[MB.]

But how can you monitor that to assure that the dueling issue isn't taken advantage of?

[Steven_K]

Couldn't you kill someone, get some hazy legal forms, and claim it was a consentual duel? Or would a libertarian society actually have to waste the money and resoures of creating buerocracy to run them?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

These are excellent questions, and ones that I have not thought of. I'm familiar with the nature of dueling in the antebellum south, however, and there was ALWAYS an observer/coordinator to ensure that the duel was conducted honorably and was consensual. Additionally, duels were rarely, if ever, secret affairs. If someone simply killed a man and claimed it was a consensual duel, that would certainly be questionable, and the next-of-kin to the deceased (or, in the case that he had no relatives, the state) would have grounds to investigate.

[Noumenon]

I call it and Eye for and Eye.

And not very productive at that.

That state NEVER has the authority to execute people.

And by your logic there Noumenon, a duel tot he death is perfectly acceptable.

I have no problem with eye for an eye. If someone tries to kill me, I'll try to kill them first. Its what he deserves, don't you agree? Justice would be me killing the would-be murderer before he could do his deed. The wrong would be righted. If somehow the murderer eludes justice and kills me instead, others should be able to give him what he deserves, justice. With my consent of course, since it was me who was wronged. Thats why some sort of will is necessary.

I am not concerned with whats productive when it comes to punishment, I'm concerned about justice. If productive was what matters, why shouldn't we just put lawbreakers into forced labor camps?

The state doesn't have the authority to decide on any punishment in my ideal society. Only the victim does. In an execution, the state would just be carrying out the will of the victim.

Whats wrong with a duel to the death, if both parties are consenting? Its none of my concern, since it doesn't harm anyone besides the two duellists, who choose to risk harm.

[MB.]

and there was ALWAYS an observer/coordinator to ensure that the duel was conducted honorably and was consensual.

Though I'm sure this occured most of the case, there could no doubt be times when someone would take advantage of that rule- and get a one sided arbirator... however, I'll give you the benifit of the doubt on this one.

Additionally, duels were rarely, if ever, secret affairs. If someone simply killed a man and claimed it was a consensual duel, that would certainly be questionable, and the next-of-kin to the deceased (or, in the case that he had no relatives, the state) would have grounds to investigate.

As Steven K pointed out though, by even allowing such an event to take place, one is just asking for trouble- state run investigations, beaucracy to handle the duel itself... it all smacks of government control.

[MB.]

I have no problem with eye for an eye. If someone tries to kill me, I'll try to kill them first. Its what he deserves, don't you agree?

No, I don't agree. Consider: if a murderer has killed two or more people, how can you satisfy both parties? Wouldn't you need to kill the murderer twice to make sure that the equavilant property damage is done to him as is done to those he killed? Obviuisly that cannot be done, so rather, fines could be attributed his estate by the families of the berieved. But, if the murderer specified in his will that the property should go to *his* families, do you not have two conflicting issues?

[Noumenon]

No, I don't agree. Consider: if a murderer has killed two or more people, how can you satisfy both parties? Wouldn't you need to kill the murderer twice to make sure that the equavilant property damage is done to him as is done to those he killed? Obviuisly that cannot be done, so rather, fines could be attributed his estate by the families of the berieved. But, if the murderer specified in his will that the property should go to *his* families, do you not have two conflicting issues?

The murderer's will in that case can be disregarded. Obviously, an aggressor always wants to keep his property. But when he commits an aggression, the victim has a claim on his property. This claim overrides the aggressor's wish to keep his property (or give it to his family).

[MB.]

So what you're saying is that there is a scale somewhere that determines to what extent one can hold onto one's god given rights?

Who determines this scale and how to enforce it?

[Noumenon]

The government, and ultimately the people, must make sure that the punishment does not exceed the crime. In some cases, its obvious. Such as fining someone $10,000 when they stole $5000. But when you start putting a money value on violations of life and liberty, things get more subjective. The government and the people will just have to use their best judgement.

[MB.]

Well the way I see it, that's a pretty clear violation of Libertarian ideals- you're going to just hand more power over to the people like that?

[Noumenon]

The people do have power in a libertarian society. With freedom comes responsibility. The people must hold the responsibility to uphold justice and be vigilant against government usurpation of power. Without that, the libertarian society inevitably collapses. America used to be semi-libertarian. But the American people allowed the politicians to take on powers they were never given by the Constitution, and limited government was thrown out the window. The American people lost their love of true liberty, and for that I blame socialism. Socialism confused the issue by advocating liberal ends of freedom and equality by the use of conservative means of statism and coercion. Classical liberalism virtually died, and Socialism took its place on the Left. If this hadn't happened, I think we would still have a limited, semi-libertarian society. It is still possible, but the people have to first adopt libertarian ideals and be willing to defend them.

[Garibaldi]

Couldn't you kill someone, get some hazy legal forms, and claim it was a consentual duel? Or would a libertarian society actually have to waste the money and resoures of creating buerocracy to run them?

I've thought about this myself, and a consentual contract between or among the duelers would be necessary to prove it not to be murder.

[MB.]

If this hadn't happened, I think we would still have a limited, semi-libertarian society. It is still possible, but the people have to first adopt libertarian ideals and be willing to defend them.

Doesn't the abandonment of Socilaist ideals and the re-acceptance of Libertarain ideals act in a manner counter to the supposed "American brotherhood" theory which ties all Americans together in their struggle for liberty/freedom/civil rights? That *is* a united movement, how could it ever have sucseeded by following libertarian goals?

[Pope Perseus Peptabysmal]

If this hadn't happened, I think we would still have a limited, semi-libertarian society. It is still possible, but the people have to first adopt libertarian ideals and be willing to defend them.

Doesn't the abandonment of Socilaist ideals and the re-acceptance of Libertarain ideals act in a manner counter to the supposed "American brotherhood" theory which ties all Americans together in their struggle for liberty/freedom/civil rights? That *is* a united movement, how could it ever have sucseeded by following libertarian goals?

Sorry for my probably nebulous attempt to answer this but...

American brotherhood wouldn't necessarily be erased by Libertarian ideals. You should in spirit act like brothers to neighbors and citizens without governmental incentive. For example, the May 4 2003 tornadoes mainly obliterated downtown Pierce City, Missouri and a few buildings in Carl Junction, Mo as well as several small communities in between. My mom's boyfriend when he was done helping his family in Carl Junction, he went down south near Pierce City to help his friend clean up his mother in law's property. A few other friends joined them as well. In Carl Junction, Wal-Mart donated massive amounts of foods to anyone who was hit by the tornado. People around town helped eachother clean up after the storms.

So the spirit of brotherhood is because of the will of the people, not the will of the government.