Two consenting adults agree to a fight to the death to solve disputes

>two consenting adults agree to a fight to the death to solve disputes
Why is this illegal again?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Zhgwy9y5ttA
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield–McCoy_feud
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Because contract and quasi contract rights are not absolute, primarily because you ultimately rely on the state to enforce them, and the state might not wish to enforce all contracts between two consenting adults by simple virtue of their consent to them.

>killing another man because MUH DISRESPECK

Why don't you just live in the ghetto, user?

>you rely on the state to enforce contracts
What? Serious question: is that a some kind of Marxist idea?

Adam Smith

No, that's how every modern state works. You sign a contract with someone, and if they breach it in some manner, you sue them for enforcement or some kind of penalty if enforcement is not practical. As soon as you involve judicial machinery, you're involving the state.

I suppose you could go back to the "good old days" of blood feud, but really, that's an extremely inefficient solution.

really appreciated guys, I must be too far away

(((Modern state)))
>captcha: NATIONWIDE Police

youtube.com/watch?v=Zhgwy9y5ttA

Modern western whites have evolved past the need to act upon Nigga moments.

>to be cuts for the Simples
What does that expression mean and what does Battersea have to do with it?

The number of corpses from revenge duels tends
to pile up

>that's an extremely inefficient solution.
Why? Where is the advantage to rely on the "state" (or any onther external structure) rather than a direct confrontation? In the end there is a winner and a loser anyway.

>investigation and rational discourse VS. I AM STRONK AND FASTER SO I AM RIGHT
Nigger

It was a way for the privileged to circumvent the law, or taking the law into their own hands.

>I AM STRONK AND FASTER SO I AM RIGHT
In most cases that's how justice works. Criminal files where a proper investigation is needed are a tiny minority, the vast majority is made of commercial conflicts, notarial shits, divorces etc... where obviously the mightier is always the winner. Welcome to reality.

Schopenhauer said everything there is to be said about the silliness of the duel.

Blood feuds often don't end up with killing the murderer of your cousin but basically with whole wars between families or communauties for unjustified reasons because of escalated conflicts.
That don't help that those close to the victims are not the best judges and many would indeed want to kill the entire family of someone who killed their daughter in an obvious accident because vengeance.

>The jews won't let us duel WHITe GENocide is REal

government needs all the wage slaves it can get

>Why? Where is the advantage to rely on the "state" (or any onther external structure) rather than a direct confrontation? In the end there is a winner and a loser anyway.
Because you may not be in a position of relative power to enforce your rights? If you've got your private army, then you may not care, but if you're all alone then how are you going to make sure the other side honours the deal if they happen to be more and better armed? The state provides the environment for people to safely do business.

I don't see how this is not immediately apparent.

Must be some offshoot of the "jews want to prevent us from shooting each others" white genocide master plan.

>vendetta
Isn't that what basically built the nations, paradoxically? A clan fighting another over a simple quarrel, allying with other clans, drawing borders, growing, and finally implementing justice to rule the internal clan fights... Fugg, I'm going to bed now.

Not even close

Go to Albania and tell me how that worked out

>Arguing that a taxpayer judicial system is practically communism
>Telling others to enter the real world

What if there was a region designated where this was permitted?

Say if you live in Australia for example, make it so you can't do this shit in the major cities or even big country towns. But once you enter the outback local laws take over and you can engage in bloodfueds if you like. Don't like it, don't go to the wildland. Don't like having to pay taxes and obey laws, don't go to civilised lands.

Soylent greens are delicious

Why would you tolerate a place of lawlessness and unrest in your immediate vicinity? If the barbarians stayed outside this would be theoretically possible, but practically they usually come bother the civilised folks at some point.

Are you saying countries should function like MMORPGs with dedicated PvP servers?

Yes, 1200 years ago

Don't go questioning the novel I'm going to write

Come to the wildy and say that shit to my face cunt

Good goy, label any meaningful assertive act as primitive and below your sensibilities.

Go ahead and engage instead in endless dialectics which dont lead to any significant change since there is no serious and permanent penalty for defeat.

Perpetuate a culture of the mouth by the mouth and never use your body for anything assertive.

*stabs you because you had extended eye contact with me, which my ape-like mind interpreted as a challenge to my dominance*

>jjeewwwss are the reason why i dont war with the montgommeries

if you had balls you'd do it anyway cletus

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield–McCoy_feud

*Wastes dozens of hours having an argument, just so you can return the next day repeating what was just debunked the day before.*

Are you saying they shouldn't?

I'm actually a kike you pretender !

I have the balls to fight people on equal grounds, police and law enforcement do not fight on equal grounds, they use numbers and firearms to compensate for their inferiority.

Funny how you hold me to some high standard but not those who act on your behalf, because you like most other people are too cowardly to carry out the law themselves.

