Dueling should be legalized

Many thanks to my opponent. My first observation has been dropped and therefore conceded. As such, extend this across and ignore all of my opponents arguments save util. since they address the practical effect of dueling. I'll address them anyway, but note that the main area of discussion will occur about rights. My opponents view of the state contains one internal contradiction, he argues that the state is broadly: "the agreement of the individuals on the means whereby disputes are settled in the form of laws." The fact is that a state is best defined as a compulsive monopoly of ultimate jurisdiction and force over a given territory, it is not voluntary ("agreement"). My opponents entire argument rests on his believed purpose of the state, and yet the very definition by which he bases this analysis has an internal contradiction. He contends further that the state exists to protect order and security, by which I believe he means to be law and order. So far so good, we agree to this point but here's where we hit a snag: his metric for the establishment of law and order, util., fails to actually uphold order. Util fundamentally rests on the idea that we need to make choices to benefit the greatest number of people[1]. Sounds reasonable, but the thing is util. needs a backdrop of a superior and compelling guiding principle in order to function--that is, if we judge util. solely on its own, it would for example be ok for peoples A and B to come together and scam C since more people benefit than not, or it would allow me to murder my opponent and distribute his organs since more lives would be saved than lost. It would allow 49% to be enslaved in order for 51% to live in luxury. This is not justice, but a moral perversion. Pure util. has no metric to assess the worthiness of individuals claims or an individuals moral worth, because the only thing up for debate is how many people benefit from certain actions. Moreover, since "benefit" is a subjective term, pure util. gives no mechanism to decide who benefits from what, and which benefits outweigh which. You can see that my opponents entire argument unravels. He commits what I call the new-age fallacy, in which the full affects of the modern perversion of justice can be shown, confusing justice with the method that is used to distribute it. Hoppe elaborates on the modern perception of law[2]: "the idea of law as a body of universal and immutable principles of justice has almost disappeared from public opinion and has been replaced by the idea of law as legislation (government-made law)." This is shown in full by my opponents statement: "This is only true if you limit the governments' purpose only to granting rights. " Governments do not grant rights. Rights are not gained by contract and exchange, they are things that are gained by virtue of being a creature with moral worth. The ultimate failing of my opponents argument lies in his very conception of law/rights: an invention of governments designed to benefit people. He gives no analysis on what should/shouldnt be a right other than the maximization of benefit, and indeed why should he? The worldview advocated has nothing of objective value, only subjective benefit analysis. Compare this to my case, in which the non-aggression principle is implied. Since self autonomy allows independent action, actions are morally permissable unless there is a compelling reason to believe otherwise, IE, a violation of property rights. I will elaborate further if needed, but the NAP is the principle, not the method, of justice and since dueling is a form of contractual exchange between individuals, there needs to be a more compelling reason to ban it then my opponent subjectively thinking it's bad. As my advantages show, there are reasons to believe it is good as well. Dueling badMy opponent lists a bunch of reasons why dueling is bad. I can list reasons its good all day just as easily, and he gives no analysis as to why you should take his disadvantages over my advantages. The fact is that whether or not dueling is "good" or "bad" is a matter of subjective interpretation where as whether or not it is a right is a question that has an objective answer. Therefore you need to prefer my case over his, and vote pro. Most of his justifications for maintaining the prohibition are shallowly reasoned, being a few sentences long at most or having virtually no impact like it could cost money. The implicit nature of his arguments are collectivist, which is a flawed viewpoint in that it values humans only in groups and divisions, all in the name of promoting human welfare. However theres no reason to value groups of humans if the indvidual (individualism) is not a unit of inherent value. He values humans as a mean to an end (like, if they die they cant pay taxes), but the end is human welfare...This is an internal contradiction. Further, he assumes all duels are to the death: flawed. Many are to first blood. TURN: He writes: "if killing a person becomes legal, the mere act of homicide becomes socially accepted". He conceded to my honor point (see later) and that killing will happen anyway, so what really becomes socially acceptable is honorable killings. Convsersly, wild lawless street brawls become more condemned, promoting more honor and less crime. Aretaic ethicsThis argument suffers the same problem as his util. point, he says that the state should promote moral development, yet gives no compelling principle as to what IS moral. Further, this contradicts his util. argument: he says "It is of lesser virtue to kill than not to kill", and yet under util. there are times when killing maximizes benefit. For instance, the extermination of murderers benefits over all by discouraging murder, but if killing is always wrong than his position leaves no way to solve the dilema. Both of his points of advocacy advocate competing moral perceptions, and since tere can only be one proper morality, he refutes himself and has no ground to stand on. I win by default. He brings up a lot of rhetoric about how killing is barbaric, andRegardless, there is no conflict with my poisition if the state should promote moral action. Recall that these moral mechanisms require a broader principle, and the NAP allows for consensual dueling. Killing is not always wrong, self defense and capital punishment are morally acceptable slayings for instance, and if an individual chooses to risk their life in a free exchange such as driving a car, riding a rollercoaster, drinking heavily or engaging in a duel the state has no right to violate their self autonomy to protect them from themselves. Advantages Cuts down on violence He drops the argument that individuals who want to fight will fight, but those who wish to fight honorably will do so and therefore not damage the property of others. Moreover, since a duel is a contractual exchange which requires a sound mind, hot headed decisions to engage in combat over petty squabbles will be reduced. He also completely drops the point that rules discourage vengeance. Of course some individuals will seek vengeance from a duel with rules, but the fact is that they are less likely to do so without the perception that the other side "cheated". My advantage stands. HonorConceded. His only response is that declining a duel would lead to dishonor (implicitly conceding that honor increases-vote pro). Compare this to the status quo where the options are violence or violence instead of violence or dishonor. GovernmentHe gives no purpose for the government other than "protecting common interest", a vague and subjective term. Prefer self autonomy over his vague analysis. My opponents arguments fail to justify his position, and even accepting his my advantages outweigh. Vote Pro. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;2. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. Democracy: The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2001. USA. 73. Print.