Dueling should be legalized

== Counter: Social Good / Sapient Life ==Your argument in regard to this only works if there is a Slippery Slope argument to be made. In reality, modern democracies use the 'rational basis' principle I outlined in order to perform a reasonable measure between an individual's liberty and the marginal rights of others using the Harm Principle (discussed in (3) and further below). This philosophical tug-of-war is one of the primary battlegrounds for all the laws and regulations in modern democracy. Where one draws the line is a matter of much debate, but the point is that so long as the state values individual liberty, the risk that they will tumble down the 'slippery slope' of collectivism is nil thanks to the very construction of the legal basis for treading on liberty.The second part of this relies on an inaccurate reading of my argument, best as I can make out. I did not, at the time, have the legal terms I needed to be more clear. Regardless, the state is not equipped to judge on a case-by-case basis whether duels should be 'approved' based on the duelists' relative merits, and that IS a slippery slope which precedent we should not like to set.== Counter: Suicide/Self Harm ==You are correct about suicide and its legality. I was working on old information. I withdraw that comparison, at least partially. The term of art I was groping for is, upon further research, "Legal Paternalism" (1). I'm hoping this doesn't step on the 'No new arguments' rule to introduce a new term, but it's the legal philosophy which truly justifies my No Self Harm argument. To rephrase my argument: The state has a legitimate interest in stopping you from doing retarded shite that will harm or kill you. If you're too macho to ride a motorcycle with a helmet on, the state, like a parent, -knows better- and may coerce you into being safe, in loco parentis. Much like a parent, if you want to engage in this risky behavior, you'd best come up with a convincing argument for why you should be allowed. To cite (and paraphrase) my source, the state applies three tests:A) Are you trying to pull some harmful shite no sane person should want to do on its own? (Dueling: Yes.)B) Do the risks of said insane shite significantly outweigh the benefits? (Dueling: Yes.)C) Is the proposed restriction the least restrictive alternative for protecting against the risks of harm? This last one could be debated, but in short: We've already got legalized dueling where the risks are reduced. It's called boxing. You need to learn how to NOT kill or injure your opponent badly before they'll let you do it. Amateurs fighting with lethal weaponry is too risky and pointless to pass the first two tests, and making it legal but with restrictions does not reduce that risk.Assisted suicide passes, by the way, because the cessation of a truly horrid life satisfies test B.== Counter: Undue Influence == I dealt with this in my first rebuttal to your main argument. To reiterate: No rational person would WANT to put their lives at risk over the kinds of disputes that aren't already addressable with tort law. That is, unless they were being pressured with the shame and social pressure of turning down a duel. This is akin to telling a kid that peer pressure is a valid excuse to take hard drugs. It's also one of the ways which we mean "duress", more specifically psychological coercion, and even more specifically a mass cultural emotional blackmail (2), depending on how severe the scorn or threats of reprisal are. Complete loss of reputation and livelihood would about do it.You've admitted yourself that this form of pressure would necessarily be the vast majority of conditions under which an otherwise law-abiding citizen would accept a duel. By your own insistence on the protections against duress, etc. under contract law, either there would only rarely BE a duel (making the law all but pointless), or accepting under the influence of the culture's psychological duress would be legitimate cause to nullify the duel contract.== Counter: Externalities == We tangled on this one in your rebuttal AND your counter, but I'll deal with it now: By the process of engaging in society, you enter into contracts and entangle yourself with the lives of others. If you pike off and move to Mexico (or other effective nonexistence), you leave these people in the lurch. You have, in effect, deprived them of some of their rights and their wellbeing, their Quality of Life, by removing yourself from the equation. By application of the Harm Principle (3), which I alluded to in my argument (even if I didn't know what to call it), the state has a perfectly legitimate interest in preventing YOUR actions from harming OTHER people, or from failing to live up to the obligations which you have already entered into at a prior time.If you sign a contract to ship all your goods with AA Freighter Company for three years, the state has a legit interest in restricting your freedom to sign a contract one year later to ship all your goods with Black Lagoon Shipping for the next year. The prior contract which you agreed to takes precedence, or the penalties in the prior contract can take effect, and a court may demand even more.It becomes much more significant when we speak of the family, friends, colleagues, and associations by contract which you would be leaving behind after dying in a duel or being laid up for months from a sucking chest wound. Your prior entanglements (entered into by you with full prior consent) are a legit reason to restrict that freedom, and you would have to dispense with all of them, paying fair recompense and arrangements for your extraction, before you could be allowed to throw your life away freely. You could, anyway, but say goodbye to your last will and testament. They won't be referring to it.In effect, this is not just your liberty vs. everyone else's wellbeing. It's your liberty vs. the liberty you -already exercised- in forming commitments prior to this.The second point you make is also handily dispensed via the Legal Paternalism concept mentioned prior and (clumsily) alluded to in my initial opening. You seem inclined to leave the warning labels on cleaning supplies, so clearly you accept Legal Paternalism at least -partially-. Preventing the 50%+ prospect of injury and the significant chance of death is well worth 'trampling' on your right to make very bad decisions.Again, everything is the tug-of-war between individual liberty and your effects on others' liberties and choices around you. Dueling falls squarely on the wrong side of that line.(1) http://www.iep.utm.edu...;(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...(3) https://en.wikipedia.org...