I would further say that there would be fewer idiots and n'er-do-wells after a short period of extreme higgledy-piggledy while those who wished to test their assumptions at their earliest convenience.
To a certain extent yes. I guess you could say that it would be polite inside the rules of that society. Those examples you give would have wildly different standards of etiquette and behavior that would be enforced by violence. Technically, violence has been used as a societal corrective tool for all of history for humans. In the west, it has been abolished mostly, but it still bubbles under the surface when some troublemaker steps outside of it. The one place where we have very limited threats of violence is on the internet. There's know "punch you in the mouth" port that would correct a lot of unwise smartasses who wouldn't dare say it to someone's face in person for fear of just such a reprisal. Of course now we have just out and out murder attempts by swatting, making law enforcement your proxy. Doxxing is another thing done, often by those seeking to drive an agenda by social terrorism.
So, I partially agree with your statement, but the question is in the definition of "politeness" and "society" we use. The general principle seems to hold.
Tribalism is a society, just a really terrible one. Recall the opening of "Heart of Darkness", where it's noted that London was once thought of as the hellhole of dark savagery by the Romans.
It took long centuries of labor for Europe to shed their tribalist barbarism and become something worthwhile- and even then, savagery still lurked beneath, as the Thirty Years' War demonstrated.
Some of today's notorious crapholes were also once mighty empires of law and order, now fallen. Prescott's account of the Conquest of Mexico is a worthy read on the subject.
Not so much of a duel, as the default assumption is that a slain politician "needed a killing", and it was up the the friends & family of the decedent to prove otherwise in court. The example case from the book involved the armed & experienced politician having taken a surprise machete to the dome.
The problem with dueling is that pretty soon you get people who are really good at doing. Those will be the ones who will be in charge of everything. That may not be a good idea.
It can and does get corrupted into the sort of payback/honor killing/revenge societies we see in the Middle East, Balkans, New Guinea, and the notorious blood feuds of old Appalachian society.
Even in the USA of old, there was the rise of professional duelist- people skilled in the art of personal combat who would be hired to give insult to a particular party. In which case, the other party could be either silenced or killed without risk to the person making the payment.
Perhaps, but probably not. A culture that accepts dueling is not the same as a culture that selects leaders by single combat. A duel presupposes an offense to be addressed. I think in a society like that somebody going around giving insult to instigate duels and winning them every time would find himself mysteriously disappeared at some point or, at the very least, treated to a blanket party.
A certain Mr. Samuel Clemens had a few thoughts on the subject of dueling & the culture of personal honor in his essential "Life on the Mississippi" (he was not a fan at all).
Like most of his non-fiction, it's worth a read and a think.
You literally made reference to “blanket party “ and don’t understand the reference to Andrew Jackson. There is nothing that anyone could say at this point. I understand that people get all up in their feels about the notion of shooting a hated politician legally but the practice of dueling really doesn’t work that way.
Here’s what would happen. Joe the Libertarian challenges Larry the Liberal to a duel for reasons that seem good to him. Larry has a select crew of henchmen seize Joe on the street, pull down his pants, and cane him. Joe doesn’t have the social status to be making challenges you see. Joe is humiliated and social pressure forces suicide because “honor”.
Let's set the clock back to when dueling was a thing, and let's say we have someone who's smart, ruthless, amoral, very charming, and has a good sense of how to get power... let's call him "Billy Jeff". Now, he's too smart and too amoral to duel... but he's got a few friends like Doc. Doc found that he's much better at shooting people than dentistry, and he's also good at public insults.
So, those people who try to insult & call out ole Billy Jeff soon find themselves getting insulted & called out by Doc... as do cuckolded husbands, cheated partners, those who might be a challenge to good ole Billy Jeff's ambitions, or his wife Hill's ambitions.
When they do try to get him to meet up at dawn, he just puts them off in good natured fashioned. Then Doc comes in, and really stirs things up in public, so much that the person with the complaint has to face him. And since Doc is S Tier good, it's no contest.
So, nobody says bad things about ole Billy Jeff if they know what's good for their health, and they dang sure ain't gonna try to make a duel out of it.
Bring it back for defamation and slander, imagine the joys of making Hilary Clinton step into the ring of honor for calling us a "basket of deplorables".
"I’m already sold on this idea, you don’t have to convince me further." ... bahahahahaha! I love your articles. You are an amazing writer with my kind of humor. I'm glad I found your site!
