Someone is trying to bring back trial by battle.
“Game of Thrones” Fan Demands Trial by Combat…
The very short version is that while people have been resolving disputes with violence for as long as there have been people, or at least since people invented beer, here we are talking about a legally sanctioned practice of resolving a dispute by fighting. That is, not just a fight or a duel or two guys fighting in single combat before a battle, but a recognized legal right to demand the other party fight it out…
The argument Luthmann is throwing out there, almost certainly tongue-in-cheek, is that in 1776, Parliament had not yet outlawed trial by combat, and so it was still part of the common law at the time the U.S. became independent. Congress has never outlawed it, and the Ninth Amendment (so the argument goes) preserves the right. I don’t think any U.S. court has ever ruled on this argument, but it seems very unlikely to work.
Click over, the post is quite good. It left me with a dreamy-eye’d sigh as I pondered what could be.
There is something innate to K-strategists that respects ability and skill. Here as we examine history, when you slide toward K-selection and a harsher world, lawyers with technicalities and rules to manipulate gives way to a sort of Thunderdome legal system where the most fit and capable, in a purely Darwinian sense, take what they desire by force of superior fitness. A dispute over resources is settled in direct competition, almost formalizing the K-selection method of resource distribution in law.
It is innate for each side to judge such systems, but above it all lies truth. As resources proliferate, we tend toward social manipulations and seeking to tie each other up in social conventions, rules, and laws, so as to distribute resources absent any measure of raw physical capability. At it’s extreme, “Might Makes Right” is castigated as the epitome of unfairness. Conversely, as resources grow scarce we become all about ability, skill, fitness, and who is left standing in the pool of their enemy’s blood. At its most extreme, a dispute over property will see the judge say, “Let them fight for it!,” to the cheers of the crowd, and the fearful shrieks of any Woody Allen-esque plaintifs.
Those are two very different models of psychology, and as we see, one is associated with a rabbit-esque sexual promiscuity, reversal of gender roles, sexualization of young, and diminished loyalty to in-group. The other prefers monogamy, normalized gender roles, sexual shielding of young, and a more group-oriented, gang mentality.
Obviously one system favors snarky-mouthed, psychopathic lawyer-cunts, who single-mom the future sociopathic baby-daddies sired by their disposable man-boobed sex toys, the other favors barbaric savages who proudly sack neighboring villages to provision and protect families managed by loving women, who tingle with adoration in the presence of their manly awesomeness.
As a barbaric savage at heart, I have my preference, as I am sure you have yours.
Apocalypse cometh™, now with trial by combat.
Addendum : This post about a Norwegian prison escapee is pretty funny too. I view it as “When rabbits run prisons.” Obviously increased tolerance for out-group interests is almost comical at the extremes.
I need to sharpen my claymore.