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.
