Those who wish are permitted to fight in the octagon until blood pours from their faces. But, for some reason, people are discouraged from dueling to the death. I think there's got to be some kind of violation of civil liberties there.
I propose that two people who wish to engage in mortal combat to the bitter end (i.e. a duel) should be able to go down to the courthouse and sign papers detailing where and when this duel will take place. Further, I think that the signing should be witnessed by one additional person per party and notarized by a public notary. Each person would bear a copy of the document to prove their innocence of any charge of murder covered therein, namely, that any death befalling either participant stemming solely from actions of the other participant would be insufficient grounds for criminal charges of any kind. A public servant would be assigned to each duel to ensure that no laws of dueling were broken (obviously, there would be rules to protect the public).
I think that this might actually cut down on gang violence because it would legalize organized gun battles. It might also cut down on enraged killings, giving at least one party time to agree to a duel and then flee to the Cayman Islands.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
People act to kill other people within civil society violate the basic rules of that society. They should not be encouraged. Life is not a video game.
In a free society, people should have the right to kill themselves or risk killing themselves if they so choose. Many people risk their lives everyday in other ways. You can legally race motorcycles, climb mountains, dive off cliffs, and skydive from airplanes. It's your life, if you don't have control of it, then what do you have?
BTW, most duels historically were not to the death. They usually ended once someone was wounded. In some cases they fought until one fighter was too hurt to continue, but most of the time, both combatants lived.
The asinine concept that a free country permits total freedom is, of course totally moronic. Any society imposes limits that are agree upon to provide some basis of decency and public order. The idea that murder should be legalized by mutual agreement is a slippery slope that will end in death squads and general mayhem. Brutality popularized by naive westerns and vicious video games seems to have twisted some minds into rather nasty fantasies.
"Any society imposes limits that are agree upon to provide some basis of decency and public order." Uh, yeah! That's what I'm proposing. A licensing process is not the same as doing whatever you want with no recourse.
I'm not suggesting you should be able to go out an shoot whoever you are angry with; the other guy has to want to shoot you too and you have to actually wait for the courthouse to open, go down there together, sign a document, wait until the prescribed day, and perform the duel in a manner that enforces safety for non-participants and standards of ethical conduct.
I'm sorry you don't like the concept, but it seems to me that you've made a lot of wrong assumptions about the inspiration for this idea without even considering the content.
I have considered the implications and any formal license to kill aside from police or military situations is inherently destructive of general civility. The mental set which would approve of this is not within what is considered sane. Guns or equivalent killing instruments are highly restricted in a society that is set to protect its members from people with the concept that another human can be killed under normal conditions with legal accord. If the idea is ever put into play there will no doubt be commercially set up hit men to act as proxies, there will be revenge situations set up to create further killings as now exist in more primitive societies. Believe me, this is not a chain reaction you would like to set going.This is a very ferocious beast to set loose in society.
sand, as I said, only death befalling either participant stemming solely from the dueling participants would be valid. Hiring a hitman to stand in for you would violate the license since person A signed up to duel with person B, not an unknown person X. If person B and X conspired to dupe person A and ended up killing him, both B and X would be guilty of murder and be punished to the fullest extent of the law, hence the public servant overseer qualification.
"The mental set which would approve of this is not within what is considered sane." That's the kind of knee-jerk reaction I'd expect from someone who is incapable of thinking outside the box. I consider myself sane. I'm pretty sure I'm sane. I'm pretty sure I could be proven sane in a court of law. I'm pretty sure that the average person on the street could be quickly convinced of my sanity. But I digress, as even insane people are not prevented from voting under most circumstances. But, differing opinions do not constitute insanity. Further, it is clear that you havn't yet attempted to gain an understanding of my idea. It sounds like you stoped reading just as soon as it violated the preconcieved notions and spoonfed assumptions you operate under.
Thanks for your input.
Just consider what is going on in Bagdad at the moment when one killing cascades into an uproar of blood. If you accept that as sanity, I would rather live far away from you and your bloody ideas.
You must be a libertarian.