And Now, For Something Completely Different
I’m going to expand on some deep thoughts I presented over at my own web site a couple of years ago.
Should Dueling be Legal?
Here’s a fun little libertarian mental exercise. Should dueling be legal? I’m not talking about sparring on Twitter or in the comments section of some news story. I’m talking honest to gosh, 18th century-style, pistols at ten paces dueling.
Dueling has been illegal everywhere in the United States, indeed in most of the Western world since the early 19th century at least. But let’s set aside our ingrained prejudices for a moment and ask ourselves, in a society that honestly and completely exists under the concept of liberty – should it be?
Let’s do a thought experiment.
I’d use these, just for the sake of tradition.
Thinking it Through?
Two men (or women, or one of each, whatever) have a serious disagreement, one which cannot be reconciled by any normal means. Courts have been unable to arrive at a settlement acceptable to both. Counsel has failed. They are well and truly at loggerheads.
So, both of them, as capable, competent, consenting adults, in full possession of their faculties, agree to pistols at sunrise to settle the dispute. They meet in a field with their seconds, who oversee the loading of the pistols; they take their places, step away from each other on the count and, when indicated, turn and fire. One is killed, the other emerges the victor.
Now – answer me this – what crime has been committed?
Oh, yes, I know there is a statutory crime committed. But has there been a moral crime? Both parties went into the affair knowing that death was a likely outcome. I’ve read that back when the code duello was more commonly practiced, it was considered the gentlemanly thing to do to just pink your opponent in the arm or leg and claim victory without fatality, but fatal injuries were a normal outcome; it even happened to one of the more famous of our Founding Fathers.
But even in the event of a fatality – what qualifies this as a crime? Both parties agreed to the duel. Both parties know the likely outcome. Both parties are, presumably, competent to make the decision. If we are truly to be a society that values personal liberty, we must also be a society that allows people to face the likely consequences of that liberty. Dueling may be an extreme example of that, but it’s no less a valid one.
So. Should dueling be legalized? I’m inclined to say yes. If, in 
a society based first and foremost on the principle of individual liberty, two parties agree to settle their differences in one-on-one mortal combat, knowing the outcome is likely to be at least one of them shuffling off the mortal coil, then what role does government play in preventing them from so doing?
Limits?
Obviously there would have to be some limits. You could scarcely allow a duel between two people using nuclear weapons as the weapon of choice, for example. I’d be willing to consider the following restrictions:
- Weaponry limited to personal, individual weapons only. Pistols, swords, or even a sniper duel with rifles, but no explosives, machine guns or flamethrowers, entertaining as that last one would be. Why? Because of the possibility of the battle spilling over onto observers or bystanders. That would be… bad.
- Both parties obviously to be competent, consenting adults, willing to sign legal documents waiving any damages or legal penalty from any death or disability resulting from the duel.
- I suppose I’d entertain the idea of a cooling-down period between filing of the legal paperwork and the event itself, since death is a likely (and final) outcome.
- It seems to me that seconds would be a reasonable requirement. The seconds’ role is to act as a dispassionate advocate for the duelist. The seconds act in concert, presumably without the inflamed passions that led to the duel, to ensure that the duel is fair, that neither duelist takes an unfair advantage.
- Some kind of time limit to the combat itself seems like a good idea. Say the parties agree to a duel by sword; if they hack away for, say, two hours, until both are on the brink of collapse, there ought to be a way for the seconds to call a draw.
The trouble here is as with so many things; the limits here would have to be legislated, and as it is the nature of government to grow ever larger and more intrusive, eventually the code duello would be so full of requirements and conditions as to be useless, kind of like the tax code. Really, it would be better to have the government as completely divorced as possible from the process. The only law that applies would be contract law.
Then again – why not?
Questions
“But Animal,” some might ask, “wouldn’t a duel have the possibility of setting off a vendetta, say between two families?”
“Sure,” I’d reply, “…and as long as all parties agree to the code duello and the likely consequences, and follow the guidelines and rules applying, then, fine. I really have very little problem with families who are so prickly that they can’t settle their differences by non-lethal means thinning themselves out thusly, and besides, you can only have the duel if both parties agree; this makes it pretty easy to break the chain.”
“Even so,” the questioners go on, “wouldn’t you have the possibility of a revenge killing outside the code duello system?”
“Again, sure,” I’d reply, “…and that would be a crime, to be dealt with by the legal system just like any other premeditated murder.”
