Pants-of-dog wrote:So, whar aggravates you so much that you need to be violent?
This debate isn't about me. I should also say that the key argument besides the utilitarian arguement presented by the libertarian in the OP for duelling doesn't depend on motivations for duelling at all. If people duelled for the thrill as a dangerous sport or as an alternative to suicide or for fame and fortune like a gladiator then the argument works just the same because the argument is based on respecting people's choices, it is about consent not about motives.
Given your endless preaching against homophobia you should appreaciate that homosexuality was not legalised on the basis that it was good but on the basis of respecting people's liberty to makes their own mistakes where it harms no unwilling third party. Indeed it is the same liberty principle that is grinding against the prohibition of certain drugs like cannabis. From the liberty standpoint it does not matter why someone wants to put their willy inside a consenting anus or why they want to take drugs, it doesn't even matter that those might be poor choices in a moral or health sense, what matters is that people should be free to make their own choices where it does not adversely affect an unwilling other. So it will also go for duelling.
The prevailing principle of law during what I will call the Age of Christendom was that human law should align with holy writ. Thus because holy writ denounces homosexuallity so then homosexuality is persecuted. However as Christianity gives up some influence in the face of what we might call Rationalism or Secularism then another principle of law that of free will (which is also a Christian principle), this the principle of consent becomes increasingly influential because if you are a secularist you still need some kind of moral lodestone to help sort right from wrong but you obviously can't use holy writ directly. Thus the liberty principle and the utilitarian principle gets leaned on and so homosexuality eventually becomes legal again.
You can't leverage a progressive theory of history against duelling as you tried to do by falsely asserting that dancing was modern duelling. Why? Because the broad trend in law is to be informed more by the liberty principle not less. Potentially working against the liberty principle would be the utilitarian principle. However the utilitarian principle could go either way because as we see in the OP there are utilitarian arguments in favour of duelling.
On a related note to do with the false progressive theories of history consider that in Victorian Britain trading in, possessing and consuming opium derivatives was completely legal. Then in the 20th century it was heavily persecuted. Now in the 21st century there is a growing perception that drug consumption while not a healthy thing to do should not be legally persecuted. Which way is progress then? Free > Unfree > Free again?
Mediterranean pagans of ancient times were pretty tolerant of homosexuality, then later under the influence of Christianity it became prosecuted, then later again in the 20th century it became legalised again. Free > Unfree > Free again...
If legal duelling is a thing of the past never to return then so is legal homosexuality and legal drug taking!