Ian - When writing the Code Civil, Napoleon contemplated the return of dueling so to improve the manners of France. Our current lack of social civility stems from the fact that most people no longer get a fist in the snout at 6 years old when they 'offend' someone. Except for cowardly doxxing and social shaming, almost nobody pays a price for being an A-Hole or worse. At one time, Texas newspaper editors often carried a pistol along with a dictionary since they were frequently held responsible for their commentary. Myself, I am waiting for the social pendulum to swing the other direction as Nature finally rights itself (as it always does).
Ian, this is a splendid idea! I've been saying (Very Quietly; only among those who know me well.) that bringing back the duel would usher in a period of unprecedented civility.
Since I relieve boredom by practicing with the one-handed projectile launcher, the thought of The Duel being an accepted resolution of scurrilous activity doesn't scare me at all. Heck, even using flintlock dueling pistols vs. GLOCKS is quite acceptable (and sporting).
I would take exception to not dueling a Congresscritter until they break out of session; the Politicritters would never take a break, thus imperiling the Rights and Privileges of We, the Citizens.
I see a problem calling out a politician for lying, grievous misbehaviors or insults. As these people have no sense of honor, and already carry the mantel of "Poltroon", "Scalawag" or "Unrepentant Butt-munch" why would they fear to decline a challenge? You can't fight a legal duel without the consent of both parties. Murdering them should never be sanctioned. What additional burden would it be for them to be labeled "coward"? Looks like the deck is stacked against the good guys, the civilized ones.
In a civilized society (we're barely these days), declining a match on The Field of Honor (does not have to be a fatal outcome; shit flinging would be a good challenge) would end the issue. No further actions by the challenger tolerated. The Politicritter would be branded a Coward, the label may last to the end of their days.
A sense of self-preservation would be enough to refuse to duel; what may motivate them is ego. Those who should take a vacation to Lake of Burning Sulfur have greatly inflated egos. (think of Jerrold Nadler, Eric Slawell, Adam Schiff) They may consent based on the insult to their ego alone.
It always seemed to me the outlawing of dueling coincided with the rise of rifled gun barrels on pistols. It was one thing to stand 20 paces 50 or 60 feet) away from someone holding a pistol only accurate to 30 feet or so. It was another thing entirely to stand that far away from someone with a pistol able to put balls in a head size target all day long.
Decatur’s duel took place at 8 paces, supposedly because his opponent, James Barron couldn’t see well.
Jackson killed Donaldson after taking Donaldson’s shot to the chest. He supposedly said he’d have climbed out of his casket to shoot Donaldson if need be. Old Hickory was a tough old SOB.
In the bad old days one reason the personal duel took place was that declining to participate - either by offering a suitable (to the offended party) apology or fighting the duel - would brand the person as a coward, and that person would be treated as a social pariah.
If the duel of honor were legal, I would have fought over a dozen such duels before I turned twenty-one. I likely would have started as a teenager, and since I was slender and a good shot I likely would win a few decisive victories.
These days we're seeing variants of the formal duel in road rage and gang violence, although I think it's more of an individual action rather than an entire gang.
My only other thought is that someone should teach these gang bangers to shoot. First of all, they hit their intended target more by accident than on purpose. Secondly, when they miss that lead has to go somewhere, and bystanders who want nothing to do with this disagreement end up getting shot.
The one benefit of the dual is it one does not have to accept the challenge I can still have keep on his tongue and accept it just everyone knows that you were the coward that's of course I suppose you have a good enough reason why you simply cannot accept it the door from a professional duelist or something like that or whatever. No one is forced to do it had to decide whether career and honor are more important than life itself
Then again, easier slander suit rules is one of those things that could turn into a fertile ground for the sort of intimidation suits many anti-SLAPP laws have been passed to end.
How does a normal person keep a butthurt someone with lawyer money to burn from dragging them into court repeatedly?
An armed society is a polite society.
I would further say that there would be fewer idiots and n'er-do-wells after a short period of extreme higgledy-piggledy while those who wished to test their assumptions at their earliest convenience.
I've read that quote a bit, but does culture and history really back it?
One could note that criminal gangs, outlaw bikers, organized crime, and various cartels are armed societies- but are they polite societies?
