Dueling should be legal - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14549895
Why isn't it legal for two men to knowingly consent to a battle to the death? How do you legally arrange for a fight in which both parties legally agree that death is the outcome?
#14613399
Agent Steel wrote:Why isn't it legal for two men to knowingly consent to a battle to the death? How do you legally arrange for a fight in which both parties legally agree that death is the outcome?

Because a state does not want to lose it's military officers, poets and other valuable specialists, only because they are idiots who cannot solve their problems peacefully.
#14613403
Agent Steel wrote:Why isn't it legal for two men to knowingly consent to a battle to the death? How do you legally arrange for a fight in which both parties legally agree that death is the outcome?

First of all at the time of duels one hardly had the choice: refusing a duel meant turning oneself and his family into social outcasts. You may think it would be different today but this value system was precisely the product of the dueling traditions and it is entirely possible that the same causes would yield the same consequences today.

Therefore it means that duels can be used as a political or business maneuver: hire a skilled duelist to provoke your opponent and he will either be killed or marginalized. In both cases you destroyed him without endangering yourself.

And at some points in history this escalated. For example during the French revolution, before the monarchy was overthrown, duels became more frequent between representatives and were in effect used as a political tool. The nobility and bourgeoisie each started to seek prominent duelists and used them to prune the opposite ranks.

Legalize duels if you want politics, justice and business to be set by swords rather than words.


Did I mention the prospect of having three gang members swear on their honor that the policeman they just murdered was killed in a fair duel he had accepted?
#14614711
At first I thought that the legalization of duels seems reasonable, but Harmattan's reasoning seems convincing. Still, I think the core idea of dueling should not be dismissed at once. In itself, a duel is a final and fatal solution, but if it's consensual the state has no moral legitimacy to judge. However, this is only the concept and the core of the idea, which is acceptable, but just as Harmattan wrote, in practice duels are not really what duels are meant to be.
User avatar
By kobe
#14614765
The state has every right to do so, I have no idea why you think that it wouldn't. My question is what exactly does dueling someone accomplishes for society or the individuals themselves? Net negative all around. So no, dueling is a testosterone-fueled, machismo fantasy.
#14614780
kobe wrote:The state has every right to do so, I have no idea why you think that it wouldn't. My question is what exactly does dueling someone accomplishes for society or the individuals themselves? Net negative all around. So no, dueling is a testosterone-fueled, machismo fantasy.


The state has the right, because the state itself determines what is rightful, but lacks the moral basis for judging two people who have enough bravado (or stupidity, depends on point of view) to engage in a duel. Ideally, a duel is both consensual and fair. If the state was founded upon a principle of non-aggression then it would have moral basis to judge and ban duels, but since the state itself - in its nature - is violent and aggressive, and even more, it claims a monopoly on violence which is hypocritical at least, it has no moral legitimacy. Of course for example: vendettas, and even duels can be somewhat disgraceful phenomenons of our civilization, (just as Harmattan proved it) but what stops people from dueling should be reason and empathy, not a hypocritical state and its mostly ad hoc laws against violence. (Or more percisely, some kinds of violence which the state does not support.)
User avatar
By kobe
#14614805
Well, sure, the state is not utilizing an absolute and universal method to derive their morality, because no such mechanism exists in the universe. Morality is not absolute in the first place. Therefore searching for a universal moral right is in itself a fruitless, at best subjective task.

The fact that you admit the state has a right to establish its own conduct based on its monopoly on violence is a good starting point for this discussion though. As no non-aggression principle has ever been put into practice, we only have our practical considerations, which are based on the historical application of the dueling system. Historically, it has been a corrupt institution that has been successfully reformed by its removal. Given that the elimination of the system produced overwhelmingly positive outcomes while the system itself produced overwhelmingly negative outcomes, we can see why it was eliminated and why we should not bring it back.

