Vox, under your plan, would I be allowed to hire someone to stand in for me in a duel?
If not, then why not? And be consistent with your original argument for legalizing duels…
Since it’s a hypothetical, I’ll offer some modifications that would make it something that I could see happening.
Waiting period is a minimum of 7 days and both parties must undergo psych evaluation.
There would need to be one designated location for dueling. I offer the Houston Astrodome. We’re not using it for anything else these days.
No firearms or projectile weapons of any kind. Only two types of combat: unarmed or single stick. If you’re gonna duel, it’s gonna get personal.
Withdrawal is an option up until the moment the referee starts the match. Once the match begins, the only way it ends is by the agreed-on method; you cannot surrender.
Now we have something we can work with.
Giving birth? It has a casualty rate of 100% even if the eventual death is postponed for several decades in most cases.
Now it gets unfair. There are going to be people in good shape with a knowledge of martial arts who know they can offer or accept challenges with virtual impunity because their opponent is physically outclassed. But Colonel Colt (unlike God) made all men equal. Pretty much anyone can pull a trigger. Which means everyone who steps into the arena would have some reasonable chance of getting killed.
I’m not wrong: you just didn’t read what I wrote carefully enough. Historical duels of the type you describe were, by definition, not “duels to the death” or “fatal duels”, which is the kind of duel I explicitly (and repeatedly) specified. In a duel to the death, the fatality rate is, by definition, at least 50%.
The OP made it quite clear that he was advocating a variety of participant-determined duelling rules, which could include continuing combat until at least one of the participants was dead. That’s the kind which I think it’s ridiculous to advocate legalizing.
I also think it would be dumb to re-legalize the kind of “might-be-fatal” duels that you’re talking about, but that’s somewhat separate from the category of necessarily-fatal dues. As for physical contests that deliberately stop short of inflicting death or disabling injury, as I and others have pointed out, those are mostly legal already.
Perhaps I missed it in an earlier post, but how “impartial” do people think the referees would be? Given the potential for palm greasing, it seems this would just become a way for the rich to murder the poor.
- Freedom. I think that’s what the OP was getting at: just as some think we should be free to smoke pot or visit a prostitute, so we should be free to engage in consensual death matches.
Obervations:
2) Lots of gang violence is motivated more by territorial/criminal concerns than anything else.
- Neither drugs, pay for sex nor dueling is a human right, so talk of freedom is overblown.
Still, it’s not a bad OP. The key consideration I see is that the extension of freedom involved in permitting dueling is small, while the disadvantages are huge for a society that values human life and the connections that families, friends and citizenry form among one another. Now one could extend this analytic framework to certain victimless crimes. But empirically the imbalance between harm and benefit would not be as pronounced in the context of prostitution or drugs.
I understand that fewer disputes are settled in the parking lot now. We live in a litigious society, sometimes for the better.
I’m not sure about this. Wikipedia cites a number of state laws against dueling and it appears to me that they would cover first blood only, as well as the more extreme (and historically rarer) versions.
I am pretty sure that in any state, and any other country for that matter, I could rent time in a gym’s ring and boxing pads, and me and someone else could go out at it to settle a matter of honor. Besides boxing and its variants (kick boxing, MMA, etc.), we could go to a fencing sally, a laser tag arena, or a paintball range. If you want to go more old school, you could find a local SCA gathering and try padded broad swords, or even jousting at a ren faire. Or if you are broke, you can arm wrestle, leg wrestle, play uncle, or wrestle in your back yard, all without breaking any laws. The only time the law comes into play is if you are using a weapon that is considered to be inherently deadly (sharp blades, hard clubs, any type of gun that shoots real bullets).
As long as there is no reasonable expectation of death or serious bodily injury, the law doesn’t care. So the only point of this debate about legalizing duels has to concern duels that have a good chance of death or grievous bodily harm.
Jonathan
Excuse ME !
Have even heard of Wales or New Zealand?
But to address the O.P. I think that it wouldn’t be a bad idea.
I think that societal implications would be be a much higher standard of politeness in society,Dutch courage “Walter Mitty” type fights would go right down for a start.
I think it would have to be pistols only as as stated before those who could afford the training or who had the right physique would have an un fair advantage over their opponents .
Also those who required it would be given a basic "duelling"only firearms lesson before hand.
There would also have to be a law for those who incite others for what ever reason to duel ,like some women who enjoy getting blokes into fights because they get a thrill out of it.
If guilty then YOU fight.
Also I would make it a rule that the participants must continue to take shots until one or the other is either seriously wounded or dead.
I’m not being callous here,its to stop people duelling for spurious reasons in an attempt to impress other peole.
