Political Theory

Re: Dueling

ama gi — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 04:44:31 GMT

GilesStratton:

Schaden13:
If two people consent, can they duel eachother to death?

Yes, but they're going to have a hard time getting insurance.

Why would they want insurance?

Somebody who will willingly walk within an inch of his life is not somebody who cares about insurance.

Re: Dueling

majevska — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:27:09 GMT

GilesStratton:

Schaden13:
If two people consent, can they duel eachother to death?

Yes, but they're going to have a hard time getting insurance.

But chicks dig guys who win duels so the practice will still be widespread.

Re: Dueling

hayekianxyz — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:20:52 GMT

Schaden13:
If two people consent, can they duel eachother to death?

Yes, but they're going to have a hard time getting insurance.

Re: Dueling

nhaag — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:48:43 GMT

In principle I have to agree with you. Yet, you can not "not control" yourself. Hence selling yourself is impossible. You can sell your labor, but you can not sell yourself as an entity. Nothing paternalistic here I think.

Re: Dueling

M-la-maudite — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:35:03 GMT

If individual rights are spheres of liberty and powers to control what can(not) be done with your own self and what is under your jurisdiction (ie, your property and whatever else you can rule over by contract, etc.), there is nothing to could be prevented in the said sphere of power as long as you agreed to it. Hence, rigths are by definition at the disposal of their holder, who can decide upon their (lack of) enforcement and waive them at will. So, you can duel, ask someone to maim / kill you, sell yourself in parts or as a whole, etc. etc. - you just need to have freely agreed to it for it to remain consistent with the NAP.

The alternative position accepts some (more or less extended) form of paternalism as legitimate, which negates both free will and the core idea of libertarian rights. Granted some theorists (eg, JS Mill) do make an exception for slavery; however, they do so on the basis of either an emotional or an objectivist ontological appeal. IMHO, this violates strict voluntarism and thus, if you claim to be a libertarian, logical consistency.

Re: Dueling

Mark B. — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:21:12 GMT

Dueling, provided both parties consent and both parties adhere to the mutually agreed upon ground rules of the duel, should absolutely be legal.

Re: Dueling

Solomon — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:39:19 GMT

Schaden13:
If two people consent, can they duel eachother to death?

I have had this debate before and have seen a mix of answers.

Some say it is ok becuase both people consented, others say that people can not take or give a Right.

Here's a good rule of thumb: if two people consent to do something which involves their property and no one else's, then it is always - ALWAYS - permissible.

Schaden13:
A similar question would be can a person sign himself into slavery?

If slavery means forfeiting one's self-ownership to another then I would say it is not even possible. On the other hand if slavery merely means selling the totality of one's labor for nothing and permitting various sorts of (what would usually be called) maltreatment, then yes, it is entirely conceivable.

Slavery in the former meaning of the word differs from duelling in that an ownership title is transferred, whereas in duelling you just die.

Re: Dueling

Daniel Waite — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 06:47:41 GMT

Andrew:
Sort of. But suppose this in an impossible situation. 4 people decide to duel together side by side. One man shoots the other man's opponent. would accident matter? or would only intent to violate contract constitute murder.

Its a dumb hypothetical, but in the strictest sense of principal, is it murder, or a violation of NAP

Yes. I forgot which book it was but one of the Austrian author's describes a mildly similar situation in which a shooter accidentally shoots the wrong person in self-defense. The shooter is considered an aggressor and the victim can seek restitution.

Re: Dueling

majevska — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 06:23:32 GMT

Dueling is badass.

Re: Dueling

Andrew — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 02:04:55 GMT

Sort of. But suppose this in an impossible situation. 4 people decide to duel together side by side. One man shoots the other man's opponent. would accident matter? or would only intent to violate contract constitute murder.

Its a dumb hypothetical, but in the strictest sense of principal, is it murder, or a violation of NAP

Re: Dueling

Bostwick — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 01:52:39 GMT

Andrew:
suppose a whole group of individuals contract a duel with another group of individuals. Every contract is only between two people. For some reason there is not enough space so each person decides to group with one set of participants. In the chaos, a man shoots someone that he did not legally contract with to duel with

Are you joking?

Re: Dueling

Andrew — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 01:43:53 GMT

suppose a whole group of individuals contract a duel with another group of individuals. Every contract is only between two people. For some reason there is not enough space so each person decides to group with one set of participants. In the chaos, a man shoots someone that he did not legally contract with to duel with. Can this man be charged with murder?

Re: Dueling

Bostwick — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 01:24:54 GMT

Boxing match or duel: mutual combat.

Who is the victim of this duel that has the right to ban it? There is none.

Re: Dueling

liberty student — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 00:34:20 GMT

Scott Jefferies:

nibbler491:
there's no possible way you can give your will to someone welse.

you clearly have never met an obama supporter.

Now that is some funny stuff.

Re: Dueling

Eric — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 00:24:06 GMT

Scott Jefferies:

nibbler491:
there's no possible way you can give your will to someone welse.

you clearly have never met an obama supporter.

lmao