[SolarCross]

Yes, your beliefs are very similar to the Muslim terrorists who attacked CH, but that is not the point.

It is the point. Despite your commie blood lust you have suddenly decided for the purposes of this debate to pretend to a pacifist who fears for his life above all other concerns and then projects that fear upon everyone else even, ridiculously, the muslims who sought a martyr's death out of all the possible choices they could have made instead.

Yes, I do have a non-violent solution. It is called an arrest.

Which isn't non-violent.

@Oxymandias mentioned these costs in a previous post in this thread. Did you read it?

Apparently not.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is the point. Despite your commie blood lust you have suddenly decided for the purposes of this debate to pretend to a pacifist who fears for his life above all other concerns and then projects that fear upon everyone else even, ridiculously, the muslims who sought a martyr's death out of all the possible choices they could have made instead.

I am not going to bother responding to this strawman any more.

Which isn't non-violent.

Yes, they often are.

Apparently not.

Let me know when you have read it.

[SolarCross]

Let me know when you have read it.

I have read it now and thought a bit about it and I am sure you won't be surprised to hear that I can see that his arguments are a pile of tosh. Here is why:

1. He claims a screening process is required, which he wants to make sound as expensive as possible, when in fact historically the screening process is more than adequately performed by friends of the duelists for essentially no cost. The screening for consent need not be any more of a burden of a big bureaucracy as any contractual undertaking.

2. Collateral damage is far more manageable for duels as compared with extra-legal attacks not least because the choice of weapons and arena can be organised exactly for that aim. We must always keep in mind that a duel is not an alternative to being peaceful it is an alternative to extra-legal attacks. It is against the qualities of extra-legal attacks that we must compare them with to be fair and true.

3. This is easy. Duelling just has to be classed as justifiable homicide. Under justifiable homicide we already have: self-defence, lawful execution, death caused by a police officer in the course of his duties, deaths caused by soldiers in the course of a war. Also for some countries Euthanasia is also in this category.

4. For some it might be an alternative to suicide, however there is nothing wrong in that. If someone wants to kill themselves they can always do it another way anyway.

5. The government doesn't need to pay for anything and they never did in the past. Moreover they would save money as a substantial percentage of people they imprison for assault and homicide would not need to be imprisoned if they had the opportunity to duel instead. For the government that is a substantial saving.

6. The medical costs will not be more than the medical costs of extra-legal attacks which happen anyway. Since duels are pre-arranged orderly combats as compared with extra-legal attacks so then medical staff can be pre-warned and be available to treat injuries promptly. In the case of extra-legal attacks that does not happen of course.

[Pants-of-dog]

I have read it now and thought a bit about it and I am sure you won't be surprised to hear that I can see that his arguments are a pile of tosh. Here is why:

1. He claims a screening process is required, which he wants to make sound as expensive as possible, when in fact historically the screening process is more than adequately performed by friends of the duelists for essentially no cost. The screening for consent need not be any more of a burden of a big bureaucracy as any contractual undertaking.

2. Collateral damage is far more manageable for duels as compared with extra-legal attacks not least because the choice of weapons and arena can be organised exactly for that aim. We must always keep in mind that a duel is not an alternative to being peaceful it is an alternative to extra-legal attacks. It is against the qualities of extra-legal attacks that we must compare them with to be fair and true.

3. This is easy. Duelling just has to be classed as justifiable homicide. Under justifiable homicide we already have: self-defence, lawful execution, death caused by a police officer in the course of his duties, deaths caused by soldiers in the course of a war. Also for some countries Euthanasia is also in this category.

4. For some it might be an alternative to suicide, however there is nothing wrong in that. If someone wants to kill themselves they can always do it another way anyway.

5. The government doesn't need to pay for anything and they never did in the past. Moreover they would save money as a substantial percentage of people they imprison for assault and homicide would not need to be imprisoned if they had the opportunity to duel instead. For the government that is a substantial saving.

6. The medical costs will not be more than the medical costs of extra-legal attacks which happen anyway. Since duels are pre-arranged orderly combats as compared with extra-legal attacks so then medical staff can be pre-warned and be available to treat injuries promptly. In the case of extra-legal attacks that does not happen of course.