“But… wouldn’t this disproportionately affect (insert name of particular aggrieved community/ethnicity/religion/whatever here)?”
“Probably. So what?”
“What about the families they leave behind? Their children! Think of their children!”
“It’s not my responsibility to think about their children; it’s their damn responsibility to take care of their children. So, they leave behind some orphans? Not my circus, not my monkeys.”
“But wait,” comes one final question, “…what about the Non-Aggression Principle?”
“That’s an interesting one. It seems to me that both parties are initiating aggression in unison, by prior agreement under conditions also agreed to. So, yes, both parties are violating the NAP – and neither are. As the initiation is simultaneous – say, five paces, turn and fire – then both are initiating, and both are responding. You can make an argument here that the NAP doesn’t apply.”
And So…
It’s a pretty problem.
Of course, this is just an intellectual exercise, and it’s unlikely in the extreme that dueling will ever be legalized, anywhere, in our modern era and, honestly, one would hope that civilized people have better ways to resolve their differences.
But the veneer of civilization is pretty damn thin. If things ever got to the point where trial by arms was again an acceptable way to settle differences, it would be best to have some kind of guidelines around how to conduct those trials.
More to the point, I find the moral question interesting. It seems to me that a duel is morally acceptable if both parties are competent adults, fully informed, and willing to sign on to a legally binding agreement to enter into mortal combat.
So. Thoughts?
Needs moar Mexican buttsex.
And of course, you’d need some sort of bond posted for cleanup and environmental remediation.
What I didnt accept the challenge?
If
According to the Code (mind you, I know all this from romance novels) (it is occasionally a plot point), you would be branded a coward and shunned (or else outright mocked) at all the best places.
I was wondering if a relative or other “someone special” can object and if so, which ones.
I thought it was you were no longer a gentleman and future parties could deal with you by horsewhipping, instead?
None of my romance novels ever mentioned such a thing. Heh.
Mind you, every Regency historical involves a hero who is a duke–an earl at the very least–so there must be 167,422 dukes in Regency England. So far as I can tell, dukes don’t get horsewhipped.
Way to dilute the value of the title.
Romance is written in superlatives.
Like Mary Worth!
https://frinkiac.com/caption/S05E21/723372
Unless they were the Duck of Death.
There are 24 non-royal Dukes in the UK.
Real Dukes, not the fake titles given to random offspring of the Queen.
That is way too many for such a small set of islands.
The number of duchies is larger. Some dukes hold multiple duchies.
“Some dukes hold multiple duchies.”
Not cool, man, you have to pass it (preferably to the left)
at all the best places
See, there’s the problem right there – humans again.
Or, alternately, you could just shrug the challenge off with a slight. “Gentlemen don’t duel with farmers/shopkeepers/tradesmen,” seemed to be a popular excuse.
And then maybe the offended party takes a horsewhip to you in the street, next time you show your face in public. This is probably a good way to find out what your status really is among your friends…
Primates and their status kink.
I know, right?
Bugs have it worse, though…
Someone could stand in for you. I think…
Make the frisbee your weapon of choice.
I can’t think of an argument where you are wrong, albeit in my theological upbringing, cold-blooded murder gets you sent to Outer Darkness. I’m not sure this would qualify as cold-blooded murder, though.
We all know women would not settle their differences this way. It’s way too straightforward.
LOL
Usually women, in my experience, skip the dueling and go straight for the shunning.
And gossiping and backstabbing and sabotaging. Looking at you, every office in America.
And small town.
I’d be glad to second that.
“So. Thoughts?”
The legislative costs, regulatory burdens, etc. aren’t worth whatever practical advantage there might be of making it legal. As proposed, there should be limits, which would just keep expanding. Do you need to have insurance? Competency hearings? Psych evaluations? Ambulances on scene? Licensing for seconds?
Or to put it another way, if two people agree to a duel, they shouldn’t care if it’s legal.
/slaps Animal with glove
Sir, this article is an outrage. I demand satisfaction.
Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmvSgvy7a34
“Honk If You Demand Satisfaction”
I believe you have to throw the gloves on the ground
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauntlet_(glove)#:~:text=%22Throw%20down%20the%20gauntlet%22,-See%20also%3A%20Duel&text=A%20gauntlet%2Dwearing%20knight%20would,gauntlet%20to%20accept%20the%20challenge.
Hitting him is more fun.
For you, maybe!
As challenged party, I believe I may choose weapons. I choose beer steins at five paces. First to drain the stein wins.