In any case, deriving the policies of governance from an arbitrary principle does not make sense if your issue is that the government does not rule from a higher moral authority. Neither would your government, you merely prefer the principle as a foundation for your morality. Unfortunately for your argument, preferences do not reveal universal moral law.

edit: Oh ya, one last point: I fail to see how telling someone "I want to kill you because of a perfectly legal action you took that insulted my honor" is not in itself a violation of the non-aggression principle. After all, it is still a threat of physical violence, which is legally assault since you intend to back it up.

edit 2: Under your conception of dueling laws, would I be able to go up to the owner of a company I don't like and challenge him to a duel? If I failed, could I wage a propaganda campaign against his company talking about how much of a pussy he is for not accepting my challenge? Could I continually challenge him in perpetuity until he gives in? If you say no to the last one, what other regulations are you imposing on this dueling system? Isn't imposing regulations a failure to comply to the non-aggression principle? If it's harassment, what other types of behavior fall under those laws? Would we have to set up regulations to clarify what harassment is? Aren't we really just saying that the current system doesn't do what you want it to, and that your moral system is as arbitrarily derived as all the rest?
#14614817
kobe wrote:The fact that you admit the state has a right to establish its own conduct based on its monopoly on violence is a good starting point for this discussion though. As no non-aggression principle has ever been put into practice, we only have our practical considerations, which are based on the historical application of the dueling system. Historically, it has been a corrupt institution that has been successfully reformed by its removal. Given that the elimination of the system produced overwhelmingly positive outcomes while the system itself produced overwhelmingly negative outcomes, we can see why it was eliminated and why we should not bring it back.


We are arguing about different things. I admitted before that historically the institution of dueling was not as fair as it should have been, and that arguments should be resolved in different, preferably non-violent ways. What I tried to say is that philosophically the state lacks the moral foundation. And like you said, there's no universal moral principles, but I was not talking about that. I started from and individualistic basis: if there are two adults who consensually agree on a terms of a duel, there's no coercion. If there's no coercion, and both parties acknowledge the possible consequences, I fail to see the moral basis which upon the state intervines in a private problem resolving of two people.

kobe wrote:edit: Oh ya, one last point: I fail to see how telling someone "I want to kill you because of a perfectly legal action you took that insulted my honor" is not in itself a violation of the non-aggression principle. After all, it is still a threat of physical violence, which is legally assault since you intend to back it up.


Is it? The keyword in consent. If the other person doesn't agree but there is still lethal violence, then it is a murder, not a duel.

I'm not saying dueling is something good. I don't even think it should be legalized because it would lead to things Harmattan described earlier.I think that the concept of a duel is based on consent and as such, the state has no moral legitimacy to intervine. (In this case, a duel is like consensual sex, and a murder is like rape. Pretty different.) However, I do not argue that in practice, duels were not what they are meant to be, and it was maybe even good to outlaw dueling. But what can be good from a practical viewpoint can be still philosophically illegitimate.

(I hope that made sense, honestly I'm starting to get confused but maybe just because English is not my native language)
#14614828
Dueling should be legal, public, and done by hired professionals. Attractive professionals. Popcorn should be free.
By Decky
#14614830
Dueling is legal, have you never been outside a pub on Friday night? Obviously effete middle class homosexuaists don't duel anymore but working class people still do as they still have honour.
User avatar
By kobe
#14614846
u wat m8

Princip wrote:We are arguing about different things. I admitted before that historically the institution of dueling was not as fair as it should have been, and that arguments should be resolved in different, preferably non-violent ways. What I tried to say is that philosophically the state lacks the moral foundation. And like you said, there's no universal moral principles, but I was not talking about that. I started from and individualistic basis: if there are two adults who consensually agree on a terms of a duel, there's no coercion. If there's no coercion, and both parties acknowledge the possible consequences, I fail to see the moral basis which upon the state intervines in a private problem resolving of two people.

Right, it has no moral basis to do so because no moral basis for anything exists anywhere in the universe. Yes, you are talking about universal moral principles (the "non-aggression principle" that libertarians love). If you do in fact acknowledge that no universal moral principles exist, then the state does have a right to intervene where it sees fit based upon its monopoly on violence. It's not so much a moral basis as it is based on the principle that might makes right.

Is it? The keyword in consent. If the other person doesn't agree but there is still lethal violence, then it is a murder, not a duel.

I never said there was a murder. I said that under current laws that if you threaten someone with lethal violence, that's illegal in itself. How do you prevent people from using a duel to get away with threats of non-consensual violence under the guise of consensual violence?

I'm not saying dueling is something good. I don't even think it should be legalized because it would lead to things Harmattan described earlier.