Samefag stop posting to yourself.

nice try

No one was ever really meant to die in this things, it was just a way of preserving honor. Most duels were done with the combatants standing too far apart for their pistols to be effective, or else they would ofttimes aim away so the bullets wouldn't hit.
Duels were meant that you were willing to die to protect your honor, without the risk of actually dying.
Deaths that did happen were very rare, and most of the time were accidental. Those men who actually purposefully killed the other were seen as dishonorable, because they had breached the mutual understanding of the duel.
The reason we think of duels as affairs of life and death are because of fictionalized romantic accounts which were either written to commemorate an actual deadly duel, or long after dueling stopped being commonplace.
If you had an actual material problem with another person, you'd take their ass to court. There's nothing more hateful and underhanded than a well developed legal case.

>I can edit a screenshot in paint
>>>/leftypol/

>I have a minor squabble with someone
>this gives me permission to kill them
retard.

Ah, the /pol/ classic.

It's destructive, wasteful, and pointless.

Control of your destiny.

It creates a problem of proving consent, cause when they're dead you can't tell if they were coerced or not.

>Allows people's rude and degenerate behavior to not be permanently punished

>"Why is there so much degeneracy?"

Your feminine sensibilities that spare and give second chances are the reason why nobody takes you seriously anymore.

Your "restraint" at killing or engaging in violence is not some expression of strength as you have convinced yourself it is. I know that you dont because you are a feminine weak soy boy faggot who couldn't hold his own outside the civilization that shelters him and makes him think his words are a substitute for physical action. And then he wonders why women don't respect him, and he wonders why the youth don't respect him, and he wonders why nobody respects him.

problem is you are subjecting the "righteous" to violence by implanting your act of chimping out.
Another point to think of is what is worth a duel ? would you challenge someone to the risk of death because he accidentally insulted you without meaning it ?

basically what I'm saying is, you a dumb baboon nigger whom is willing to risk you own life and that of another man because of Mah HONOR !

The only sensible thing to do is prehaps to make fist fighting legal with a referee to make sure no long term harm is done.

no. the problem is people can make a justification for any supposed "rude" behavior and act on it with unnecessary violence. I'm not even talking about contract duels.

you're destroying government property when killing people
*tips fedora*

This

Not the guy you're talking to but humans are not meant for sole survival - they live in groups. Mankind does not exist outside of "civilisation". Those who think they don't need to fit in are the first to die. Either alone in the wilderness or put down like animals by those who know how to fit in and when to stand in line and when to put group interest before their own interest.

Call it "chimping out" all you want, I know its only a projection of your lack of will and the conviction to maintain a healthy standard of behavior.

Instead you would rather have other men do that for you, so you can sit on your moral high ground and pretend to be civilized angel that you are.

There is nothing qualitatively different between the laws you have other men enforce for you and the laws real men enforce themselves. You justify your laws on communal consensus whereas men use their individual consensus.
You need the community because you are too weak to carry out your own morals on the world. You wish to impose your morals on the entire earth because any reminder of real authority that is grounded in strength, intellect, and courage is a threat to you and a constant reminder of the lie behind your existence.

>Unnecessary Violence

So when is violence necessary? Self Defense? This is a hatred of violence and force as an aspect of reality and nature.

The truth is, violence is the only thing that keeps your civilization going, the mass institutional violence enforced by proxy by your worker drones are the only thing that keeps it from collapsing. You speak of unnecessary violence while threatening any deviation from the law with imprisonment and death.

You think prison makes you civilized? Killing a man on the inside?

You are weak, if you had any strength at all you would kill a man at his strongest and not break his spirit by denying him freedom and action.

You are weak because you would rather psychologically break a man into a shell of his former self instead of killing him honestly.

Only a feminine piece of shit would be satisfied with such a "victory", the irony is that by doing this and cutting masculine men from the gene pool, this leads to a greater feminization of your civilization to the point where even your police and military will eventually be pushovers and fall under any masculine force unburdened by your morals.

Really the opposite actually, the first laws the first civilization wrote were all about limiting retiliation to exactly what wrong was done to you.
Like how if your house crumbed down and ypur son was killed then you litteraly had the right to kilm the son of the artisan who made the roof

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

Also accusing someone of being a murderer without being able to prove it was punished by death.

it varies heavily in context (nations, individuals, tribes ect) but for the average person violence should only be done in defence of yourself and others. don't be a shitter and hurt someone who called you mean names. literally no better than a sjw.

by all means, move to the ghetto and get killed by your fellow primates !

>In moat cases that's how justice works.
It's not very just then, is it?

>shoot someone to death
>im glad we settled this like adults

Theres no such thing as defense and innocence in nature.

Existence is a declaration of war against all other organisms since you use energy that could have been used by another.

In modern society a man who sleeps with another man's woman is "innocent" and has committed no crime.