(It doesn’t have to be lethal.)
Revenge is best served cold.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dueling_scar
This is a topic I’ve mulled. And I’m inclined to agree with you. I don’t necessarily like the notion of dueling. But, honestly, I’m not completely sure we’re better off without it. The threat of it, even if implicit, served as a deterrent to a lot of behaviors that, while impossible to properly make illegal, we sure as hell don’t want. And my understanding is that most duels didn’t wind up lethal. The threat of death, or one’s willingness to face it, was enough to restore civility.
Starting a Twitter mob against someone to destroy their lives is an increasingly popular means of interaction. I’m not so sure it would be if it carried the risk of having to face an armed and aggrieved party (with a license to kill you) the next morning.
I would postulate that there would be a great deal less Twitter mob behavior if everyone who participates in Twitter had to make known their identity and address. It is the tech anonymity that induces even worse behavior than any of those folks are capable in the flesh.
Any social structure in which dueling could exist would be likely to also have some significant code, written or unwritten, regarding honor and/or shame. For good or bad, it might be extremely difficult to avoid dueling, especially if one of the parties were particularly intransigent. A really prickly argument could see the alternatives being destruction of one’s reputation and/or shunning from the society, and possible death and/or being forced to attempt killing one’s opponent.
In other words, aggressive parties in such a structured society might be able to force agreement via the threat of the choice of duel or shunning.
Actual shame and honor, despite cancel culture, have been greatly minimized in modern US society.
Yup
In *other* other words, the process would be the punishment, and any rando you have an argument with could initiate the process.
In the interest of equity, shouldn’t there be some sort of handicapping going on? Like a queer fat transfur of color would get body armor and a MAC-10 with two drum mags while a stale pale male would have his feet concreted into the ground and a Standard Mfg 333 Volleyfire loaded with a .22 short.
As I note above, dueling was a gentleman’s activity. Your queer fat transfur of color would simply be horsewhipped.
Even without equity, the little guy can come out on top. Albeit after a lot of fear and suffering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SutDTIhbQ2g
+1 Harrison Bergeron
Pass.
Coward.
I don’t understand why I’d give some shmuck like a 50% chance to kill me just because he’s wrong.
On the upside, it would probably increase the interest in practical shooting competitions. It’s one of the best ways to develop the skill of turning from the surrender position, drawing and making an A-zone hit from 10 yards within 1.5 seconds of the signal.
A shot timer becomes “terrorist training equipment” in 3… 2… 1…
Whew. Made it home from work.
Some days I miss having a car with all wheel drive. Today is one of those days.
My garage is on an alley. It was plowed. Guess where all of that snow ended up.
We cleared the driveway and sidewalk and deck of snow, just in time for our precip to change to sleet. Now there is a nice layer of ice developing for the next round of snow to lay on.
A Bit of Fry & Laurie – The Duel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDsn-RRmDXU
So, are schnitzel andwiches a thing in Euroland?
Yes.
I would like to see the duel from The Baroque Cycle. Cannons make a nice dueling weapon.
+1 ultima ratio regum
We fight with cannon!
I was looking for the actual fight, but can’t spend too long, since it failed to show itself.
but fatal injuries were a normal outcome; it even happened to one of the more famous of our Founding Fathers.
Hamilton should have dueled more often.
Aawon Buh! ? ? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mIaAvoQAZAU
As it was, once was 1 too many
ISTR what where duelling was legalized it (like all other regulated activites) was subject to regulatory capture and abuse by skilled duellists.
the duellists (1977) – second duel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2KWTEhyVX8
Princess Bride – The Sword Fight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDlZ_SXx5gA
Best movie sabre duel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkYjdPCyYjk
ok I’m done
“the limits here would have to be legislated”
Perhaps the limits would need to be regulated, but it wouldn’t need to be a government body doing this.
An addition to the thought experiment: some kind of independent governing body is established *tries to think of snappy acronym. fails.* This governing body could supply seconds: no need to have friends involved in case they can’t keep their emotions out of it. A second would be investigated prior to each duel to make sure they have no connections to either party.
The governing body includes in its regs that it can punish anyone who breaks the regs, up to, and including, death (a la John Wick).
Deadly
Universal
Elimination
League
is the best I can come up with.
I say tanks in a special built arena so no bystanders are hurt.
Like this one:
https://youtu.be/lAraDeLzcYs?t=412
Unity/healing/etc.
#TrumpGOPVirus
@roseyresistor
Your actions call for the title, America agrees.
