The Libertarian View on Duelling: Legal but Not Necessarily Endorsed

One must understand that for libertarians, the principle of ldquo;X should be legal if the government should not prohibit people from doing Xrdquo; does not automatically translate to ldquo;we like X and people ought to do X.rdquo; A perfectly libertarian society might allow duelling, but it would still likely have strong social pressures against it.

As an adherent of libertarian principles, I acknowledge that the legalization of duelling is not at the top of my priority list. While I believe that laws should not prevent individuals from engaging in activities they wish to undertake, duelling is, for me, a lower priority case for legalisation.

Theoretical versus Practical Views

In theory, duelling should be left to the two individuals involved with the government playing no role in mediating or preventing the activity. However, this theoretical stance can give rise to the perception of a libertarian society as lawless, akin to the Wild West. Most libertarians, including members of the Libertarian Party, would agree that while duelling should be legal if both parties are willing, the behaviour itself is often seen as dangerous and foolish.

Personal Principles and Rights

A core tenet of libertarianism is ldquo;You own yourself and you can do anything you want with your property.rdquo; Thus, if you wish to settle a dispute through duelling, presuming the other party agrees, you have every right to do so. The legality of duelling is not a significant political issue for many libertarians—it might rate around a 2 or 3 out of 10 in terms of importance.

The right to engage in risky or foolish activities without state intervention is a cornerstone of libertarian belief. Just because an action is risky or reckless does not mean it should be banned, just as the government has no right to prohibit speech merely because it finds it offensive or stupid. The core idea is that individuals have the autonomy to make such decisions, and the state should not presume the role of a parent in dictating their actions.

Practical Considerations

Between two adults, who have consented to such a practice, the state should not intervene. It is a stupid idea, but many similar ideas are also dangerous or foolish. Nevertheless, if both parties are clearly voluntary participants and there is no coercion or fraud involved, the issue of legalisation becomes less contentious from a libertarian perspective.

While the state does not have a right or obligation to intervene, it is worth noting that duelling would still be widely disapproved of within a libertarian society due to the dangers associated with the activity. While it may be legal, it would be socially frowned upon due to the increased risks and potential harm duelling poses.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the libertarian stance on duelling is that it should be legal if both parties are willing, but it is not a highly prioritised issue. The key principles of libertarianism emphasize individual freedom and autonomy, which do not include the endorsement or promotion of duelling. The focus remains on protecting individual rights without coercion from the state, even if the activity in question seems reckless or foolish.