In nature such a man is dealt with permanently and will serve as a reminder to other men who are inclined to do the same.

SJWs don't have a monopoly on fanaticism, fanaticism can be healthy and a necessary expression of the masculine impulse.

They are fanatics towards creating uniformity and real men are fanatics towards resisting uniformity.

Friendly reminder that /quest/ is the roleplaying board.

Friendly reminder that your passive aggressive remark is not new and is the norm in the modern world.

There is no risk, no cost, no struggle demanded from passive aggression, it is easy.

the whole world is out to kill you the moment you are damaged
should we start culling the sick because its natural? don't start with natural

>in nature
there's your problem. no civilization in existence adhered to pure biological needs. otherwise we would all be primitive savages living in the wild.

>In modern society a man who sleeps with another man's woman is "innocent" and has committed no crime.
he's not free from scrutiny and his life could be ruined.

You know what else isn't new? Literally autistic basement dwelling social outcasts roleplaying as Übermenschen prescribing the cure for a society that they play no part in using the most pompous try-hard language possible in a misplaced assumption that this somehow makes them appear authoritative.

>have fists that have literally evolved to knock out scoundrels
>illegal to use them outside of sport or war
Really crumbles my cashews

because the state cannot make money off of you if you're dead
which is why an eye for an eye isn't implemented either

Community does not just compensate for weakness, it is also a source of strength. Many are stronger than few. If me and my friends decided we're going to kill you and take what is yours, what can you alone do about it? You have no choice but to find friends of your own or perish, as you cannot beat us alone. These friends have interests of their own, so you are forced to compromise. Me and my friends gather more friends, and thus you are in turn forced to grow up to the point where you pose a reasonably strong deterrent to the point where it's wiser to reason than to simply take, and suddenly you end up with something resembling a state.

Within the state however, the individual interests need to be considered - otherwise people would have no reason to stay. A state that does not provide security will fall apart. Laws, law enforcement and people not taking justice matters into their own hands is merely an aspect of that. Over the centuries we've realised that the duel is detrimental to society. Also, it should be considered that even in the past the duel was rarely permitted. Also, you should consider that the nature of the duel was not that of a competition. The duel was not meant to be won by the man who was "stronger" but by the man who was "right". It was meant to be heavenly judgement rather than a display of strength.
Schopenhauer - who lived at a time when duelling was not yet uncommon - wrote an essay on the foolishness of knightly honour and he takes apart any argument in favour of the duel, describing how it does not civilise society but opens the door to barbarism precisely due to the concept of "insult escalation" where an insult can only be answered with an even greater insult to the point where it can be only answered in blood, which would lead to people who were losing arguments resort to insults rather than arguments of reason, thus holding society back by depriving it of reasonable points of view in allowing them to be stifled by insults.

What kind of moron uses his fists in warfare?

Culling? The sick cull themselves, without the assistance given to them by civilization.

Should we save the sick because its moral? Should nobody suffer the consequences of their own existence? Of course you're okay with having artificial consequences which are enforced by proxy, but why are natural consequences so troubling to you?

The kind in close-quarter combat without a functional weapon

People usually carried functional weapons when they marched to war.

Why should arguments of reason be valued higher than physical combat?

Physical combat also uses "reason" in its application, a man who has the rational capacity to focus his energies into a sword or grappling maneuver is also expressing reason in action.

But what of the Monk class?

im not too bothered paying for medicaid but you can obviously earn money from the sick families if you want to be very cynical about it

>a soldier has never been forced to beat an opponent to death with his fists on the battlefield
Ok

You know what else isn't also new? Men who defend a civilization who produces such Übermenschen in the first place and then complains about their existence.

Basement dwelling outcasts dont fucking come out of the vacuum you fucking modern moron, they are a product of your civilized world, I know its a little hard for you to think outside the civilizational box and blame people in a vacuum for their behavior but you really have to try harder.

How can anyone know for sure there was consent, truly freely given and not in any way coerced, in any given case of dueling?

Just when I thought I've seen the craziest thing somebody blamed Jews for...

Because of both parties could get injured over something that can get easily resolved though talking. Did you think the Greek philosophers fought against each other to prove their points?

Ultimately, because my society that values reason is stronger than yours and we will murder you if you don't submit, effectively being in the "right" even by your own logic.

However, using an argument of reason: a reasonable society is going to be more attractive to people as it provides security. A society that is unable to do that is going to be worthless to people and won't attract many.

How exactly would modern technology emerge as a consequence of two men punching each other?

Beating people with your fists is not the norm but the utmost exception because people would at least have carried a knife by their side.

Because arguments of reason can be used to advance towards an objective truth and understanding. Physical combat can only demonstrate that one person is superior, and often even only at that moment. We fight, you win, so you're "right", but you get hurt beating me down, to the point that someone who ordinarily would not pose a threat to you could come in and kick your ass, becoming the new top dog.

