mcgeer@UCBARPA.BERKELEY.EDU (01/20/87)
[CWM on duelling]:
[ OK, so you don't want to worry about the details and
side-effects; I guess I do. I don't quite understand how
people willing to do violence are not dangerous. Living
dangerously usually means its dangerous for other people too.
Bank robbers live dangerously, and so do streetgangs. They
are by nature violent, and I haven't heard of a streetgang
that was able to channel violence ONLY against a selected
other (consenting) streetgang. Usually its old people in
their apartments, and people dumb enough to walk the city
streets. -CWM]
Well, consider. Race car drivers like to live dangerously:
driving any automobile at over 200 MPH is highly dangerous, and is
especially so when many automobiles are driven at these speeds in
proximity. It is also illegal and highly dangerous on the street.
Of course, race car drivers don't race on the street; they
race on the track, and the only danger is to those who race with them
and (I suppose) there is some minimal danger to spectators. In
general, side-effects are small. In fact, one can argue that society
as a whole is safer given Indy-class speedways, if you assume that
some percentage of racers would race on the street if there were no
track.
If you argue that racers aren't violent, consider boxers and
football players, both of whom are extremely violent within an arena
and in general no more or less violent than the rest of us when they
are outside the arena.
If you are concerned that the duel itself poses hazards to
passers-by, it should be a small thing to designate areas for duelling
and ensure that the world is protected from the doings therein. Bear
in mind that many currently-legal activities pose hazards to
passers-by -- automobile-racing and skeet-shooting, to name two. Yet
few would argue that either activity should be banned because those
who walk on to a skeet range or racetrack are in danger.
One more thing before I leave this issue. Two implicit
assumptions in this discussion have been that duels are necessarily to
the death and that those who participate in them are necessarily
ruffians. Neither assumption finds foundation in fact. In fact, in
the age of duelling, most duels did not go the death, only until the
parties were agreed that the duel had terminated. Often this was the
result of an injury that made it impossible for one party to continue,
occasionally not even that. Sigmund Freud, if I'm not mistaken, was
once challenged to a duel. He accepted; as the challenged party, he
could choose place, format, weapons. He chose tennis racquets on the
public courts.
As for ruffians -- well, Alexander Hamilton was a hero of the
Revolution. He was our first Secretary of the Treasury, and
Hamilton's Main Draft formed the core of Washington's Farewell
Address. A great man. Unimpeachably honest, high-minded, idealistic.
He might have been elected President when Jefferson left White House.
But he was killed in a duel by Aaron Burr early in 1802, I believe.
-- Rick.
[ Well and thoughtfully said! If duelling can be confined to arenas,
obviously the danger to bystander/spectator is minimized. Indeed, if
the dueling can be confined to individuals, its ok by me. However,
somewhere along the line we decided that groups of people could duel
one another. When the steelers win a game, they don't go out and
collect protection money from the seahawks territory. Are we headed
toward assisting groups in dominating their weaker neighbors? I don't
know. (Back in Aaron Burr's day, when groups decided to 'duel', it
was generally thought to be an unpleasant thing.) - CWM]
-------