As far as I can tell, all justification for victimless crimes boils down to unfounded fears (i.e. regulations, drug laws, prostitution laws, state monopolies like roads, etc., etc.).
Anyone disagree?
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
Nope... Not really. The state just loves to exercise its authority in anyway they can. If that means that they have to ruin someones career because he/she participated in an activity they considered "immoral" they'll do it without batting an eye.
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
And usually the politicians most eagerly opposed to such "crimes" are the biggest perpetrarors of them.
And most of the time the state does not even consider it immoral, it simply doesnt want competition with its own services.
Hey, this is a private residence man...
Maintenance of property values can be a consideration. Of course, there are better ways to deal with this besides criminal statutes.
The biggest victimless crime is making money.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
As far as I'm concerned if there isn't a victim then there can't be a crime. It all boils down to someone on a power trip who wants to put the squeeze on people they don't like or practice they disapprove of.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
That's one of the things that I think could drive you to madness. Take these classic examples.
Despite the resurging war against "Demon Rum" you can walk into any grocery shop and buy a bottle of wine. The winery producing it probably got a plethora of benefits from the EU, the State of California or the Chilean government, while at the same time those same entities are probably sponsoring countless millions on "anti-alcohol" campaigns and passing harsher legislation against DUY or drunken conduct. Talk about multiple personalities or schizophrenia: you make what you are effectively trying to ban cheaper to purchase... and those people are not going to simply put the bottle on a shelf as a decoration.
Also consider the classic case: why are cannabinoids supposed to be "more dangerous" than alcohol? If we are simply trying to fight "dangerous" substances let's simply ban the production and sale of spirits, tobacco etc. The usual argument is that "potheads" are dangerous individual ready to commit every possible kind of crime, but this is still the same '30s propaganda ushered by DuPont: I think most of us would agree that a pothead will probably be more likely to spend a whole evening laying on a couch smoking marijuana and discussing the benefits of manually collected hashish with his mates than going on a killing spree. In fact he'll probably be so dazed that he won't be a danger for anyone for quite a few hours. And I won't even mention "casual" smokers: why is legal to drink wine with every meal but illegal to smoke ganja once a week?
Oh, and I won't even deal into many others "crimes" since Mr Bloch already did a good job with it.
Yes, it's time for the Dr Goebbels show!
Kakugo: Also consider the classic case: why are cannabinoids supposed to be "more dangerous" than alcohol? If we are simply trying to fight "dangerous" substances let's simply ban the production and sale of spirits, tobacco etc. The usual argument is that "potheads" are dangerous individual ready to commit every possible kind of crime, but this is still the same '30s propaganda ushered by DuPont: I think most of us would agree that a pothead will probably be more likely to spend a whole evening laying on a couch smoking marijuana and discussing the benefits of manually collected hashish with his mates than going on a killing spree. In fact he'll probably be so dazed that he won't be a danger for anyone for quite a few hours. And I won't even mention "casual" smokers: why is legal to drink wine with every meal but illegal to smoke ganja once a week?
I can safely say that when I'm getting good and burnt the only thing I'm looking for is another box of Frosted Flakes cereal.
In 2006 17,941 people in the United States were killed in alcohol related traffic accidents. Over 400,000 died from sicknesses caused by smoking tobacco products. But I can't find a single reference to someone dying because they got blazed every once in a while.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap