KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (11/20/86)
[ I presume the nearby buildings and people in those buildings
will have given their consent too, eh? Wouldn't this sort of
thing favor the side with the biggest battalions? The smaller
streetgangs would be forced to accept duels (and be anhilliated)
or lose the dispute that brought about the duel. The larger the
streetgang, the more difficult it is to live near them. Is this
something we want?
All I am saying is that if two individuals are stupid enough to duel
to the death, that is their own business. Similarly with groups of
people. I am not saying that it is ok to hurt other people, to damage
other people's property, to "draft" anyone, or to fight with children.
I really can't get too excited about this issue. If someone is
willing to do something that will result in an even chance of death, I
can't get too dismayed if they are sent to jail for it. But I do
believe they should not be sent to jail for it. It is a strange sort
of logic that says people must be locked in a dangerous place and must
be killed if they try to leave, for the crime of living dangerously!
...Keith
[ 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've never seen 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]
-------