The Case For Dueling pt. (x)

As we have seen a few times in our lives, men of a cowardly stature hide behind money and the legal system. We have seen the law fail the little man and we have also seen where a billionaire had to sponsor a “millionaire” in the courts for a man to feel whole. I feel empowered to tell my readers again that the courts don’t make a proper venue.

It is one thing that lawyers, (also known as the owners of our legal system), prevent honor from being upheld. It is another that there is no mechanism from keeping someone from destroying your name and hiding behind coward’s mechanisms to get away with it.

At one time in history, there was “plains justice”, community posses chasing criminals, and dueling. Yes, I circled back around to dueling. Too many people have given me the broken argument that localized courts, district courts, and civil court lawsuits were a better replacement for dueling. The same people said that dueling was not civilized and that maniacs were engaged in such pursuits in the past.

I would make the argument that only a fool would engage in the timing wasting pursuit of using the law to make oneself whole. The legal system became an industry and a money suck. A man of simple existence and engaged in survival doesn’t belong in the courts. (If you don’t believe this, ask the relatively wealthy people that tried to sue Gawker. Gawker and the chickenshits in their company that hid less than honorable behavior behind the veil of law).

A duel traditionally wasn’t dragged on for money. It was extremely hard to dry out someone. The duel only had a few ways out of it. An agreement, satisfaction, among others. It wasn’t always about killing.

Doing your best to not run your mouth about another and keeping your word would often keep you out of these situations. I would also say keeping better company would also help keep you out of duels too.

In these ideas I would make the case for dueling. If you read about how defamation cases fail and how gossip columns operate, (and subsequently never allow for a person to move on), you could make the case too.

I have every reason to believe that the courts will continue to be limited access and as always, non-user friendly.

If we had honor anymore we would mind our mouths and avoid the situations that would give birth to the duel. But in the meantime, as cowards hide behind money, I will push for the duels return.

About freemattpodcast

Lead shill for The FreeMatt Podcast
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to The Case For Dueling pt. (x)

  1. porngirl3 says:

    That’s a fun and funny concept. Theoretically I agree, except I have been pulled into many predicaments I didn’t start by vengeful people and I imagine I’d be in need of a really good firearm and lots of practice to survive life if it indeed were back in style. Lol

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Heinlein had his problems but,

    “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”

    … seems reasonable to me.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Gunner Q says:

    I’m in total agreement. Our current system was made by lawyers, for lawyers. Nobody wins except the lawyers. Men of action and modest means deserve justice as much as anybody.

    “An armed society is a polite society”

    The statement doesn’t work in either a rabbit society or a shame-based society. Tribal feuds across the world have proven that when individual honor (or human life itself) is valued less than group loyalty, the people could be reduced to rocks and they’d fight with rocks… against tanks.

    In the American context, if we had a dueling code right now then Trump would be called out fifty thousand times a day and they would be death matches… losers and convicted felons hoping for either get lucky or be worshiped in death. They wouldn’t be duels, they’d be attempted murders by the desperate and deranged.

    Heinlein’s maxim holds only for honorable people. Like many first-generation atheists, he assumed that everybody was naturally highly principled… because everybody he knew had been raised by Christianity and Western culture to be highly principled, himself included. Hence the lie “we don’t need God to be Good.”

    Maybe we need a “group dueling code”. Militias versus Pantifa mobs in sanctioned venues. “sunday Sunday SUNDAY! Come watch your never-to-be-tenured soyboy professors battle the embittered veterans of the United States Armed Forces WITH LIVE AMMO for domination of society! WHO will rule Portland TOMORROW!”

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Pingback: FreeMatt in Review: 10-5 to 10-9 | Mogadishu Matt

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s