No, this idea that you can compare it to illegal acts is illogical. If people are already willing to break the law and solve their problems violently, then there is no reason to think they would follow the laws of legalised dueling.

You should reread @Victoribus Spolia‘s arguments as to which conflicts would be resolved through dueling.

[SolarCross]

No, this idea that you can compare it to illegal acts is illogical. If people are already willing to break the law and solve their problems violently, then there is no reason to think they would follow the laws of legalised dueling.

Yes there is because legal duelling would allow them to do what they want to do legally at the cost of allowing the target the chance to defend themselves. I am sure for many removing the risk of a prison sentence is worth gaining the risk of allowing their target the chance of winning.

[Oxymandias]

@SolarCross

I have read it now and thought a bit about it and I am sure you won't be surprised to hear that I can see that his arguments are a pile of tosh. Here is why:

Hey, no need to be so mean

I was just explaining why I think dueling, despite being a good idea, isn't good in our current situation.

1. He claims a screening process is required, which he wants to make sound as expensive as possible, when in fact historically the screening process is more than adequately performed by friends of the duelists for essentially no cost. The screening for consent need not be any more of a burden of a big bureaucracy as any contractual undertaking.

You can't use friends or relatives as an alternative to government screening because third party accounts by the duelist's associates are unreliable in a court of law. It complicates things rather than streamlines them because associates have vested interest in taking the side of the duelist and thus makes holding duelists exploiting the dueling system accountable harder.

2. Collateral damage is far more manageable for duels as compared with extra-legal attacks not least because the choice of weapons and arena can be organised exactly for that aim. We must always keep in mind that a duel is not an alternative to being peaceful it is an alternative to extra-legal attacks. It is against the qualities of extra-legal attacks that we must compare them with to be fair and true.

Using dueling as a means to legalize often illegal acts of slaughter isn't a good idea and I have already given examples of how such a system would be disastrous. Simply put, dueling is too open to exploitation by extra-legal entities. Furthermore, collateral damage is collateral damage no matter what it is. A broken vase is still a broken vase whether it's shot with a shotgun or whacked with a sword. No one is going to like their property destroyed in the middle of a duel no matter the weapon.

The issue isn't how much collateral damage is done but rather the fact that collateral damage is an issue at all. If there is any type of potential vandalism of other people's property in your system then it isn't a good one.

3. This is easy. Duelling just has to be classed as justifiable homicide. Under justifiable homicide we already have: self-defence, lawful execution, death caused by a police officer in the course of his duties, deaths caused by soldiers in the course of a war. Also for some countries Euthanasia is also in this category.

That doesn't make it any more better since alot can happen in a duel and most of what the results of a duel is classified as depends on a case by case basis. This requires a huge amount of bureaucracy to operate an already unpopular system.

4. For some it might be an alternative to suicide, however there is nothing wrong in that. If someone wants to kill themselves they can always do it another way anyway.

The point that it's easier to kill yourself in a duel than any other way. Not only is there a legal precedence to it, but you can also die in a justifiable way. You might think this is all fine and dandy, but no society should thrive to make suicide an easy option.

5. The government doesn't need to pay for anything and they never did in the past. Moreover they would save money as a substantial percentage of people they imprison for assault and homicide would not need to be imprisoned if they had the opportunity to duel instead. For the government that is a substantial saving.

They didn't do so in the past because back then governments didn't care about these issues and so didn't the general population. It's different now. Furthermore, duels didn't stop homicide rates from being huge during the periods of time when dueling was legal. There are other reasons why people kill each other other than honor. Honor isn't even a thought to most people when they commit murder.

6. The medical costs will not be more than the medical costs of extra-legal attacks which happen anyway. Since duels are pre-arranged orderly combats as compared with extra-legal attacks so then medical staff can be pre-warned and be available to treat injuries promptly. In the case of extra-legal attacks that does not happen of course.

