KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (09/10/86)
From: Willie Lim <WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Suppose A and B agree to a duel but unknown to A, B had a bet with
X such that if B wins, X will pay B lots of $$$. Suppose A is
killed in the duel, did B and/or X commit a fraud?
No, what's wrong with that? A was not COMPELLED to accept the duel.
And B is a fool to accept any amount of money to do something that has
an even chance of getting him killed.
As I explained before, I seriously doubt there would be many duels
even if they were legal. Behavior depends far more on what is
accepted than on what is legal, as can be seen by the prevalence of
illegal drug use in this country, and its almost total lack in other
countries where it is not acceptable, and as can be seen by the very
low crime rate in Japan, and as can be seen by the almost total lack
of cannibalism in this country. I very seriously doubt cannibalism
would become prevalent if it was legalized.
Can groups get involved in duels?
If every member of the groups agreed. Which is extremely unlikely.
If so, is there any limit on the number and size of the groups?
No. If all members of two groups of one million people each decided
the universe isn't big enough for both of them and they will all duel
to the death of all members of one of the groups, this is perfectly
ok, so long as all members agree and so long as they can guarantee
that no innocent bystanders will be harmed. It is also about as
likely as everyone on Earth being simultaneously killed by lightning
at 2:09 pm tomorrow. Can we stick to debating about plausible things?
Can any citizen or non-citizen have a duel with the president who
just happens to have a gunslinger mentality and loves to have a
duel with anybody?
I can't see such a president getting elected. And since so many
people strongly hate ANY president or candidate, I can't see him
lasting long in any case. He would be dead by the end of the first
primary and would not live to be nominated, much less elected or
inaugurated. Can we stick to debating about plausible things?
According to libertarian fundamentalists, there ain't no way the
government is going to (or be allowed to) fix it.
Well the government, however big or small it may be, represents the
will of the majority. Or at least it ought to. So it is kind of
silly to imagine that most people will kill themselves off acting in
some bizarre fashion given no government control, but that these same
people would have government prevent these same actions.
Smoking is a good example. Smoking IS a bizarre (to me) way in
which large numbers of people destroy their health and kill themselves
off. Any rational PATERNALISTIC government would ban smoking. But
ours is not (totally) paternalistic, but representative. Smoking is
ok precisely because so many people think smoking is ok. How
dangerous or how disgusting it is has nothing to do with it. If large
numbers of people liked to duel or commit cannibalism or defecate on
the street, these behaviors would be sanctioned by our representative
government.
It is unreasonable to mention a behavior that few people find
acceptable and claim that given no government rules against it, it
would become extremely prevalent.
Integration of retail establishments is a perfect example. In the
early 1950s, segregation was considered perfectly acceptable by almost
everyone. As long as this remained the case, government was not going
to pass any laws against it.
Then there was a raising of consciousness in the late 1950s and the
1960s. A number of black leaders were able to convince the majority
of people in this country that segregation was unreasonable. These
leaders led boycotts that caused enormous numbers of establishments to
voluntarily integrate.
Once this was done, THEN the legislators, noticing a major change in
public opinion, and wanting to make themselves out as heroes, and
steal the credit rightly due to the black leadership, passed the
integration laws. These laws never really had much effect, but simply
endorsed the verdict of the majority. If those laws were all repealed
tomorrow, no place would segregate, and if one did, it would soon be
forced out of business by ruinous voluntary boycotts, and rightly so.
But this is NOT the way the integration story is usually presented.
With history books, you must always read between the lines.
Integration is also a good example of how the opinions of the
majority CAN be radically changed in a relatively short time span by
someone who can make a good case that they are RIGHT. 1950 to 1970
was NOT all that long. Might we have a fully libertarian system in 20
more years? Are we perhaps already several years into the transition?
...Keith
[ Are soldiers, policemen and firemen then fools for taking money for
doing something that can get them killed? Why should B be a fool?