Rep. Zeldin Says Democratic Election Plan Is To Call Republicans ‘White Supremacists, Extremists, Nazis’ Every Two Years https://dailycaller.com/2021/01/31/rep-lee-zeldin-democratic-election-plan-republicans-white-supremacists-extremists-nazis/ #SmartNews
Every 2 years? It’s been constantly as far as I can remember. Here’s a nice history of Democrat civility in action.
Not the Babylon Bee. Had me fooled.
From the dead thread, cyto noted:
And which state is best known for it’s population of elderly (and most vulnerable to the ‘vid)?
Andrew Jackson killed a man in a duel which began as a dispute over money due from a horse race, if you can believe that. Jackson actually let the other man, Charles Dickinson, shoot him. By the rules of dueling, Dickinson was then obliged to stand still while Jackson could take as much time as he liked to aim and fire. Jackson’s pistol then only went to half-cock, so he cocked the hammer again while poor Charles Dickinson is still standing there, and then he shot and killed him. Pretty cold.
Jackson himself was only inches from death. The bullet in his chest was too close to his heart to be removed, so the doctor left it there and there it remained for the rest of his life. When Jackson faced public criticism for killing Dickinson in that manner rather than shooting him in the arm or leg (which would have been considered satisfactory by the code duello), Jackson barked that Dickinson had shot to kill, so he did as well.
My history professor in college also claimed that Jackson had his tailor move the brass buttons on his coat that his opponent (and experienced duelist) would normally aim at a bit away from his heart. Part of his strategy hoping his opponent would fire too quickly and be off.
I’m fine with dueling, so long as the surviving parties are automatically charged with either battery or murder, depending on the outcome. The seconds would be charged as accessories.
You’re no fun.
Now about that dirty piece of cloth on your face.
Dr. James Meehan, MD followed by warning that mask wearing has “well-known risks that have been well-studied and they’re not being discussed in the risk analysis.
“I’m seeing patients that have facial rashes, fungal infections, bacterial infections. Reports coming from my colleagues, all over the world, are suggesting that the bacterial pneumonias are on the rise.
“Why might that be? Because untrained members of the public are wearing medical masks, repeatedly… in a non-sterile fashion… They’re becoming contaminated. They’re pulling them off of their car seat, off the rearview mirror, out of their pocket, from their countertop, and they’re reapplying a mask that should be worn fresh and sterile every single time.”
I’ve been using the same one since March.
I’ve been wearing the same one since around July, when this shit started getting enforced around here, but I a)wear it as little as possible, putting it on just before I step into a store and pulling it off immediately as I exit b)wear it pretty much as a chin strap.
obviously we need:
-Increased Federal funding to study mask-borne illnesses
-An “Operation Warp Speed” to develop quick mask contamination tests and tratment for maskogenic pathogens.
-Increased Federal assistance to states whose economies have been hurt by the scourge of Trump’s mask diseases.
+ A government agency to curtail dangerous speech that contradicts the scientific experts
That’s why I use disposable masks.
Look at Richie Rich! I’m not going to wear a new mask every day damn day, plus those paper pieces of shit hurt my ears. It is odd, for the first ~3 months of all this shit I wore the same fabric virtue signal to work and washed it only when it looked dirty. Then when that one died the next one smudged my glasses every time I put it on, so when work finally supplied me with a couple nice fabric ones I started rotating them, but they smell like death way quicker than the other ones. They must not have enough copper.
Re soy boys (I’m sure you can make the leap from how I got from dueling to soy boys):
In 1748, John Cleland published Fanny Hill, and in it is this quote, lamenting the soy boys amongst the nobility:
Of course, that book is chock full of howlers.
***Spoiler alert.
Was that the book your protagonists were reading from in your book, Dunham?
YES!!!! *squeeeeeee*
I still giggle at “engine of love assaults.”
This is obligatory I think.
When I saw Fanny Hill, I immediately thought of this
It’ll do.
Really interesting article Animal. I haven’t got the time to read it all right now, but will do later.
My initial thought is complicated. Clearly you have a right to self defense, and so their is a right to take anothers life at the protection of your own. However i don’t feel that dueling fits into that framework. Here you are negotiating the opportunity to kill someone outside of a self-defense framework, and i don’t think that morally that works. It comes down to the same kind of arguments of, are you able to sell yourself into slavery?
Sometimes I think a return of dueling would be a good thing, then I realize the government would be involved. Yuck.