Like I said, who is going to pay for that? Who is going to pay the wages of that medical staff overseeing that duel? Furthermore, you ignore the logistics of this. What if medical staff is unavailable? What if the nearest hospital is hours away? Would medical staff have to ignore patients in their own hospital to oversee a duel? Why would the general population have to tolerate that? Why should the general population care about something that's blatantly the duelist's fault?

[SolarCross]

Hey, no need to be so mean

I was just explaining why I think dueling, despite being a good idea, isn't good in our current situation.

I called your arguments tosh, so what? That is the implied position of anyone who makes a counter claim in a debate. I was not being personal.

You can't use friends or relatives as an alternative to government screening because third party accounts by the duelist's associates are unreliable in a court of law. It complicates things rather than streamlines them because associates have vested interest in taking the side of the duelist and thus makes holding duelists exploiting the dueling system accountable harder.

There is no need for it even to go to a court and most won't. Only in the case where someone has a complaint that it was not carried out properly could it go to court and in that case it is no different to any activity governed by contract law.

Using dueling as a means to legalize often illegal acts of slaughter isn't a good idea and I have already given examples of how such a system would be disastrous. Simply put, dueling is too open to exploitation by extra-legal entities. Furthermore, collateral damage is collateral damage no matter what it is. A broken vase is still a broken vase whether it's shot with a shotgun or whacked with a sword. No one is going to like their property destroyed in the middle of a duel no matter the weapon.

The issue isn't how much collateral damage is done but rather the fact that collateral damage is an issue at all. If there is any type of potential vandalism of other people's property in your system then it isn't a good one.

This is plainly nonsense. A sword fight in an open field with the property owner's consent is very much less likely to cause collateral damage (actually zero chance) than most sporting events or even pop concerts.

That doesn't make it any more better since alot can happen in a duel and most of what the results of a duel is classified as depends on a case by case basis. This requires a huge amount of bureaucracy to operate an already unpopular system.

No it doesn't and it never did in the past. The legal burden would be comparable to a boxing match.

The point that it's easier to kill yourself in a duel than any other way. Not only is there a legal precedence to it, but you can also die in a justifiable way. You might think this is all fine and dandy, but no society should thrive to make suicide an easy option.

The easy option is get a piece of rope and swing from it, or jump in front of a train. Good luck banning that.

They didn't do so in the past because back then governments didn't care about these issues and so didn't the general population. It's different now. Furthermore, duels didn't stop homicide rates from being huge during the periods of time when dueling was legal. There are other reasons why people kill each other other than honor. Honor isn't even a thought to most people when they commit murder.

It would be better for you to realise that honour is less of a cause of killing and more about doing killing in an honest and upright way. The law as it stands rewards sneaks and ambushers and penalises the honest and upright, this creates a relative reward for dishonourable conduct. Legalising duelling will relatively incentivise honourable conduct over dishonourable conduct.

Like I said, who is going to pay for that? Who is going to pay the wages of that medical staff overseeing that duel? Furthermore, you ignore the logistics of this. What if medical staff is unavailable? What if the nearest hospital is hours away? Would medical staff have to ignore patients in their own hospital to oversee a duel? Why would the general population have to tolerate that? Why should the general population care about something that's blatantly the duelist's fault?

The usual way. If we take your argument to its logical conclusion then people should be banned from doing anything which might mean medical staff have to do the very work they trained to do. Horseriding? Freeclimbing? Boxing? Car racing? Let's just wrap ourselves in bubblewrap and hide under the bed while we are at it, god forbid that a doctor should have to take a break from his golf practice to do a bit of stitching.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes there is because legal duelling would allow them to do what they want to do legally at the cost of allowing the target the chance to defend themselves. I am sure for many removing the risk of a prison sentence is worth gaining the risk of allowing their target the chance of winning.

I doubt it.

Why would you think that?

In the case of the CH terrorists, why would they run the risk of allowing someone to continue insulting Mohammed?

[SolarCross]

[Zag Edit: Rule 2]

[Pants-of-dog]

If you think the terrorists were worried about prison sentences, then you are ignoring their obvious suicide tactics.

They were willing to die to ensure that CH stopped publishing pictures of Mohammed. Do you honestly think they were worried about jail?

