Duello
I've recently been giving some thought to the matter of duelling. Certainly, it has a romantic feel to it: what 13 year old has not wished to fight a thousand men for the hand of his love? But what is the duel, really—and should it be legal?
To be quite honest, duelling is somewhat childish: what can be sillier than fighting to settle a point? OTOH, it is also rather mature: what can be greater than putting one's well-being on the line? It is a rather sublime mix of the sacred and the absurd, I feel. It is an elemental act, the defence of one's beliefs with one's own body, against another's.
Legally, what is a duel? It is a contractual agreement that the two parties will do their best to harm and/or kill (not all duels are to the death; many may be to first blood), and that each disclaims any protection of the state. Can there be a more basic and fundamental right than to take responsibility for one's own safety? Of course not: to be responsible for oneself is the definition of adulthood. To outlaw the duel—however silly it is—is to make all those subject to the law, slave of the law. And what, after all, is the law's claim on a duellist? That he killed another? Of course not: that other tried to kill him. That he put his own self at risk? Of course not: that is his right (else skydiving would be quite illegal).
Having established that duelling should be legal, can we
show that it is proper? That's a much more difficult question, and I
fear that the answer is in the negative. After all, Thou shalt not
kill
is not exactly a suggestion. Suicide, too, is a sin, and a
duel is either murder or self-murder, even should it not be to the death
(for to wish a man's death is the same as killing him, as we know). But
then, it is entirely appropriate to duel in lieu of civil action,
methinks.
As an example, imagine that a man has killed your brother. Naturally, you wish him dead, and perhaps the civil courts might achieve that end. But perhaps it is an unclear case; they may not after all. One is liable to receive no vengeance for the death of a dear relative, and that is hardly right. But consider that the killer might waive his own right of legal defence and consent to duel you (for whatever reason; there may be many). You have waived your own right to defence by the State; he has waived his own right to defence by the State: how then can the State have any claim on either of you? And while you may kill him, it is only just, for he did kill your brother and he did sacrifice his right to civil protection. The duel is literally outside the law.
Personally, it seems to me that duelling is silly. It's easier and simpler to let the State try a man, find him guilty and execute him. But every man, if he be truly free, is free to disclaim the State's protection of his person and set his own life on the line. It may even be a useful social check on the courts: a man may be found innocent, but refuse to face his accuser on the field of honour, and henceforth be shunned by all men.
The laws against duelling are offences 'gainst liberty, and should be speedily done away with. Duelling, on the other hand, is most likely an offence 'gainst god, and should be avoided.