Firefly’s dueling scene.
Another take on it is that there is currently a structure of law that could be adapted: the rules of war. There’s a whole system that has grown up around sovereigns being able to challenge and attack each other, under which the fellows doing the actual violence are protected from legal consequences of doing things that, under normal circumstances, would put them in the executioner’s chair rather quickly.
As long as a soldier stays within the accepted laws of war, e.g., no atrocities, make sure your opponent is armed, don’t shoot surrendering opponents, and other conventions, it is acceptable and even encouraged to go and kill some other dude(s)–you just have to be doing it for your sovereign and wear his uniform.
Fucking Geneva, who put them in charge!?
Silent enim leges inter arma.
Victor Davis Hanson is really a good read or listen.
Cool thanks.
I’d say there would need to be some paper work involved now, to make sure the parties agreed to the duel, but yes, if the consenstuality is taken care of to a satisfactory degree, I see it as no more than any other consensual behavior. But then the lawyers get involved, he consented under duress they say, then it’s a big show trial and I didn’t get a good haircut before the trial…
I balk at the ability to consent to be murdered. I’m not sure if that is something you _can_ consent to.
Sure you can consent to risking your life. The relevant question is why should society consent to allowing you to kill someone (save obviously in self defense).
It’s obviously self-defense. If you didn’t shoot them, they would have shot you.
I think that is more succinct way of putting it, that i was trying to rephrase. Organized vendettas and duels where both parties agree to it still constitute murder IMO, it doesn’t mater that you “consented” to a game of kill or be killed.
It seems like some of the libertarian analysis of dueling treats it like you are soley consenting to being killed, but you aren’t. That would be assisted suicide. This is much more of a gamble where you are not even wanting to die, but to get away with murder.
From my perspective it’s more of a “get in the ring” thing. If people agree to get in the ring – the implication being that they’re engaging voluntarily in violence – whatever that looks like – baseball, soccer, boxing, wrestling – that’s their business. The stakes are different, sure, and the risk/reward of stepping into the ring is up to the individual. Many sports offer the threat of concussion. In all there are the greater risks of death and long-term debilitation from injury; dueling is no different.
I’d guess that if dueling were made legal, the annual death rate from it would be less than auto accidents, yet we’d continue to drive. And I’m sure the taxpayer burden to cover the civic responsibilities that go along with a car accident would far outweigh similar costs associated with dueling results.
Put another way, You aren’t even really consenting to being murdered during a duel, but both attempting to cause murder. Just because two people agreed upon a blood vendetta to try to kill or be killed by one-another doesn’t really make it not murder.
This has the potential to go down the definition rabbit hole as to when homicide becomes murder
and
whethet it’s the State’s business to prosecute infringments of rights that have been voluntarily waived.
State or no state, murders should be investigated. My issue is with the “waiving” of the right. You aren’t just waiving a right, you are buying the right to murder someone, and I’m not sure that is something you can feasibly do. I.E i don’t know if you can sell that right.
And this is why the NFL is now ‘responsible’ and ‘negligent’ for not ‘informing’ players that if you get a fucking concussion, it hurts yer brain.
‘They knew, but they didn’t KNOW’.
More consent involved in this scenario than abortion.
For sure.
I really don’t know how that follows. I’m not arguing that the participants didn’t know of the odds. You could be perfectly informed on the odds and i’m not convinced you could morally purchase the right (at some odds) to murder someone.
So, if it’s boxing or football, it’s all cool if your opponent dies, but if your opponent SPECIFICALLY signs on to a game to death, then it’s not cool?
Intent matters.
And if you know the intent going in? You can’t consent because…reasons?
You can’t consent because…reasons?
Personally, I think that you have a right to die, but not a right to be killed. It comes down to the ability to revoke consent. In something as final and as devastating as dying, you should be able to revoke consent up to the last (and deal with the consequences of that revocation accordingly) .
When somebody else is the one who pushes the button or pulls the trigger, there’s possibility for revoked consent to be unheeded.
For assisted suicide, the person dying should have to push the final button to kill themselves. As far as killing games go, I prefer Russian roulette over dueling.
You have the right to your own life, but not to take someone elses – even with their ‘consent’.
Maybe another analogy on a similarly divisive issue could help clear things.
Say you want to pay for something big. Maybe your wife/daughter/son/mother needs an expensive surgery. So you decide to raise the money, you are going to sell yourself into slavery, you work for some rich guy and he will pay it off and own you for the rest of your life. No out limiting terms, no form of way to buy back your freedom, no reneging.