To a certain extent yes. I guess you could say that it would be polite inside the rules of that society. Those examples you give would have wildly different standards of etiquette and behavior that would be enforced by violence. Technically, violence has been used as a societal corrective tool for all of history for humans. In the west, it has been abolished mostly, but it still bubbles under the surface when some troublemaker steps outside of it. The one place where we have very limited threats of violence is on the internet. There's know "punch you in the mouth" port that would correct a lot of unwise smartasses who wouldn't dare say it to someone's face in person for fear of just such a reprisal. Of course now we have just out and out murder attempts by swatting, making law enforcement your proxy. Doxxing is another thing done, often by those seeking to drive an agenda by social terrorism.
So, I partially agree with your statement, but the question is in the definition of "politeness" and "society" we use. The general principle seems to hold.
I'd rewrite it as "a virtuous society is a polite society".
Unless people are well encultured and laborious trained to a virtuous standard, they'll be pretty awful, arms or no.
Which is why a lot of places in the 3rd world have plentiful arms, but are still crapholes.
Eh, how many of those crap holes are actually a society?
Tribalism is a society, just a really terrible one. Recall the opening of "Heart of Darkness", where it's noted that London was once thought of as the hellhole of dark savagery by the Romans.
It took long centuries of labor for Europe to shed their tribalist barbarism and become something worthwhile- and even then, savagery still lurked beneath, as the Thirty Years' War demonstrated.
Some of today's notorious crapholes were also once mighty empires of law and order, now fallen. Prescott's account of the Conquest of Mexico is a worthy read on the subject.
H. Beam Piper embraces this concept in 'A Planet for Texans/Lone Star Planet'.
Not so much of a duel, as the default assumption is that a slain politician "needed a killing", and it was up the the friends & family of the decedent to prove otherwise in court. The example case from the book involved the armed & experienced politician having taken a surprise machete to the dome.
The problem with dueling is that pretty soon you get people who are really good at doing. Those will be the ones who will be in charge of everything. That may not be a good idea.
It can and does get corrupted into the sort of payback/honor killing/revenge societies we see in the Middle East, Balkans, New Guinea, and the notorious blood feuds of old Appalachian society.
Even in the USA of old, there was the rise of professional duelist- people skilled in the art of personal combat who would be hired to give insult to a particular party. In which case, the other party could be either silenced or killed without risk to the person making the payment.
Perhaps, but probably not. A culture that accepts dueling is not the same as a culture that selects leaders by single combat. A duel presupposes an offense to be addressed. I think in a society like that somebody going around giving insult to instigate duels and winning them every time would find himself mysteriously disappeared at some point or, at the very least, treated to a blanket party.
A certain Mr. Samuel Clemens had a few thoughts on the subject of dueling & the culture of personal honor in his essential "Life on the Mississippi" (he was not a fan at all).
Like most of his non-fiction, it's worth a read and a think.
That’s hopelessly optimistic and not at all supported by any historical evidence. Andrew Jackson puts the lie to everything that you’ve said
You literally made reference to “blanket party “ and don’t understand the reference to Andrew Jackson. There is nothing that anyone could say at this point. I understand that people get all up in their feels about the notion of shooting a hated politician legally but the practice of dueling really doesn’t work that way.
Here’s what would happen. Joe the Libertarian challenges Larry the Liberal to a duel for reasons that seem good to him. Larry has a select crew of henchmen seize Joe on the street, pull down his pants, and cane him. Joe doesn’t have the social status to be making challenges you see. Joe is humiliated and social pressure forces suicide because “honor”.
Do please explain.
Let's set the clock back to when dueling was a thing, and let's say we have someone who's smart, ruthless, amoral, very charming, and has a good sense of how to get power... let's call him "Billy Jeff". Now, he's too smart and too amoral to duel... but he's got a few friends like Doc. Doc found that he's much better at shooting people than dentistry, and he's also good at public insults.
So, those people who try to insult & call out ole Billy Jeff soon find themselves getting insulted & called out by Doc... as do cuckolded husbands, cheated partners, those who might be a challenge to good ole Billy Jeff's ambitions, or his wife Hill's ambitions.
When they do try to get him to meet up at dawn, he just puts them off in good natured fashioned. Then Doc comes in, and really stirs things up in public, so much that the person with the complaint has to face him. And since Doc is S Tier good, it's no contest.
So, nobody says bad things about ole Billy Jeff if they know what's good for their health, and they dang sure ain't gonna try to make a duel out of it.
Bring it back for defamation and slander, imagine the joys of making Hilary Clinton step into the ring of honor for calling us a "basket of deplorables".
"I’m already sold on this idea, you don’t have to convince me further." ... bahahahahaha! I love your articles. You are an amazing writer with my kind of humor. I'm glad I found your site!
Here, here!
Ian - When writing the Code Civil, Napoleon contemplated the return of dueling so to improve the manners of France. Our current lack of social civility stems from the fact that most people no longer get a fist in the snout at 6 years old when they 'offend' someone. Except for cowardly doxxing and social shaming, almost nobody pays a price for being an A-Hole or worse. At one time, Texas newspaper editors often carried a pistol along with a dictionary since they were frequently held responsible for their commentary. Myself, I am waiting for the social pendulum to swing the other direction as Nature finally rights itself (as it always does).
Jim Bowie survived and died at the Alamo.
Ian, this is a splendid idea! I've been saying (Very Quietly; only among those who know me well.) that bringing back the duel would usher in a period of unprecedented civility.
Since I relieve boredom by practicing with the one-handed projectile launcher, the thought of The Duel being an accepted resolution of scurrilous activity doesn't scare me at all. Heck, even using flintlock dueling pistols vs. GLOCKS is quite acceptable (and sporting).
I would take exception to not dueling a Congresscritter until they break out of session; the Politicritters would never take a break, thus imperiling the Rights and Privileges of We, the Citizens.
I see a problem calling out a politician for lying, grievous misbehaviors or insults. As these people have no sense of honor, and already carry the mantel of "Poltroon", "Scalawag" or "Unrepentant Butt-munch" why would they fear to decline a challenge? You can't fight a legal duel without the consent of both parties. Murdering them should never be sanctioned. What additional burden would it be for them to be labeled "coward"? Looks like the deck is stacked against the good guys, the civilized ones.
In a civilized society (we're barely these days), declining a match on The Field of Honor (does not have to be a fatal outcome; shit flinging would be a good challenge) would end the issue. No further actions by the challenger tolerated. The Politicritter would be branded a Coward, the label may last to the end of their days.
A sense of self-preservation would be enough to refuse to duel; what may motivate them is ego. Those who should take a vacation to Lake of Burning Sulfur have greatly inflated egos. (think of Jerrold Nadler, Eric Slawell, Adam Schiff) They may consent based on the insult to their ego alone.
It always seemed to me the outlawing of dueling coincided with the rise of rifled gun barrels on pistols. It was one thing to stand 20 paces 50 or 60 feet) away from someone holding a pistol only accurate to 30 feet or so. It was another thing entirely to stand that far away from someone with a pistol able to put balls in a head size target all day long.
Decatur’s duel took place at 8 paces, supposedly because his opponent, James Barron couldn’t see well.
Jackson killed Donaldson after taking Donaldson’s shot to the chest. He supposedly said he’d have climbed out of his casket to shoot Donaldson if need be. Old Hickory was a tough old SOB.
In the bad old days one reason the personal duel took place was that declining to participate - either by offering a suitable (to the offended party) apology or fighting the duel - would brand the person as a coward, and that person would be treated as a social pariah.
If the duel of honor were legal, I would have fought over a dozen such duels before I turned twenty-one. I likely would have started as a teenager, and since I was slender and a good shot I likely would win a few decisive victories.
These days we're seeing variants of the formal duel in road rage and gang violence, although I think it's more of an individual action rather than an entire gang.
My only other thought is that someone should teach these gang bangers to shoot. First of all, they hit their intended target more by accident than on purpose. Secondly, when they miss that lead has to go somewhere, and bystanders who want nothing to do with this disagreement end up getting shot.
Legalize it, sure. Why not?
The one benefit of the dual is it one does not have to accept the challenge I can still have keep on his tongue and accept it just everyone knows that you were the coward that's of course I suppose you have a good enough reason why you simply cannot accept it the door from a professional duelist or something like that or whatever. No one is forced to do it had to decide whether career and honor are more important than life itself
Junking the Supreme Court's silly ruling about "public figures" would do a lot of the trick. Let the slander suits succeed.
Then again, easier slander suit rules is one of those things that could turn into a fertile ground for the sort of intimidation suits many anti-SLAPP laws have been passed to end.
How does a normal person keep a butthurt someone with lawyer money to burn from dragging them into court repeatedly?