steps backwards recently. Why not go backwards with it all the way? Fighting decay and rot is pointless...

JesseL
May 3, 2007, 04:12 PM
That's where I disagree. Like I said, you have a right not to be driven out of town, to not have legal death threats made against you, to not be put into a state where your emotions compromise your decision making, and have your killers get held responsible.
I agree you have a right not to be driven out of town or suffer death threats. I do not agree that legalized duel is equivalent to these things. As for being put in a state where your emotions compromise your decision making ability, you are dead wrong. You are solely responsible for your emotions, no one else can be. If you choose to allow yourself to become angry and make bad choices, you have chosen to make bad choices. Do not displace the blame for your lack of self control.

In Humble's case, he has a right to protest a political opponent's views without having his political career, character, and business become ruined based on a refusal to duel.


No, he does not. Everyone must suffer the consequences of their actions. If one of the consequences of your actions is that people withdraw their respect for you, so be it. Lots of people have seen their reputations ruined for making perfectly legal choices.

I'm curious... should drunk driving be legalized?

Driving on public roads while too intoxicated to safely operate a vehicle clearly endangers the lives of people that have not consented to such endangerment, it should continue to be illegal.

If someone wants to organize a a drunken demolition derby on a private course, I say more power to them.

PaladinX13
May 3, 2007, 04:16 PM
If someone wants to organize a a drunken demolition derby on a private course, I say more power to them.What about televised gladiatorial events?

JesseL
May 3, 2007, 04:19 PM
What about televised gladiatorial events?

Absolutely. Is that really such a leap beyond pro boxing? As long they know what they're getting into, everybody's got the right to go to hell in their own way.

Titan6
May 3, 2007, 04:24 PM
What about televised gladiatorial events?

What is NASCAR? What is Football? Gladitorial contests with lower body counts... There is a certain element that watches the races for the crashes, Everyone watches the football game to see who has the strongest, fastest smartest players; who can take the most punishement. The risk of injury is high. Nearly every week someone is injured seriously, death is even a possibility.

PaladinX13
May 3, 2007, 04:30 PM
Absolutely. Is that really such a leap beyond pro boxing?I'd say it's a mite different, yes. It's strangely ironic that you use idealistic notions of no social costs and no incidents of coercion from these things that you'd permit... based on cynicism!

JesseL
May 3, 2007, 04:45 PM
I'd say it's a mite different, yes.

Really? Isn't boxing primarily about causing enough injury to your opponent that he is no longer able to continue the fight (by his own determination or the referee's)?

It's strangely ironic that you use idealistic notions of no social costs and no incidents of coercion from these things that you'd permit... based on cynicism!

First, I think "social cost" is a false concept used as a justification for exercising control over individuals when no rational justification can be found. Second, just because coercion could happen is no excuse for preemptively dictating people's lives. This is as silly as the anti-gunners argument that law-abiding people shouldn't have guns because they might just flip out and murder someone.

If someone is involved in fraud, coercion, extortion, etc. with regard to any of these consensual crimes; prosecute them for it - otherwise learn to butt out of people's lives.

You should read over this book (http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/toc.htm).

PaladinX13
May 3, 2007, 04:57 PM
Really? Isn't boxing primarily about causing enough injury to your opponent that he is no longer able to continue the fight (by his own determination or the referee's)?Yes, really. Being no longer able to continue a fight by someone's determination is different than being no longer able to continue any fight by everyone's determination. While life is risk and everything- including boxing- has elements of risk, there's a mite difference between the possibility of death and the veritable guarantee of it.

We're going to have to part ways if you don't think there would be a social cost to televised "consensual" killing for entertainment.

seeker_two
May 3, 2007, 05:10 PM
Dueling....sure. Why not? As long as both parties are willing..... :cool:

Maybe we could bring back bundling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_%28tradition%29) and trial by ordeal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_ordeal) as well.... :rolleyes:

JesseL
May 3, 2007, 05:14 PM
We're going to have to part ways if you don't think there would be a social cost to televised "consensual" killing for entertainment.