30 years later you decide that you don’t like it. Am i going to say you are wrong to then try to run away? or argue for your freedom? Personally no. I’d say you committed fraud on the first level of trying to sell something that cannot be sold, your right over your person and will. That isn’t something that can be parted from you. But likewise the person who “purchased” you has no legitimate clam on you as a slave. The best is that they could sue for their money back.
Sounds more like quibbling over to what degree is satisfactory, which is a position I can understand.
Your example doesn’t take into account people who couldn’t physically push the button, those with MS or ALS, do their rights not matter because they can’t physically push the button?
SLD/ I’m not agreeing with any actions discussed. I rarely am when we talk anything philosophy wise. My dad had a DNR and one of the first things we did when we found him dead was rip that bracelet off him and throw it across the fucking room.
But your argument is one can only consent to take their own life if they are able to take their own life?
Players get paid massive amounts of money for the use of their bodies when they are young and to be able to take care of those bodies when they are too old to play anymore and they’re stuck with the lingering effects of concussions and injuries. It is no one’s fault if they don’t set that aside to take care of themselves in their old age.
Nobody else with dangerous jobs gets paid that much for the use and abuse of their bodies.
So, yeah, that whole “ZOMG concussions! ZOMG!” thing pisses me off. You know, going into football, that injuries are your life.
It’s not even about the ‘pros’. It’s this whole idea that ‘No one knew brain injuries could possibly injure your brain!!11’. I would trade every penny I have (that’s not much) to be able to physically play a game of football. In my youth, I never got a chance, my school didn’t even have a football team, to get to play football you had to have money for a car to commute to the closest school that had football, to get money I had to get a job, to have a job I had to work when football practice was happening…
Now I’m old and limping around have had several concussions and knee injuries and so forth without ever getting to play a single snap of football.
I can’t say I never played a single snap of football.
However, I didn’t get any one of my several concussions from it. I was bruised and sore the next day.
And…nothing else happened.
Well organized football…and if you say did, you’re a basic bitch! (did I do that right? I don’t know what that means, but I gather it’s bad and insulting) #it’smydayoffandi’mdrunkandgettingreadyforbed
It was organized…
Organized by two BYU football players and 2 floors of girl-dorm inhabitants.
HOLY MACKEREL! Please tell me at least one of these co-eds was wearing prairie garb.
Ah, Mo was at BYU when Jim McMahon was there….
Was it Ty Detmer? It was Ty Detmer, wasn’t it?
No, I was not. He’s 10 years older than I am and had been playing for the Bears for 4 years before I got there.
No. We were all freshmen and they were walk-ons. I don’t remember their names. They lived in our brother-dorm.
No, sorry.
So the girl-dorm 2nd floor north wing played the 3rd floor north wing, each with one football player acting as coach. We played for HOURS, both offense and defense. It was November. Cold. Rainy. Muddy. Not one of us could walk right the next day (Sunday). So the idea was, we’d go out and play nasty football (this was not flag football) on Saturday and go to church on Sunday in our prom dresses.
One of my absolutely favorite memories of BYU.
Not one of us could walk right the next day
Yowza.
I think you’re using the term “murder” a little too freely. Is it murder when one uniformed solider kills another uniformed solider in combat? If not, why can they consent to kill/be killed for king and country but not themselves? That flies against self-ownership.
Death was an outcome of dueling but certainly not guaranteed. Many duels ended with little more than a scratch, if even that, just for form’s sake. Should full-contact fighting tournaments, e.g., the Kumite, be illegal because death is a possible outcome among willing combatants? I don’t see any possible libertarian grounds for banning full-contact fighting tournaments. Dueling is a natural extension of those although the motivation of participants is different.
I joke below.
Fact is I can’t think of a slight short of taking a life that would justify taking a life. In a duel I would fire wide of the mark.
No matter how much of an ass someone has behaved, where there is life there is hope. I would never take that from someone.
I would never intend to kill anyone either, hence why I wouldn’t agree to a duel. But Who am I to stop idiots from doing idiot things. Again, as long as all the t’s are dotted the i’s crossed…
I’m not sure what my position is on the legality of dueling. Freedom to make poor decisions is part of self-ownership so that doesn’t weigh with me. Some of the concerns DB listed about societal inducements and repercussions do give me pause. Is a duel truly freely entered of one’s own will when refusal means your family faces ruin because of societal codes?