Race drivers (especially in the past) make a similar bet. Risking
your life for money is an old honored pursuit. I suspect the
definition of 'fool' is rather subjective... On the subject of
group duels, I think we'd see streetgangs doing this on a regular
basis... If integration laws are as unecessary as you say, why do
black leaders fight so hard to keep them on the books and enact more
powerful versions of them? - CWM]
-------WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (09/10/86)
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU> Can we stick to debating about plausible things? Whether something is plausible or not is a subjective thing. In this case, it is very dependent on exposure to other cultures. There are people who feel that a libertarian system is highly implausible. Would you stop discussing libertarianism just based on their gauge of plausibility? Whether duels will be more common or not depends on the society. In a society like Japan where family honor very often ranks higher than life itself, I can see duels becoming more common. Unlike other things, there is always a loss of at least one life in a duel. Ingenious individuals can devise clever ways of committing murder via duels. Emotional arguments can very easily end up in duels. Gangs can use duels as a way of legalizing their gang wars. Also who is liable when an innocent bystander is killed by the loser in a duel? The central question is whether there will be more laws to control the abuses as a result of removing a law against duels. Willie -------
kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (09/21/86)
From: Willie Lim <WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Can we stick to debating about plausible things?
Whether something is plausible or not is a subjective thing.
No it isn't.
In this case, it is very dependent on exposure to other cultures.
There are people who feel that a libertarian system is highly
implausible.
Those are the people who have not been exposed to other cultures.
They often tend to think of the system in effect when and where they
are as being inevitable and the only possible way to do things. Even
people who study history often fail to realize that it was not just
goods and services and place names that were different, but
individual's ideas of what was possible and of what was proper.
There have been amazing changes in individual's ideas as to what is
proper over just the past 30 years or so, especially regarding social
tolerance. While I like what the present administration is doing
economically, I am not so fond of their attempt to roll back people's
attitudes to the intolerance of the 1950s.
Whether duels will be more common or not depends on the society.
Right. That's just what I was saying.
...Keith
-------wlim@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (09/21/86)
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Whether something is plausible or not is a subjective thing.
No it isn't.
Please elaborate.
Those are the people who have not been exposed to other cultures.
What other cultures should individuals be exposed to in order to
understand libertarianism?
Whether duels will be more common or not depends on the society.
Right. That's just what I was saying.
No, as you said the following in a previous message..
As I explained before, I seriously doubt there would be many duels
even if they were legal. Behavior depends far more on what is
accepted than on what is legal.....
All you said that it is going to be less common in some default
society. You happen to pick one where duels are uncommon. Why not
pick one where duels are going to be more common? Should duels be
regulated in such a society? When is a duel legit in such a society?
Willie
-------
-------KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (09/24/86)
From: Willie Lim <WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Whether duels will be more common or not depends on the
society.
Right. That's just what I was saying.
No, as you said the following in a previous message..
As I explained before, I seriously doubt there would be many
duels even if they were legal. Behavior depends far more on
what is accepted than on what is legal.....
All you said that it is going to be less common in some default
society. You happen to pick one where duels are uncommon. Why
not pick one where duels are going to be more common?
I was speaking of *our* society.
Should duels be regulated in such a society?
No.
When is a duel legit in such a society?
Whenever all parties to such a duel give informed consent.
...Keith
-------WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (10/01/86)
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU> I was speaking of *our* society. Does that mean that libertarianism only works for *our* society? Isn't libertarianism for everybody? WLIM: Should duels be regulated in such a society? KFL: No. WLIM: When is a duel legit in such a society? KFL: Whenever all parties to such a duel give informed consent. Hmm, let me see if I can make you think a little more carefully on this. Suppose McCoy showed in the sheriff's office with a dead Hatfield and a witness X. X told the sheriff that McCoy and Hatfield had a dual and Hatfield lost. It the duel legit? Suppose that X is McCoy Sr. Is it still legit? By the way you still have not answered my question. What other cultures should individuals be exposed to in order to understand libertarianism? Willie ------- -------