[SolarCross]

If you think the terrorists were worried about prison sentences, then you are ignoring their obvious suicide tactics.

They were willing to die to ensure that CH stopped publishing pictures of Mohammed. Do you honestly think they were worried about jail?

Clearly it is an acceptable risk for them, that does not mean however they might not prefer the package of risks that duelling offers if it were available to them. Then again even with duelling as an option particular individuals may still prefer assassination but those will still have assassination as a option even if legal duelling is not an option, thus legal duelling remains a net benefit for all concerned.

[Pants-of-dog]

Clearly it is an acceptable risk for them, that does not mean however they might not prefer the package of risks that duelling offers if it were available to them.

What exactly is an acceptable risk, and for whom?

Also, I just explained why dueling is not preferable for the terrorists. You should address that.

[SolarCross]

I just had a thought on the macro-scale of the fashion of duelling. In the context of Europe duelling was fairly common in the 19th century then in the 20th century it was not noticeable at all. Perhaps paradoxically the 19th century was a comparatively peaceful period with very few wars and quite low levels of mobilisation. The 20th century, called by some The Century of Genocide, was awash with very large scale wars involving unprecedented levels of mobilisation. In the 21st century military technology has advanced such that we can expect mobilisation levels to resemble the 19th century more than the 20th.

Like it or not, homo sapiens are aggressive creatures, we are fighters and hunters. If there are no great wars to sign up for then we will fight our own personal wars. The 20th century could get away with proscribing duels because such trifles barely registered with the enormity of mass murders being waged all across the world. If the 21st century will be more like the 19th century than the 20th then we will need to take that into consideration and adjust our legal framework accordingly.

[Victoribus Spolia]

However, let’s look at how it would play out in reality. I think that in reality, very few legitimate fuels would actually happen. I mean how many people really have an enemy who they genuinely want dead? And for those who do, 99% of the time it’s probably because the other guy broke the law so why not just send him to jail and not risk dying? I do agree that there would probably be a few instances but not very many at all.

I think you might be understating the amount of people who might be interested in it and it may not always necessarily be lethal. Obviously a large percentage of those that engage in homicides or manslaughter as result of gang related violence, or fights-gone-wrong would likely be solved through this. Cases of murder in response to adultery (which is also very common) would likewise be solved through duels, something that is (BTW) not illegal in the west.

This is not to mention the increasing culture of libel and shame; where reputations are ruined and people are shamed via social media. Much of this can be solved through duels as well. I think it would be more popular than you think.

1. You have to ensure that no one was coerced into the duel. This would likely require some sort of formal screening beforehand. This takes people, time, and money.

Why do you think so?

I see no reason to ensure such, if you sign on the dotted line, you are in a duel. If you were blackmailed through entrapment we already have laws for that and that could be appealed to law enforcement before the duel takes place like you would have you been coerced for any other activity.

2. You have to make sure that bystanders, structures, the environment, etc. are not harmed. This might be difficult if the person chose, for example, armored tanks as the weapon of choice. Even with a gun you have to make sure no one innocent
is hit by a stray bullet.

This is not true, each dueler would liable for damages to bystanders just like a circus would be liable if an elephant went on a rampage into the crowd. Fact is, ordinary liability would handle this.

3. You’d have to come up with a way to handle this sort of death legally. Is it considered a murder? An accident? A suicide? These things matter for insurance and legal purposes.

The OP covers this, it would be legal to kill a person under the dueling contract. You assume the risk when you agree to a duel via contract just like you would assume the risk in a contract to go skydiving or shark fishing.

4. Speaking of suicide, seems like a good way to kill yourself. Just challenge someone to a duel and lose on purpose. But we tend to try and prevent suicides so we’d need some sort of screening to make sure that the person isn’t suicidal. Come
to think of it, we’d probably have to screen for all kinds of mental disorders. This costs more time and more money.

Nah, if you want to kill yourself and go out with the glory of a duel, that is your prerogative. If our society can't realize that people who want to cut their penises off and call themselves women are mentally unstable, they sure as hell won't be able to determine if a dueler is off his rocker. I see no reason why screening should be necessary.

