Dueling should be legalized

From what I've seen of your comments on this site, I'm sure this will be an engaging and challenging debate and I'm very much looking forward to it. Thanks for laying out the concepts you intend to reference as your framework; they are noted and I don't object to anything you've put forward being used to support an argument. ==Introduction/Framework== I will argue that dueling should be legal on two separate but complementary grounds: -Dueling is an individual right in accordance with the libertarian non-aggression principle. -Dueling is beneficial to society from a utilitarian perspective. ==LIBERTARIAN ARGUMENT - Dueling is a Right== The libertarian non-aggression principle (NAP) states that it should be legal for individuals to do things unless they initiate, or threaten to initiate, physical force against another person or legitimately owned property of another person (1). This is a principle underlying the values of freedom on which Western liberal democracies are currently based. It may seem unusual to apply this principle in the context of a violent act such as dueling, but the central issue of mutual consent invalidates any objection on the basis that dueling involves the initiation of physical force. With consent and in the absence of coercion, dueling is no more a violation of the non-aggression principle than boxing or BDSM, both of which are legal and widely recognized to not contravene the NAP. There are a wide variety of voluntary, dangerous lifestyle choices that are not prohibited by the government, including violent sports, smoking, automobile driving, skydiving, scuba diving, rock climbing, and much more. Consent fights are even already recognized as legal in many jurisdictions in Western liberal democratic societies (2)(3). Prohibiting dueling is completely arbitrary and fundamentally inconsistent with this pattern. ==UTILITARIAN ARGUMENT - Dueling Increases Public Safety== Street violence runs the risk of innocent bystanders being caught in crossfire, or responding law enforcement officers being subject to violence. Duels, on the hand, provide an outlet through which to settle violent disputes which guarantee that only the involved parties run risk of injury. Parties must consent and abide by stipulated rules, and the event is set up in such a way as to eliminate risk to third parties. ==UTILITARIAN ARGUMENT - Dueling Enables Faster Medical Response to Injuries== Duels are prearranged, consensual agreements that follow strict rules and are attended by witnesses. They usually do not result in death, and medical personnel could be on standby to immediately treat injured participants. By contrast, an act of violence outside the bounds of such an arrangement which is criminalized by the state (in the absence of a legalized dueling framework, this is what people would and do turn to) is an unknown and dangerous scenario that is treated by first responders as an active shooter situation. In active shooter situations, "waiting for tactically trained personnel to arrive may represent a deadly delay to the injured victims" (4) as emergency medical responders must wait for police to secure the area before they can approach and treat an injured party. ==UTILITARIAN ARGUMENT - Dueling Promotes a Culture of Honour and Justice== There are a number of ways in which individuals can behave obnoxiously, offensively and maliciously and our legal system can't, and shouldn't, take action against them in response (because justifiably there need to be limits on state power and certain precedents can't be set). Currently this leaves nearly infinite ways in which an unscrupulous individual can harm others, and leave their victims impotent to respond in any legal fashion (this could include the spread of negative rumours that don't rise to the level of defamation, obtaining money through unethical and dishonest pretenses without rising to the level of fraud, committing crimes which leave insufficient evidence for law enforcement to take action, etc). These situations leave victims feeling disempowered and damage their self-worth. The psychological impact of such actions can be enormous. Legal dueling would provide an avenue of recourse for these situations in which the legal system is powerless to rectify wrongs. Retribution, incapacitation and deterrence are all recognized justifications for punishment under criminal law (5), so even the state has recognized the value of such concepts and enshrined them in principles of the legal system. Legalizing dueling would extend the avenues of recourse for victimized people, and endow them with a sense of honour and self-worth they would not otherwise be able to attain. (1) . http://archive.lewrockwell.com... (2) . http://www.canlii.org... (3) . http://mynorthwest.com... (4) . https://nam.edu... (Page 1) (5) . http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com...