6 ms·

People say politics are out of hand these days but man things were wild in 1904. Dueling aside… > Discredited by the duel with Hamilton, Burr sought to regain

People say politics are out of hand these days but man things were wild in 1904. Dueling aside… > Discredited by the duel with Hamilton, Burr sought to regain political power by a filibustering adventure, which led instead to his indictment for treason https://www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/july-11/ https://www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/july-11/

alwayslikethis 4y ago
*1804 I can't help but think dueling would make politics more honest. I would expect not many to be willing to die to defend their positions if these positions were just paid off by corporations.
- duxup 4y ago
  Depends on how money is at stake or if you’re just crazy… People put their lives at risk for very little.
  - MikeTheGreat 4y ago
    Agreed. Adding on to what you said - I think it also depends on where you start. If you inherit wealth and/or good opportunities then why risk it, but if not then it would make a lot of sense. After all, lots of people voluntarily enlist in the military, and one factor is not having (m)any other options. (This isn't the only reason, nor is it a factor for everyone) Plus, dueling / fighting is a skill. If you need people who are good at fighting in order to get legislation passed then the rich will hire skilled fighters to go be legislator-duelists for them.
    - germinalphrase 4y ago
      I will yield my time for rebuttal to my cosponsor on this bill - Khabib Nurmagomedov.
    - nwiswell 4y ago
      > then the rich will hire skilled fighters to go be legislator-duelists for them I'm going to be honest: considering the smorgasbord of possible dystopias, this one sounds pretty rad. Can we do cyberpunk corpocratic gladiatorial parliament? Anyone?
      - rafesureshot 4y ago
        Well how about cyberpunk philosophical gladiatorial debates? I challenge Daniel Dennet (sp?) to a philosophical debate about free will. Wait no. I challenge him to an MMA fight. If he declines, he gets to pick his favorite UFC fighter to fight by proxy (like Game of Thrones, but we'll both survive). But Dennet can't just pay the fighter off. The fighter has to actually think Dennet's a genius. And, I get to have the opportunity to talk the fighter out of the fight before the match. I've actually already issued this challenge via YouTube (3681 seconds into the video; the link jumps to the appropriate spot in the video). https://youtu.be/S7DOb539UeA?t=3681 https://youtu.be/S7DOb539UeA?t=3681
      - dcanelhas 4y ago
        President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho approves this message.
- waynesonfire 4y ago
  have you seen game of thrones? you would be able to pick a champion to fight on your behalf.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  One problem — nowadays politicians would be absolutely DDOS’d by duel challenges. We might bring back more explicit ideas of classes… but I mean, at least any congressperson would have to be able to challenge any other, right? So we’d have candidates successfully running on “I’ll duel <lightning rod congressperson of the day>.” I mean, that, on top of all the other reasons the idea of dueling is ridiculous, hahaha.
  - gostsamo 4y ago
    Every rule that is worth breaking will be broken as fast as humanly possible. People will be killed outside of the dueling rules, will be challenged for stupid reasons, or their seconds will be bribed to cover the unfair duel circumstances. I'm doubtful that social deficiencies could be resolved with technical means. Instead of resolving the issue this will change how the issue is manifested.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    > at least any congressperson would have to be able to challenge any other, right? Duelling was a matter for gentlemen; men of honour. If you have no honour to defend, duelling is inappropriate. A "gentleman" in England, at least, was a man with land, but no aristocratic title. Aristocrats often duelled, so I guess it's "gentlemen, and men of higher rank" that were thought honourable enough to duel with. Most politicians deserve only to be horsewhipped.