On the other hand, that argument is a slippery slope that can be used… and is used… to strip autonomy away from people. One example is the a large number of people in the health profession that believe patients should have no say in their own treatment for the patients’ own good.
I don’t like being shot at.
Never had the pleasure, and I prefer to keep it that way – despite Churchill’s admonition.
When I was fighting in armor (yes, I’ve been waiting a long time to open a sentence with that and this is just such an occasion) we had an unwritten rule that anyone on the team could ask for “satisfaction.” That meant mano a mano in full kit, each man using weapon of choice, and no time limit. You go until someone yields. Usually with at least one marshall to keep things from getting too ugly.
This was in the early days of medieval armored combat in the U.S. and there were only about 75-100 guys and a few gals for about 45 int’l team spots. The “right” didn’t require any particular offense or grievance, either. Sometimes a veteran might “honor” a new guy by asking him to step out and show his chops. Sometimes there were grievances involved.
Regardless, I’ll say this about it: IMO, it sure has a way of tamping down excessive stupidity. Because when someone can pull your card and demand you face them alone with nothing but, say, a longsword against their two-handed axe, that will tend to end the surliness before you have to pay in blood, bumps, and bruises. I will also say that this is why I love hockey and why I’m a huge proponent of keeping fighting in the game. It works as a deterrent for exactly the same reasons. (Rugby has some of this, as well, but they haven’t codified fighting).
Betrand Russell long ago noted (in a wonderful series of lectures turned into a book) that in the nuclear era there needed to be some way to allow outlets for Man’s aggression short of catastrophic nuclear war. I believe if we allowed armored dueling under the conditions I noted, you would have the chance to get out the anger and frustration with only a mild chance of serious injury. I think guns and dueling is so fucking stupid and pointless nowadays and really doesn’t even serve to “slake the thirst” for retribution that instigates the duel in the first place. I’d also note that in the 70s we had a ton of this and we simply called it “fighting.” Shit, I must have had 20 fights before I was 10. I know I had three in 2 days when I moved into a new neighborhood, one on my front porch.
Okay, chew on that. Back to doc review.
“mano a mano”
Back in the day that meant fists, no armor and nothing in your hand.
Funny thing…the only time I ever had a nose bleed was from free-diving. No amount of pounding even to the point of unconsciousness would make my nose bleed.
It LITERALLY means hand to hand.
show his chops
So to speak.
“But wait,” comes one final question, “…what about the Non-Aggression Principle?”
Don’t challenge people to duels if you believe in the NAP.
What did I win?
A free HTML tag?
Firsting is a form of dueling.
‘The form of…A lonely, lonely man, with a tired schtick!’, never heard the Wonder Twins do that one.
It was the episode where they got mauled by the Wonder Dog and had to be put down.
Served ’em right for not bringing Wonder Dog some pizza.
A free HTML tag?
One isn’t enough.
And another thing, as far as shunning and whatnot go: a thin skinned, belligerent asshole who ran around issuing challenges at the drop of a glove would probably find himself friendless and a pariah in short order.
a formal duel is a lot better than what the cowards do now.
Or dead.
Dueling Silver Lining: Angry drunks would be weeded out.
Fucksake, they still gotta relegate them to just one month? And they aren’t the racists?
I’ve made the argument against the February ghetto for years.
“I’m seeing patients that have facial rashes, fungal infections, bacterial infections. Reports coming from my colleagues, all over the world, are suggesting that the bacterial pneumonias are on the rise.
“Why might that be? Because untrained members of the public are wearing medical masks, repeatedly… in a non-sterile fashion… They’re becoming contaminated. They’re pulling them off of their car seat, off the rearview mirror, out of their pocket, from their countertop, and they’re reapplying a mask that should be worn fresh and sterile every single time.”
I have been musing about that. Sinus infections, respiratory infections and ailments of various sorts. But those don’t count. The mighty placebo cures all.
I saw somebody, one day, who had a godawful rash on her face which appeared to conform exactly to the area covered by a mask.
Should dueling be illegal?
Yes. Maybe? OK, no.
One of these days, probably soon, I am gonna stick a mask right up someone’s ass. The only time I have worn one is in the local pharmacy that requires one, so maybe half of a dozen times for a total of 5 minutes.
That’s a long way to walk.
Sources report that another wave of at least 100 migrants, many suspected of being Haitian nationals, made entry near Del Rio, Texas early Monday.
