[Capitalist]

Why can't dueling be used as an alternative to litigation? I'm sure people would be willing to use it if the law allowed them to do so so that they could save time and money.

[C-Kokos]

I am actually sure that most people would prefer having their ass safe rather spending extra time and money.

Having said that, I believe that it should be legal if between two consenting parties.

[motojackal]

Dispense with justice and settle all arguments by the ablity of the people involved to use weapons, great idea, for the 15th century.

[Boondock Saint]

Why can't dueling be used as an alternative to litigation?

The potential for abuse and corruption within such a system would lead to the devolution of a civilized society.

[Spin]

Dispense with justice and settle all arguments by the ablity of the people involved to use weapons, great idea, for the 15th century.

Except that it would be between two consenting parties. Not all arguments would be settled like that.

[Bricktop]

Dispense with justice and settle all arguments by the ablity of the people involved to use weapons, great idea, for the 15th century.

[Goranhammer]

I would love to see a legal version of the Coase Theorem. If two concerned parties that had no connection to anything or anyone else wanted to mutually, expediently, and honorably determine outcomes, they should be allowed to. I don't care if it's a game of tiddly winks, a belching contest, or a "who has a bigger penis" competition - as long as nobody is hurt/killed or breaking a major law.

Whenever the government interferes with something, everybody loses. Period.

[Boondock Saint]

Hammer ...

I was under the belief that what you suggest is legal, however when the term 'duel' is used it thought it implied an old school 'duel to the death' ...

As far as I know if you and I wanted to play a game of one on one and the winner gets the losers life savings, so long as there are witnesses and a written contract then it is binding.

So a game of tiddly winks could be used to determine an outcome ...

[Clausewitz]

I think this question hinges solely on whether suicide is legal. As Boondock points out, if you have a (civil) grievance against someone you can contractually bargain to not actually pursue that grievance in court and instead play tiddlywinks. The thing preventing dueling as a proper solution is just that we don't much like the idea of being able to relinquish the right to life of ourselves or others.

The old argument (I think it was Mill's) that you cannot be able to surrender something that would permanently eliminate your freedom (life or slavery) I think kind of militates against the notion of dueling.

I would love to see a legal version of the Coase Theorem.

I don't think the Coase Theorem is what you think it is. It's not a "bargaining is good" theorem, it's a "it doesn't matter a bit who you give right X to" theorem. It's only about the law.

[Goranhammer]

I think of it as an "anti-third party" theorem.

[Korimyr the Rat]

I think that a proper practice of duelling, promoted as the "manly" way of handling disputes of honor-- not a replacement for matters of litigation-- would dramatically reduce the incidence of ambush murders, and would generally reduce the incidence of people killing each other over insults.

Promote the idea that shooting someone in the back is cowardly (again), and force people to face each other, and they'll be a lot less inclined towards solving their problems with guns.

It's also a lot easier to hit what you're shooting at when you're stationary at ten paces instead of in the back seat of a moving car, so you're less likely to hit an innocent bystander.

[Captain Hat]

Interesting. Now here's an idea: does anyone suppose that by actually facing your opponent, eye to eye, would decrease the actual chance that someone dies? In the past, most duels ended with both parties leveling their pistols, then firing them off to the side or in the air as neither party wished to be shot.

Is it more brave to not fire your weapon in a duel?