Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!MC.LCS.MIT.EDU!KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU From: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU Newsgroups: mod.politics Subject: Dueling and other unreasonable behaviors Message-ID: <12237853129.41.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Wed, 10-Sep-86 12:55:01 EDT Article-I.D.: RED.12237853129.41.MCGREW Posted: Wed Sep 10 12:55:01 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 11-Sep-86 07:31:33 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 98 Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu From: Willie Lim Suppose A and B agree to a duel but unknown to A, B had a bet with X such that if B wins, X will pay B lots of $$$. Suppose A is killed in the duel, did B and/or X commit a fraud? No, what's wrong with that? A was not COMPELLED to accept the duel. And B is a fool to accept any amount of money to do something that has an even chance of getting him killed. As I explained before, I seriously doubt there would be many duels even if they were legal. Behavior depends far more on what is accepted than on what is legal, as can be seen by the prevalence of illegal drug use in this country, and its almost total lack in other countries where it is not acceptable, and as can be seen by the very low crime rate in Japan, and as can be seen by the almost total lack of cannibalism in this country. I very seriously doubt cannibalism would become prevalent if it was legalized. Can groups get involved in duels? If every member of the groups agreed. Which is extremely unlikely. If so, is there any limit on the number and size of the groups? No. If all members of two groups of one million people each decided the universe isn't big enough for both of them and they will all duel to the death of all members of one of the groups, this is perfectly ok, so long as all members agree and so long as they can guarantee that no innocent bystanders will be harmed. It is also about as likely as everyone on Earth being simultaneously killed by lightning at 2:09 pm tomorrow. Can we stick to debating about plausible things? Can any citizen or non-citizen have a duel with the president who just happens to have a gunslinger mentality and loves to have a duel with anybody? I can't see such a president getting elected. And since so many people strongly hate ANY president or candidate, I can't see him lasting long in any case. He would be dead by the end of the first primary and would not live to be nominated, much less elected or inaugurated. Can we stick to debating about plausible things? According to libertarian fundamentalists, there ain't no way the government is going to (or be allowed to) fix it. Well the government, however big or small it may be, represents the will of the majority. Or at least it ought to. So it is kind of silly to imagine that most people will kill themselves off acting in some bizarre fashion given no government control, but that these same people would have government prevent these same actions. Smoking is a good example. Smoking IS a bizarre (to me) way in which large numbers of people destroy their health and kill themselves off. Any rational PATERNALISTIC government would ban smoking. But ours is not (totally) paternalistic, but representative. Smoking is ok precisely because so many people think smoking is ok. How dangerous or how disgusting it is has nothing to do with it. If large numbers of people liked to duel or commit cannibalism or defecate on the street, these behaviors would be sanctioned by our representative government. It is unreasonable to mention a behavior that few people find acceptable and claim that given no government rules against it, it would become extremely prevalent. Integration of retail establishments is a perfect example. In the early 1950s, segregation was considered perfectly acceptable by almost everyone. As long as this remained the case, government was not going to pass any laws against it. Then there was a raising of consciousness in the late 1950s and the 1960s. A number of black leaders were able to convince the majority of people in this country that segregation was unreasonable. These leaders led boycotts that caused enormous numbers of establishments to voluntarily integrate. Once this was done, THEN the legislators, noticing a major change in public opinion, and wanting to make themselves out as heroes, and steal the credit rightly due to the black leadership, passed the integration laws. These laws never really had much effect, but simply endorsed the verdict of the majority. If those laws were all repealed tomorrow, no place would segregate, and if one did, it would soon be forced out of business by ruinous voluntary boycotts, and rightly so. But this is NOT the way the integration story is usually presented. With history books, you must always read between the lines. Integration is also a good example of how the opinions of the majority CAN be radically changed in a relatively short time span by someone who can make a good case that they are RIGHT. 1950 to 1970 was NOT all that long. Might we have a fully libertarian system in 20 more years? Are we perhaps already several years into the transition? ...Keith [ Are soldiers, policemen and firemen then fools for taking money for doing something that can get them killed? Why should B be a fool? Race drivers (especially in the past) make a similar bet. Risking your life for money is an old honored pursuit. I suspect the definition of 'fool' is rather subjective... On the subject of group duels, I think we'd see streetgangs doing this on a regular basis... If integration laws are as unecessary as you say, why do black leaders fight so hard to keep them on the books and enact more powerful versions of them? - CWM] -------