The biggest problem with dueling is that you create a society where it’s permissible to provoke, disrespect, and humiliate others as long as you’re confident in your dueling abilities. Abusive boss? Irritating neighbor? Hey, we have a dueling system, either put your life on your line to kill the problem, or stop whining. Plus, it undermines the whole legal system. Annoying lawsuit? Make sure the judge and your opponent both know that you’re an accomplished duelist. Who’d convict you? Facing a messy divorce? Dueling for spouses!
Nope. Dueling and feuding are horrible solutions that are acceptable only in third-world countries that don’t have mature legal systems or law enforcement.
2 men enter, one man leaves. Thunderdome.
I guess I need to start carrying around a glove so I can go smack people saying ‘I challenge you to a duel!’.
Or maybe not. Its a silly idea.
History shows that while dueling was in existence throughout much of European history, its major growth eras were periods where the duelist’s country was strong, but its monarch was weak.
The reason we shouldn’t re-introduce dueling is for the same reason people finally started to shy away from it in the late 19th century: When the populace at large began to realize that any drunken, violent, utter-failure-in-life could make a total mess of another man’s life all in the name of some silly twisted concept of ‘gentlemen’s honor’.
In particular case (I forget the names) in the middle 19th century a rogue of a Southern boy decided he had been offended by a newspaper writer. They fought a duel, and both survived. But the rogue boy decided he wanted more and some folks happily printed his challenge letters. A couple more duels were planned, but events prevented them from happening. Somewhere, the author wised up (this was over a period of years) and decided he wasn’t going to duel. After yet another challenge from the rogue, he replied in a newpaper saying in effect: “I have a loving family, a lovely home, kind friends, and a life. Why should I risk that going against a f***tard with no job, whose limited family hates him, has no friends, and will likely drink himself to death within a year? Explain why I should make a risk making my wife a widow over some drunken braggart’s concept of honor?” (paraphrased, of course, but I don’t have my books with me)
That letter started getting people to realize that their lives could truly be at the beck and call of total “nothing-to-lose” types.
Quoth Lust4Life:
So it’s not possible to train to be particularly good with a pistol, or to have a natural aptitude for shooting?
I agree with Cosmic Relief and Mr. Miskatonic. A dueling society is not a more polite society, it’s a society with a harsher system of enforcing who must kowtow to whom. In modern society, it’s lowlifes who are willing to kill someone because he “dissed” them. A system in which unless one is willing to put his life on the line he has to shut up and slink away in head-bowed shame to be the other party’s bitch, may be fine in the Max Security cellblock, but we don’t want to live there.
Dueling died off not only because the governments outlawed it as a bad form of conflict resolution when there are courts available, but also because, thankfully and to its credit, Western society evolved to realize that refusing a challenge was a sane, reasonable, civil thing to do.
Dueling also is essentially a social game of chicken. The people who would insist on dueling are the people who are the most fanatic about their beliefs - but that fanaticism says nothing about the quality of the beliefs themselves. Fanacticism is generally a barrier to progress. Society is more likely to advance when people are open-minded and willing to consider new ideas even if they end up disagreeing with them.
That’s what I was thinking. A clever and manipulative person could “engineer” someone else into a “dispute of honor”. If they already know that they are the better swordsman or pistol shot, they are setting up a murder, and it’s all legal under the “code of honor”.
It’s best to leave disputes up to the courts, or a punch on the nose. Those at least aren’t fatal.
I’d actually argue that the reason de facto dueling is the norm in criminal populations is precisely because they don’t have access to legal redress. You might argue over which is the chicken and which is the egg, but if “lowlifes” had a way to settle things without violence you might be surprised how often they used it.
One thing I think is interesting is how people think that the society we have now, where threatening or actually carrying out a lawsuit is so much better than physical violence for settling disputes. It still ruins lives, reputations, and livelihoods, an utter bastard can triumph over a righteous man, and wealth and power matter much more than the truth in a dispute. It’s almost as capricious, but involves more money, and necessitates third parties beyond a second and a referee. Admittedly, it doesn’t usually end in someone’s death, but that’s about the only thing a lawsuit has got going for it over dueling. As long as you have the strength of your convictions and enough money, you can hound another person to utter ruin.
Hardly. The legal system is nowhere near as capricious as a duel. The legal system is the embodiment of the standards of the reasonable community. It’s not two people trying to outshout or outshoot each other one-to-one. It’s those two people both trying to persuade neutral third parties of the justice of their position. The blind fanaticism which is an advantage in a dueling sytem is a disadvantage in a legal system which is based on getting people to agree with you.
Try owning a small business sometime. My parents once had to spend a few thousand dollars defending themselves from a lawsuit brought by someone who was not a customer and literally stubbed a toe on a piece of broken sidewalk outside the strip mall where our shop was. They did not recoup their legal fees.
That’s one of several frivolous lawsuits brought against them in their time owning the business. Not once did they lose a case, because they were pretty honest and tried to treat everyone fairly and well, but it cost them every single time. When a simple challenge loses you money in legal fees, I’d call that pretty capricious.