I think that the 'social cost' (assuming that such a thing exists), is irrelevant to the question of whether the government should restrict it. Our nation is founded on the principle of ensuring everyone's right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", not ensuring a beautiful and moral society.

If TV broadcasters were showing people killing each other for the purpose of entertainment (hang on a sec, aren't they already doing that?), I fail to see how it would impact anyone else's rights.

Geronimo45
May 3, 2007, 05:19 PM
What is NASCAR? What is Football? Gladitorial contests with lower body counts
You forgot hockey. They're always beating each other up, there.

PaladinX13
May 3, 2007, 05:30 PM
I think that the 'social cost' (assuming that such a thing exists), is irrelevant to the question of whether the government should restrict it. I disagree... my sense is that's basically the only legitimate role the government has: to be arbiter when the actions of purely self-interested actors are insufficient to assure the greater (and individual) good. The Tragedy of the Commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons). In all other cases, the government should not be involved.

The Founders understood this otherwise they would not have had provisions for regulating common "Commons".

Our nation is founded on the principle of ensuring everyone's right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", not ensuring a beautiful and moral society.I agree that in a broad sense, philosophical morality is not the business of the government. However, too often those with views such as yours are quick to abandon morality in its entirety:

"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." -John Adams

Our system of government isn't built to work with purely self-interested persons and it's extreme to adopt that as a total-life philosophy, beyond government intervention, but even individual attitudes and actions.

If TV broadcasters were showing people killing each other for the purpose of entertainment (hang on a sec, aren't they already doing that?), I fail to see how it would impact anyone else's rights.Again, they're not... the guarantee versus risk makes all the difference. As for how it impacts anyone else's rights, as I said, we part ways here.

Well Regulated
May 3, 2007, 05:38 PM
Duelng was a major problem in Virginia/West Virginia and Kentucky past the 19th century. Virginia1774 has some intersting cases on it. It appears that it was very difficult to get a conviction by juries who were in favor of it.

http://www.virginia1774.org/RoyallvThomas.html

http://www.virginia1774.org/Cullen%20v.%20Common.html

http://www.virginia1774.org/CourtMartialDueling1778.html

Titan6
May 3, 2007, 05:39 PM
If TV broadcasters were showing people killing each other for the purpose of entertainment (hang on a sec, aren't they already doing that?), I fail to see how it would impact anyone else's rights.

Again, they're not... the guarantee versus risk makes all the difference. As for how it impacts anyone else's rights, as I said, we part ways here.

Sure they are. They have been since the Vietnam War.

I disagree... my sense is that's basically the only legitimate role the government has: to be arbiter when the actions of purely self-interested actors are insufficient to assure the greater (and individual) good. The Tragedy of the Commons. In all other cases, the government should not be involved.

The Founders understood this otherwise they would not have had provisions for regulating common "Commons".

I agree that in a broad sense, philosophical morality is not the business of the government. However, too often those with views such as yours are quick to abandon morality in its entirety:

"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." -John Adams

Our system of government isn't built to work with purely self-interested persons and it's extreme to adopt that as a total-life philosophy, beyond government intervention, but even individual attitudes and actions.

Given the level of dominance and self interest that the government now enjoys this is totally laughable. The founders never intended that the government grow to the size and power that it now enjoys. If you really believe that our government is religous and moral you have not paying attention to it for a very long time.

JesseL
May 3, 2007, 05:59 PM
I agree that in a broad sense, philosophical morality is not the business of the government. However, too often those with views such as yours are quick to abandon morality in its entirety:

"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." -John Adams

Our system of government isn't built to work with purely self-interested persons and it's extreme to adopt that as a total-life philosophy, beyond government intervention, but even individual attitudes and actions.

I agree with you here. I think that our nation and society depends on moral people acting out of more than self-interest. But, nobody has ever created morality through legislation. I think people keep attempting to do so because on the surface it appears workable, logical and easy. Every time they try it though, it results in further corruption, and deeper depravity and degradation.

If you really want to see a sane, moral, happy, healthy society - you need to help create it through your own actions. Set an example by being a good parent, a scrupulous businessman, a good friend, and a good neighbor. Support others who do the same. Don't allow anyone to goad you into betraying your principles.