What does any of that prove, beyond restructuring a social gathering based on brute strength?

This. The society that doesn't duel constantly will invent better technologies and develop better institutions and just utterly dominate the other society.

No, of course not, they serve ideological needs which are effectively a projection of biological needs dressed up to appear indifferent, while desiring to eliminate everything that endangers their existence and create a paradise where there is no more suffering and competition. Ironically they use ideology to justify their expansion into other areas and bring suffering and competition to others.

You're not enlightened, you're just a well dressed up animal, nothing new under the sun.

>scrutiny
There is no scrutiny since there is no more community and tribe, a man or woman who cheats can simply move to another city and start again, like reseting a video game.

So I should attempt to disrupt the functioning of my community and culture with the aim of pushing oxygen thief outcasts to stop roleplaying online and start LARPing instead?

I live in a rural community. I've got in fights. It's not something I look forward to on my nights out, frankly. Repromoting a nigger culture of honour violence would have a negative bearing on rural communities where pubs and social clubs are an important part of the community fabric.

>No, of course not, they serve ideological needs which are effectively a projection of biological needs dressed up to appear indifferent, while desiring to eliminate everything that endangers their existence and create a paradise where there is no more suffering and competition. Ironically they use ideology to justify their expansion into other areas and bring suffering and competition to others.
I agree. but that doesn't apply to an individual. you can compete with others through means other than violence.

>There is no scrutiny since there is no more community and tribe, a man or woman who cheats can simply move to another city and start again, like reseting a video game.
Wrong. a man who needs to move to another city for their actions is a heavy consequence. cheating in general is not punishable by law but is psychologically punishing for the individual who gets caught.

>JUDICIAL SYSTERMS ARE GOMMINISM!
>WELCOME TO REALITY
man, you right-wingers are becoming more unhinged by the day.

Talking was a pretense to violence and since most men were humble enough to admit their defeat, violence was not necessary.

It is this pretense that the weak like Socrates have exploited to make themselves gods despite being physically unhealthy and ugly.

Modern Technology has done nothing to improve man, there is nothing qualitatively different about him besides his new dependence on it for survival.

Because combat is not decided by brute strength alone.

The first sovereigns and tribal leaders were not the strongest but those who had a balance of all qualities and were able to focus themselves into taking advantage of their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.

The slow brute meme is real, a man who can use a sword is far more effective than some brute who uses his hands or swings some hammer around.

And left-wingers are becoming more cowardly by the day, what else is new.

How pathetic that you need a proxy to engage in violence for you, how sad it must be to know you have no strength of your own, how dull must your life be to never assert yourself and always conform to a mass.

That's all great and stuff, but try perusing Nietzsche once you actually finish school, and maybe you'll see what he actually had to say instead of alligning his philosophy with your teenage maximalism.

...

>And left-wingers are becoming more cowardly by the day, what else is new.
Such an internet tough guy, bravely quarreling your might makes right B.S. anonymously over the internet. I thought antifa were all a bunch of violent thugs and super-soldiers?

>How pathetic that you need a proxy to engage in violence for you
It's called justice and it's the way that civilization has functioned for a long time now. Even in colonial times people prefer the rule of law and thought that duels were for tawdry backwoods niggers who can't solve their disputes rationally and with an impartial arbiter. If you don't like it, go live in Somalia and pledge yourself to a warlord and leave civilization for the people mentally equipped to deal with it

I'll be laughing when you get cancer or some other debilitating disease and you're unable to save yourself because you refuse to use modern medicine. Or, you do and make yourself out as a hypocrite.

t. anime website poster

>teenage maximalism
>Lieutenant in the modern military

Nice try kid, but unlike you, I dont tie my views with my personal well being, I am completely open to the possibility of my death being caused by such a world but at least it will be an honest one, instead of living a sheltered existence where I pretend to be free and civilized and run my mouth endlessly like a little feminine bitch because I dont have to worry about some guy breaking my jaw despite how rude and passive aggressive I am.

Keep talking and typing, when the time comes, we will see how resilient your words and text are against force.

>Modern Technology has done nothing to improve man
Most people would argue it improves their lives. "improving man" seems big words for nothing.

>Because combat is not decided by brute strength alone.
Combat - armed combat in particular - is to a great part decided by luck. There's a reason why a fencing match scores multiple points: because it's not necessarily the better fencer who scores the first deadly hit. Fencers need multiple attempts to work out who truly is the better fencer of the two.
Certainly, a trained man has the edge over the untrained man, but even then a great deal of luck is involved.
This was also part of the reason why the duel was tolerated as a form of heavenly judgement: it was always also a matter of luck. And going into a duel was a risky matter - even if neither of the two participants wanted to kill each other.