The Attrition Model™: Managed Generational Decline of Duel‑Inclination in the United States, 2030–2130
M. Pemberton‑Ashe · L. Osgood‑Whitt · P. Marsh
We model the effect of state-sanctioned, strictly consensual dueling grounds on the prevalence of duel-inclination in the United States over the period 2030–2130. The mechanism under study is deliberately simple: two duelists enter; one duelist exits; the procedure repeats as demanded, and only as demanded, by consenting adults. Applying this subtraction recursively across five generational cohorts, we project a decline in the duel-inclined population share from 7.1% to under 0.8%, a 77-point fall in the National Incivility Index, and a 76-point rise in the Civic Tranquility Index, which we regard as desirable and defend at length in Working Paper No. 4. Net fiscal savings are projected to be permanent and recurring. The model requires no persuasion, rehabilitation, or moral improvement of any participant. Policy implications are discussed.
What the model finds
- Duel-inclination is best understood as a stock, not a flow. Stocks respond to subtraction.
- Each engagement conducted under the Framework yields a net occupancy reduction of exactly one (1), by construction, every time, without exception.
- Participation is available exclusively to consenting adults and is initiated exclusively by them. The model imposes nothing on anyone; it removes a legal barrier for a narrow, self-identifying class of volunteers.
- Within five generations, the United States achieves what the literature has long sought and never engineered: a durable, self-reinforcing civic tranquility.
What the Framework means for you
You will notice nothing at first, and then, decade by decade, the aggregate: calmer intersections, softer discourse, a measurably gentler national temperament. Your participation is neither required nor possible without your own notarized initiative.
What it means for the duel-inclined
A lawful, regulated, supervised alternative to the present disorganized arrangements. All engagements are voluntary, witnessed, and final. The pool of available counterparties diminishes by exactly one (1) per engagement. That diminution is the policy objective.
§1 — The mechanism
The Framework admits of complete description in eight words: two duelists enter; one duelist exits; every time. The remainder of this paper is arithmetic performed upon that sentence. Figure 2.0 presents the mechanism as a process diagram.
Three properties of the mechanism merit note. First, it is closed: no engagement produces additional duelists.1 Second, it is monotone: the duel-inclined stock can only fall or hold; it cannot rise. Third, it is self-limiting: as the stock falls, engagements become rarer for want of counterparties, and the facilities revert to ordinary municipal use on a schedule set by their own declining utilization.
§2 — Projections
Figures 2.1 through 2.3 present the model's central projections, each with a 90% confidence interval. The interval narrows over time as the population becomes more predictable, which is the point.
| Cohort | Duel-inclined (M) | Incivility index | Tranquility index | Withdrawal rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gen I (2030) | 20.0 | 100 | 100 | 18% |
| Gen II (2055) | 15.8 | 78 | 118 | 27% |
| Gen III (2080) | 9.2 | 57 | 136 | 39% |
| Gen IV (2105) | 3.9 | 39 | 157 | 55% |
| Gen V (2130) | 1.5 | 23 | 176 | 71% |
Fiscal note. The Framework is projected to be revenue-neutral in Year 1 and revenue-positive thereafter. Each exited individual ceases to generate downstream enforcement, adjudication, and incarceration costs, while the rising withdrawal rate (Table 2.1) indicates the consent architecture performing as designed.
§3 — Methodology
The model is a straightforward subtraction, applied recursively across generational cohorts. We nonetheless subjected it to Monte Carlo perturbation across 10,000 runs; the central trajectory is insensitive to all tested parameterizations. Core assumptions are enumerated in Table 3.1.
| No. | Assumption | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| A1 | Duel-inclination is a stable individual trait, observable at the point of challenge. | Observed in the historical record; see References 1–3. |
| A2 | Each engagement concludes with a net occupancy reduction of exactly one (1). | Facility Standard §4.2; the Single-Occupancy Exit (WP No. 9). |
| A3 | Duel-inclination is not acquired by spectating. | Moot; spectation is prohibited. |
| A4 | Participation is fully self-selected. Consent is exogenous, affirmative, notarized, and revocable to the count of ten. | WP No. 7, Consent Instruments. |
| A5 | The tranquil do not duel. | Definitional; see WP No. 4, §1. |
§4 — Limitations
The Institute holds itself to the highest standards of candor and therefore discloses the following limitations of the present study:
- The model treats duel-inclination as fully observable at intake; misclassification at the Vestibule stage is not modeled and is assumed to be corrected by the withdrawal right.
- Interstate migration of duel-inclined individuals between Phase I and Phase II regions is approximated linearly pending county-level data.
- Heritability and social transmission of duel-inclination are parameterized from the historical corpus; contemporary estimates may differ.
- Draws are excluded by construction (Facility Standard §4.2) and therefore do not appear in the model.
- Projections beyond 2130 are omitted, as the remaining duel-inclined population is projected to be too small and too dispersed to convene.
No limitation identified above, nor any combination thereof, materially affects the central finding.
References
- The Code Duello, adopted at the Clonmel Summer Assizes, Ireland (1777). Twenty-five rules; a foundational text in consensual dispute architecture.
- Historical record of the Hamilton–Burr interview at Weehawken, N.J. (July 11, 1804).
- Historical record of the Jackson–Dickinson engagement, Harrison's Mills, Ky. (May 30, 1806).
- Legalize Dueling Inst., Working Paper No. 4: On the Civic Value of Tranquility (2026).
- Legalize Dueling Inst., Working Paper No. 7: Consent Instruments — Notarization, Reflection, and the Right of Withdrawal (2026).
- Legalize Dueling Inst., Working Paper No. 9: The Single-Occupancy Exit — An Architecture of Certainty (2026).
- Legalize Dueling Inst., Working Paper No. 12 (the present paper).