    - calvinmorrison 4y ago
      NO GODS NO MASTERS and certainly no silly british titles
    - mcv 4y ago
      I find it odd that violence, and not words or wit, was seen as the proper way for gentlemen and aristocrats to settle disputes. It's seen as barbaric now, and I think it's better this way.
- Joeri 4y ago
  Towards the latter days of the roman republic having gangs of people paid by different politicians battle it out in the street was a common occurrence. Dueling requires all parties involved to remain honorable at all times and today’s crop of politicians are not that, so the street battle looks much more likely than the honorable duel.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > I can’t help but think dueling would make politics more honest. We’ve literally tested this theory and it did not. > I would expect not many to be willing to die to defend their positions if these positions were just paid off by corporations. Willingness to risk death for material gain is not, historically, hard to find among humans, and, anyhow, corporations and other interests groups already use the tactic of mass propaganda to build genuine belief in their desired positions and then funding candidates that are true believers, including to the point of being willing to lie about details to advance the broader cause that has been defined that serves the interest group sponsoring the propaganda; the fact that a position is ultimately corporate propaganda doesn’t mean that the politicians see it as just that (even if they recognize it as a lie, they may see it as a lie useful to advance something else they deeply believe in.)
  - GuB-42 4y ago
    > Willingness to risk death for material gain is not, historically, hard to find among humans Often, when some company as a whole does something bad, there is a crowd that yells "jail time for the CEO", and this is the reason I think it is not the solution. If CEOs risked jail time for every bad thing the company does, it would select for scapegoat CEOs more willing to risk jail time (or even death) than more honest/competent CEOs. Note that like with anyone else, if the bad thing is question is a crime and personal responsibility is established, the CEO can go to jail, it has already happened. I am more thinking about company-wide problems, like labor law violations, anticompetitive parctices or misuse of personal data where everyone involved in the company is a little bit responsible: management for giving orders, employees for following them, the board for choosing that management, investors and customers for supporting that with their money.
- heywhatupboys 4y ago
  > I can't help but think dueling would make politics more honest. this is literally 50 % of fascist ideology
- danmur 4y ago
  Maybe if it was more like an interview, but if they don't answer a direct question with a direct answer they get a little stab. ScoMo would have been a pincushion years ago.
- m0llusk 4y ago
  That is a philosophical idea that exists apart from the realities of dueling. What actually happened is that violent reactionaries used duels as an excuse for murdering some of the best and brightest.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    There's a seemingly fact-based statement. Do you have some facts to base it on?
    - m0llusk 4y ago
      There is a long history of duels, especially in the West and California specifically, souring public opinion with senseless deaths. The really big stand out case that pretty much ended things was this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broderick%E2%80%93Terry_duel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broderick%E2%80%93Terry_duel
      - AlbertCory 4y ago
        [flagged]
billfruit 4y ago
There is entertaining novel by Gore Vidal on his life, titled "Burr".