The group was comprised of men, women, and children. Sources indicate some of the recent Haitian migrants are in the late stages of pregnancy. Some were transported to local hospitals for medical attention and delivery.
A non-governmental shelter within the Del Rio Sector reports via social media their efforts to address the humanitarian needs of the recent asylum seekers.
I am so stupid – how did I forget about this until now! OK, sure it’s nerf bats, but people do get exhausted doing it and occasionally seriously hurt.
:Squints:
Sir, if that was on purpose… I demand satisfaction!
I am intrigued now…
Razzam, frazzam, stupid link.
Dude NSFW based on that first chick in the first 3 seconds that should not be wearing what she is wearing….where is Q when we need em
Having a stupid baby. Kids R the Wurst. #Nicky or was it #Nikki…I can’t remember, and that that feels good…
China be trollin’.
China has temporarily blocked entry to foreign national travelling from Canada, even those with current residency permits, the Chinese embassy in Ottawa said.
“In view of the current Covid-19 situation and the need of epidemic prevention and control… all foreign nationals who hold valid Chinese residence permits for work, personal matters and reunion are temporarily not allowed to enter China from Canada,” the embassy said in a statement Saturday.
Forbidden to enter China? Oh no, whatever will I do?
If 1,000 monkeys hammered away at 1,000 [joysticks in their brains] for any number of years, would one of them eventually produce Shakespeare’s Sonnet XVIII?
https://www.newsmax.com/thewire/monkey-brain-chip-neuralink-elon-musk/2021/02/01/id/1008123/
“Elon Musk has revealed that one of his startup companies has managed to get a monkey to play video games with its mind, thanks to a chip implanted in the monkey’s brain.”
Forget the next gaming system, this is going to be the hot item at Christmas.
“Monkey sold separately. Void where prohibited.”
I don’t think it’s an achievement to get a monkey to play with itself…
Look, just because higher primates will is no reason to assume a monkey will be as stupid.
So THIS is why PETA’s suddenly interested in monkey labor rights.
Sledgehammers in ten feet of water is clearly the only way to go.
Personally, I like the rubber band guns or the smoke ring guns. To pester girls with, of course.
10 inch rubber dildos in a pool full of jello.
But enough about last weekend. What were we talking about?
Western Sloper is Hatchet Harry! Confirmed!
You know about that huh? I thought that was just a Louisiana thing. Lake Pontchartrain I think it was.
What an absolute miracle! Across the board, no matter the region, all is going well.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/31/us/coronavirus-cases-hospitalizations-decreasing.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Of course, it could just be the natural cycle of the virus, but it is much more fun to think a larger game is being played.
Joe Biden cured Corona Virus, but still, keep social distancing and wear masks, but Joe and Kamala done beat what Trump couldn’t, even though what they are doing is exactly what Trump done did, they aren’t LITERALLY HITLER!!
I thought more dangerouser more contagiouser strains are popping out of the woodwork and we have to more sooper afraider than ever.
Those strains are reserved for the March time frame when they need to extend their emergency powers after most have been clinging to them for a year with barely any legislative input.
It could also be that they’ve completely changed the parameters for testing, because they have.
I’ve been faithfully watching the Indiana dashboard. Deaths and hospitalizations have followed the same curve. We had a spike early on, a lull, then a really big spike over the holidays/beginning of winter. This past week it’s dropped like a rock.
the natural cycle of the virus
No such thing. The virus is sentient and devious – preying on human behavior and seducing people to disobey their rulers. That’s how it works – nothing natural about that, now is there?
And, the COVID COMES IN THE NIGGHT!
FUCK CANCER! Requiescat In Pace Dustin Diamond; Screech was always my favorite.
It was the Celebrity Boxing what did im in! Hence why no one should be able to consent to dueling, for the children!
I mean, he never MEANT to stab that guy, so that is way better than someone going into a fight they know is a fight to the death.
That penny-ante shit called for a felony charge?!?
The pocket knife had a black thing that went up, ok?!
Yeah, you right. Pocket knives can be scary.
As someone who takes a vintage 89 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles lunch box to work every day, I agree with Pepper Jack.
A fair fight? That’s dumb.
I’ll kill a man in a fair fight . . . .
The exclusion for boxing and martial arts from assault and battery seems equally available, in principle, to duelling. I guess the likelihood of death is why duelling is not allowed. Although martial arts also presents a risk of (more or less accidental) death. Perhaps the question is, is the likelihood of death a good enough reason to allow one and not the other?
Forget it RC, it’s Principal Town…