Displaying dominance isn't polite by the way. Should the toughest people never have to wait in lines?
I'm not sure where this is coming from, or where you're going with it. I'm not endorsing bullying, nor am I suggesting that people should simply be able to crack someone's skull in order to bypass social norms.
How would you be able to determine who equal matches are? A 130 lb man with training could seriously hurt a 200 lb. who had no training.
Yes, but most people are not capable of inflicting that kind of damage without incapacitating their opponent first-- and people who are capable of doing so are also perfectly capable of refraining from it.
Besides, I'm not talking about keeping people in fair weight classes-- I am talking about avoiding gross disparities, like the average man hitting the average woman or guys who weigh over 200 pounds lean picking fights with emo kids.
What if the loser is still mad after the fight and gets a weapon or a bunch of friends together? You assume that the fight ends the conflict. This isn't always the case.
This is what already happens now. It would still happen, and I'm not pretending that it wouldn't. But it would happen
less often, and having an appropriate and socially acceptable means of settling disputes like this would mean stronger cultural norms against going outside of them.
What would be the incentive to not call smaller, weaker, less well trained than me people assholes?
Fear of lucky shots, miscalculating their skill level, their friends, people who don't like unfair fights, and the near certainty of being considered an uncouth thug by everyone else.
None of this addresses my anger when I am without a car for repairs or lessened value at resale time. It also doesn't insure he won't drive drunk again. If he's an alcoholic, he most likely will repeat this action.
I have already addressed this and do not intend to repeat myself.
And what if his big brother says he won't stand for me beating up his brother? He then beats my ass. Then my big brother goes after him. And so on and so on.
There is a natural disincentive for this behavior-- the risk of being thought ridiculous by others. People don't go out and get revenge for their brother getting a black eye or losing a tooth in a stand-up fight. They get revenge for their brother getting seriously hurt, or getting jumped by several guys.
What if I am drunk and I mistakenly beat up the wrong person?
It's their responsibility to defend themselves.
I also remember a story where a guy's daughter lied about the neighbor molesting her. He shot and killed the guy. Then he found out that it wasn't true.
This is what is wrong with vigilante justice. It ignores the rule of law. It ignores the burden of proof. It's endorsing anarchy.
I'm not talking about justice. Why do you keep thinking that I am talking about justice, when I have made it clear repeatedly that I am not? There is a legal system for doling out justice, and I whole-heartedly approve of it. This isn't about justice, or damages, or reparations. It's about settling minor grievances and venting frustration.
If some drunken idiot smashes your car and you accidentally get into a fight with the wrong drunken idiot, it isn't a terrible injustice. It's just a stupid fight, made slightly more stupid by your mistake. You can apologize afterward, or if he's terribly aggrieved by it, he can fight you again when he's sobered up.
A fight like that doesn't solve anything except for feeling like you want to hit something. That's all I'm looking for it to accomplish.