If someone is not of right mind to sign a contract, it would fall under the same laws we have that cover this for people who are not of right mind to sign-off on mortgage agreements etc. Someone would need to bring an appeal to the local magistrate who could call for the contract to be suspended until a investigation was made into someone's health.

5. Since we’re spending all this money managing this program now, who’s gonna pay for it? The taxpayers? I don’t really want my taxes to go up so that a couple of idiots with a violence fetish can fight each other. So should we make them pay
for it?

What money? All we are doing is decriminalizing a type of contract. Currently, we criminalize dueling in the west, I am merely suggesting we undue it. This is not a "program" this is the recognition of a contract which would like save the country money as a whole category of murder that costs the country millions of dollars in conviction rates, prison costs, law enforcement costs, and capital punishment costs would disappear.

Plus, this whole thing would likely generate revenue for local notaries, which would stamp the contracts prior to the duel so that they would be legally recognized.

6. How should injuries from the fights be handled, medically? Imagine that Bob challenges someone to a duel, then is stabbed in the gut and the duel is cancelled, then Bob needs medical treatment. Should insurance be required to cover that?

That is up to the insurance company. If Insurance companies don't cover duels, then that is something Bob ought to consider before he engages in dueling now isn't it?

How about if Bob is injured in a way that puts him in a wheelchair for the rest of his life? Should the government spend tax dollars sending him disability assistance? If so, why should taxpayers have to pay for his situation when it’s blatantly his own fault?

I don't think anything about this should be subsidized by the state, and I don't affirm state medical coverage anyway for anyone.

I could go on and on. Now, you may have a very good answer to each of these questions, but my point was to show you just how complicated and messy this would get in a legal sense. Every single one of these things and more would need to be decided. Setting up a program like this would end up costing a massive amount of time, effort, resources, and money.

Its only messy if you think of it as proactively establishing a program; rather, I am arguing it as a simple act of the state in decriminalizing a form of contract. Everything else will fall into place as the market demands.

And what do we get out of it? Is society really any better? I think it’s pretty clear that most people would never take part in this system. Many people will be disgusted by it.

I think the homicide rate (especially for crimes of passion) would drop in a manner that is statistically significant and I also believe our libel heavy society would change into one where unsubstantiated accusations and political correctness become a thing of the past. I also think the rate of adultery, road-rage incidents, slander, defamation, etc., will all drop off to almost nothing. Likewise the nation will see money saved on law enforcement, prisons, etc., and local notaries will actually make money and a whole new micro-economy will grow around the practice with outfitters, arms makers (specifically for dueling), trainers, solicitors, notaries, etc.

So I guess I just ask what’s the justification? Why go to all the trouble of creating a massive, unpopular system that 99.9% of people would never use anyway? It just seems like a complete waste of time to me.

Hopefully I have given satisfactory answers to the above.

[annatar1914]

@Victoribus Spolia

Honestly my friend, I think that the legalization of dueling would be a step in at least one area of life towards Anarcho-Capitalistic Neo-Feudalism, considering what dueling really is...

Dueling, politically speaking, is a roll back of the State's monopoly on violence, and returning it into private hands, more than it is a concern of honor or revenge or anything else considered as a whole.

[Godstud]

Why don't you just have laser-tag duels. No one gets hurt and the matter can be settled.

Yes, dueling is childish.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Honestly my friend, I think that the legalization of dueling would be a step in at least one area of life towards Anarcho-Capitalistic Neo-Feudalism, considering what dueling really is...

Absolutely.

Dueling, politically speaking, is a roll back of the State's monopoly on violence, and returning it into private hands, more than it is a concern of honor or revenge or anything else considered as a whole.

Spot on.

Great remarks as always brother.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Oxymandias where are you??! I answered your damn questions!! GIMME YOUR THOUGHTS!!!

[annatar1914]

@Victoribus Spolia

I'm glad we agree, although we come from different perspectives on this

Absolutely.



Spot on.

Great remarks as always brother.

You and I know what we're about, I just want others here to be as honest, lol

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

I do have my thoughts, I'm just not particularly interested in the subject; at least not enough to debate about it.