alwayslikethis 4y ago

*1804 I can't help but think dueling would make politics more honest. I would expect not many to be willing to die to defend their positions if these positions were just paid off by corporations.

duxup 4y ago
Depends on how money is at stake or if you’re just crazy… People put their lives at risk for very little.
- MikeTheGreat 4y ago
  Agreed. Adding on to what you said - I think it also depends on where you start. If you inherit wealth and/or good opportunities then why risk it, but if not then it would make a lot of sense. After all, lots of people voluntarily enlist in the military, and one factor is not having (m)any other options. (This isn't the only reason, nor is it a factor for everyone) Plus, dueling / fighting is a skill. If you need people who are good at fighting in order to get legislation passed then the rich will hire skilled fighters to go be legislator-duelists for them.
  - germinalphrase 4y ago
    I will yield my time for rebuttal to my cosponsor on this bill - Khabib Nurmagomedov.
  - nwiswell 4y ago
    > then the rich will hire skilled fighters to go be legislator-duelists for them I'm going to be honest: considering the smorgasbord of possible dystopias, this one sounds pretty rad. Can we do cyberpunk corpocratic gladiatorial parliament? Anyone?
    - rafesureshot 4y ago
      Well how about cyberpunk philosophical gladiatorial debates? I challenge Daniel Dennet (sp?) to a philosophical debate about free will. Wait no. I challenge him to an MMA fight. If he declines, he gets to pick his favorite UFC fighter to fight by proxy (like Game of Thrones, but we'll both survive). But Dennet can't just pay the fighter off. The fighter has to actually think Dennet's a genius. And, I get to have the opportunity to talk the fighter out of the fight before the match. I've actually already issued this challenge via YouTube (3681 seconds into the video; the link jumps to the appropriate spot in the video). https://youtu.be/S7DOb539UeA?t=3681 https://youtu.be/S7DOb539UeA?t=3681
    - dcanelhas 4y ago
      President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho approves this message.
waynesonfire 4y ago
have you seen game of thrones? you would be able to pick a champion to fight on your behalf.
bee_rider 4y ago
One problem — nowadays politicians would be absolutely DDOS’d by duel challenges. We might bring back more explicit ideas of classes… but I mean, at least any congressperson would have to be able to challenge any other, right? So we’d have candidates successfully running on “I’ll duel <lightning rod congressperson of the day>.” I mean, that, on top of all the other reasons the idea of dueling is ridiculous, hahaha.
- gostsamo 4y ago
  Every rule that is worth breaking will be broken as fast as humanly possible. People will be killed outside of the dueling rules, will be challenged for stupid reasons, or their seconds will be bribed to cover the unfair duel circumstances. I'm doubtful that social deficiencies could be resolved with technical means. Instead of resolving the issue this will change how the issue is manifested.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > at least any congressperson would have to be able to challenge any other, right? Duelling was a matter for gentlemen; men of honour. If you have no honour to defend, duelling is inappropriate. A "gentleman" in England, at least, was a man with land, but no aristocratic title. Aristocrats often duelled, so I guess it's "gentlemen, and men of higher rank" that were thought honourable enough to duel with. Most politicians deserve only to be horsewhipped.
  - calvinmorrison 4y ago
    NO GODS NO MASTERS and certainly no silly british titles
  - mcv 4y ago
    I find it odd that violence, and not words or wit, was seen as the proper way for gentlemen and aristocrats to settle disputes. It's seen as barbaric now, and I think it's better this way.
Joeri 4y ago
Towards the latter days of the roman republic having gangs of people paid by different politicians battle it out in the street was a common occurrence. Dueling requires all parties involved to remain honorable at all times and today’s crop of politicians are not that, so the street battle looks much more likely than the honorable duel.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> I can’t help but think dueling would make politics more honest. We’ve literally tested this theory and it did not. > I would expect not many to be willing to die to defend their positions if these positions were just paid off by corporations. Willingness to risk death for material gain is not, historically, hard to find among humans, and, anyhow, corporations and other interests groups already use the tactic of mass propaganda to build genuine belief in their desired positions and then funding candidates that are true believers, including to the point of being willing to lie about details to advance the broader cause that has been defined that serves the interest group sponsoring the propaganda; the fact that a position is ultimately corporate propaganda doesn’t mean that the politicians see it as just that (even if they recognize it as a lie, they may see it as a lie useful to advance something else they deeply believe in.)
- GuB-42 4y ago
  > Willingness to risk death for material gain is not, historically, hard to find among humans Often, when some company as a whole does something bad, there is a crowd that yells "jail time for the CEO", and this is the reason I think it is not the solution. If CEOs risked jail time for every bad thing the company does, it would select for scapegoat CEOs more willing to risk jail time (or even death) than more honest/competent CEOs. Note that like with anyone else, if the bad thing is question is a crime and personal responsibility is established, the CEO can go to jail, it has already happened. I am more thinking about company-wide problems, like labor law violations, anticompetitive parctices or misuse of personal data where everyone involved in the company is a little bit responsible: management for giving orders, employees for following them, the board for choosing that management, investors and customers for supporting that with their money.
heywhatupboys 4y ago
> I can't help but think dueling would make politics more honest. this is literally 50 % of fascist ideology
danmur 4y ago
Maybe if it was more like an interview, but if they don't answer a direct question with a direct answer they get a little stab. ScoMo would have been a pincushion years ago.
m0llusk 4y ago
That is a philosophical idea that exists apart from the realities of dueling. What actually happened is that violent reactionaries used duels as an excuse for murdering some of the best and brightest.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  There's a seemingly fact-based statement. Do you have some facts to base it on?
  - m0llusk 4y ago
    There is a long history of duels, especially in the West and California specifically, souring public opinion with senseless deaths. The really big stand out case that pretty much ended things was this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broderick%E2%80%93Terry_duel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broderick%E2%80%93Terry_duel
    - AlbertCory 4y ago
      [flagged]

billfruit 4y ago

There is entertaining novel by Gore Vidal on his life, titled "Burr".