Again, if you're just picking and choosing arbitrary laws and not basing your laws on the non-aggression principle, then the basis of your state is that it has a monopoly of violence. Therefore you're no different than the status quo. All I'm trying to show is that your ideology is not based on some nebulous universal moral law but an arbitrary set of beliefs that is no different than any other liberal's arbitrary set of beliefs except in the sense that you believe you derive yours from a universal law (again, you don't, no such mechanism actually exists).
#14614847
Agent Steel wrote:Why isn't it legal for two men to knowingly consent to a battle to the death? How do you legally arrange for a fight in which both parties legally agree that death is the outcome?
- A free society is built on the freedom to enter into contracts. I see no reason why to people cannot enter into such a contract.
- Or, there's always paint guns too.
User avatar
By fuser
#14614894
Decky wrote:Dueling is legal, have you never been outside a pub on Friday night? Obviously effete middle class homosexuaists don't duel anymore but working class people still do as they still have honour.


Indeed.
#14614898
Agent Steel wrote:How do you legally arrange for a fight in which both parties legally agree that death is the outcome?


It might not be quite legal per se, but perhaps enter into a gentleman's agreement, whereby the duel is had, and the victor merely claims self-defense? It'd be technically accurate. You wouldn't need to plant the gun on the person, as they'd already have it. If you took a bullet wound, all the better from a plausibility standpoint.

So long as there are no loose lips. If the police learn it was indeed an organized duel, the police would probably find something to charge you (or him) with. So just have your duel, winner calls the cops, hey, it was self-defense.

Also, make sure the weapons are legal.

The venue might be problematic.

That's something you'd have to think over.
#14614901
kobe wrote:You clearly have no idea what per se means. Hint: it does not mean "not at all". Because that is not at all legal.


I do know what it means, and that isn't what I meant. I was making a joke about a way to maybe bend the rules (skirt the law). I wasn't truly encouraging such a thing, and am pretty sure it'd be a recipe for prison. Everyone seemed to ignore his second question.
#14614935
Meh. Ok, kobe, you convinced me. I shouldn't have started to play advocatus diaboli in the first place, (just to grab the opportunity to criticize the hipocrisy of the state) especially because I don't even agree with the institution of dueling. And the fact that my reasoning was more about the theory, the concept of a duel not the reality of it didn't do me much good either.
#14617752
Why are duels forbidden?

- Because they might be used as a political tool
- When two parties decide to set out their differences by the sword, there's no arbitre. There's no fair game for the weaker duellist.
- It is a nuisance for society as a whole: Imagine if that became a trend? Would you dare take your girlfriend to a bar? How would you solve certain problems? Who determines what an "insult" is? Who regulates if it's a duel, or premeditated murder? Planned-suicide? Robbery? What is a "duel"? Who would decide upon these matters after the "duel" was carried out and one of the parties were dead? These are very foggy words if we take in account they'll decide on whether people live or not.
- Is life a disposable good? Can I go to a doctor and tell him he can kill me for the sake of science, if he wants? Can I go to a doctor and tell him: Hey, carry on with your extremely dangerous operation on me, nevermind if I die... Just tell everybody I told you it was okay. Of course.
- Imagine a bank: Can't you pay your debts? Fine. A professional duellist is on it's way. Pay your debts or die, please.
- For every quarrel, every problem, duel would be a first option, what role would the State have?
- If I call a police officer instead of duelling?
- Is duelling a contract? A contract requires free will, now which men will freely decide "to put his life" in game? (Apart from two dements of course, but then again do they have free will?) Won't there be a deficit in free will to contractuate?
- "A man challenges me to a duel, I don't want it because I don't want to die: But then I'll be socially humiliated... so I HAVE to duel". How is this a contract?

Assuming it is a "contract". Between two goods, freedom of contract and public security, the state must chose first which good is abstractly more important. Abstractly it is public security, concretely it might be the freedom of contract, though freedom of contract is very unlikely to weigh higher in this concrete case: People can set up their differences in safer and more effective ways.

Basically: A duell could be legalized, if it represents some sort of contract. A contract requires a certain amount of free-will. A duell is generally not free-willed, therefore hardly a contract.

If it's a contract, then it's protected by freedom of contract. The freedom of contract would come in conflict with the general public security. If we acknowledge the freedom of contract in this case, public security will be more endangered than freedom of contract would be, should we not recognize the legal basis of a duel.

He is even less coherent than Alex Jones. My gu[…]

Yes, and it did not order a ceasefire. Did you ev[…]

@Rugoz You are a fuckin' moralist, Russia could[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

A new film has been released destroying the offici[…]