Don't fall into the trap of trying to use government force to make people be good.

PaladinX13
May 3, 2007, 06:25 PM
I agree with you here. I think that our nation and society depends on moral people acting out of more than self-interest. But, nobody has ever created morality through legislation.Well, except in a specific sense that things are "good". Underlying all legislation ultimately there is morality in play. This is differently from legislating morality, but laws should be coming from and asked for by a moral people.

I think people keep attempting to do so because on the surface it appears workable, logical and easy. Every time they try it though, it results in further corruption, and deeper depravity and degradation.I agree with this in the sense of trying to govern morality. When morality is imposed instead of a freewill decision, the becomes only about the law and frustrates those trying to govern their behavior- passing more and more laws (and precisely the situation we find ourselves in).

This is why, to me, the preservation of freewill is important and how I believe things like duels and TV bloodsport degrade the ability to make freewill decisions. I understand you believe in the freewill choice to duel or gratuitously kill on television. I've already expressed how I feel dueling is done outside of normal freewill by default, as for bloodsports, I'd say those go towards indoctrination and/or the numbing of society's conscience. I don't want to glibly say, "Bread and circuses" but it would essentially be that. Junk food for the mind that creates a callous people oblivious to the nation around them is collapsing.

JesseL
May 3, 2007, 06:35 PM
Junk food for the mind that creates a callous people oblivious to the nation around them is collapsing.

It seems to me that that argument just leads back to the justifying the banning of anything that irks the moral majority.

Archie
May 3, 2007, 06:55 PM
The modern law enforcement - judicial system is a method of protecting people from the repercussions of their own conduct.

Dueling enforces politeness and mutual respect instead of 'political correctness'. Want to insult and denigrate someone? Fine, but you can't hide behind your attorney.

Having said that, a duel is between two agreeing parties with safeguards to protect innocent bystanders. Duels would have certain standards of conduct and protocol.

akodo
May 4, 2007, 10:45 PM
Yes Paladin, the vast majority of violent criminals - and I include child molestors in this definition - are predators. They prey on the weak and avoid the strong. So yes, I will use any and all tools at my disposal to accomplish my goals. I didn't see the SOBs giving a fair break to their victims.
Bullies don't like to fight - they like to beat people up. Use that to your advantage

So why wait for legalized duels? Why not just shoot them illegally and be done with it.

Remember, duels were first introduced not because people were being failed by the legal system, but because people were getting pissed and murdering eachother. Duels were a way of murdering later...with the idea that there would be a chance to allow them to cool down and not fight, or at least the antagonist might think twice about starting a fight if he knew his opponent was equally armed, rather than getting all 'you dissed my new sneakers, I am going to jump up without warning and pop a cap in your ass'

But really, what I read in Biker's posts is arguing for is a legal way to hunt down and shoot to death criminals who have avoided prosecution, or those who have served their time and gotten out. The duel is just the cover. Or, if they refuse to duel, the harrasment and threat of the duel will drive them away.

So as a soicety, should we be allowed to 'run people out of town' or even kill them if we disagree with how they were treated by the judicial branch? Our forefathers desgined a government where they would rather see 100 criminals go free rather than 1 man wrongly imprisoned. Is this because they figured society would always contain a few individuals who would illegally act as vigilantees and eliminate the ones the courts couldn't get past 'reasonable doubt'?

Caimlas
May 4, 2007, 11:05 PM
Under any normal situation, I disagree with it wholeheartedly.

The only exception I can think of would be in the case of bodily harm done to one's loved ones, in leau of the criminal sentencing. "The convicted may plea for a duel with the father of his rape victim to the cost of a 10-year sentence reduction."

But then, I'm a general fan of the Old Norse system of justice. Fairly barbaric at times, it was also quite elegant.

Titan6
May 4, 2007, 11:05 PM
Akado: Your are missing the point. Duels would have to be consensual. Paladin's point is that the challenged party would suffer from a diminished emotional capacity and be unable to make a rational decision.

If you enjoyed reading about "Dueling? Murder so rare..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!