No Victim No Crime

[madfranks]

The phrase "No victim, no crime" - I know it is derived from the non-aggression principle, but I want to further discuss its meaning, contradictions (if any), and rebuttals. What do you think?

[palani]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14180904361479507772&

Above link is to the case of Hutchens vs Maxicenters. It is an appeal from a decision in 1988 but gives quite a bit of incite into the current thinking of the judicial mind.

Whether criminal or civil a plaintiff brings an action and drags a defendant into a court. The court takes the concept that someone is complaining and that there must be a trust involved and the fiduciary is the defendant. A constructive trust is established based upon the defendant not stating he is involved in no trust relationship.

Under this scheme no injury is actually required. They also discuss common law and equity being combined in 1953 and existing simultaneously in a single court. You have no idea which type of court you are in.

[Agrippa]

If there was no victim and no crime, there would be nothing to talk about.

A so-called "victimless crime" which is prosecuted has both victim and crime: the victim is the one prosecuted, the crime is the prosecution and punishment, the criminals the ones carrying these out.

[madfranks]

If there was no victim and no crime, there would be nothing to talk about.

A so-called "victimless crime" which is prosecuted has both victim and crime: the victim is the one prosecuted, the crime is the prosecution and punishment, the criminals the ones carrying these out.


In which case the real victims have no recourse or way to seek relief from the criminals. But that's not what I'm really wondering about. Say when you get a traffic ticket for speeding. There was no victim, so was a crime really committed? The state argues that you are a criminal for violating their law, but really, since nobody was hurt and you aggressed against nobody, are you really a criminal?

[solid]

In which case the real victims have no recourse or way to seek relief from the criminals. But that's not what I'm really wondering about. Say when you get a traffic ticket for speeding. There was no victim, so was a crime really committed? The state argues that you are a criminal for violating their law, but really, since nobody was hurt and you aggressed against nobody, are you really a criminal?


I think the state takes into account potential victims. Sure, if you speed there's no victim...yet if you go faster than you can control your vehicle, you do take the safety of others around you, and put them in jeopardy.

Take smoking marijuana...an obvious "victimless" crime. It is, victimless. Yet, if a hiker stumbles upon a pot field that's is booby trapped, gets killed...was he a victim of this victimless crime? If there was no demand for marijuana, there would be no need to cause hazards to innocent hikers.

There is a lot of gray area here, to think about.

[Dogman]

Dos Peso's worth.

Most no victim crimes are where money changes hands and the gov has no way to truly control the transactions
so they do not get a cut "Tax" so they make it a crime.

Not all, Liquid made a great point about speeding That one is victim less only if you do not cause harm to others.
There is a lot of gray areas, If no harm is caused, no victim, But if harm is caused, then there is a victim.

There is truly not a good answer to the question, much more gray than black/white!

[StackerKen]

Actually,possession of cannabis has been decriminalized in many states So it is nolonger considered a crime so to speak :-\

IMO... Reckless behavior such as Drunk driving and shooting a firearm in the air (for instance), May be victim-less crimes. But they need to be against the law because they are potentially deadly.

I think it is a drag that society needs to be baby sat...but they do. :-\

[BrewTech]

Actually,possession of cannabis has been decriminalized in many states So it is nolonger considered a crime so to speak :-\

IMO... Reckless behavior such as Drunk driving and shooting a firearm in the air (for instance), May be victim-less crimes. But they need to be against the law because they are potentially deadly.

I think it is a drag that society needs to be baby sat...but they do. :-\


Right. Look who's doing the babysitting, Ken.

What qualifies the babysitter to babysit?

[StackerKen]

Actually,possession of cannabis has been decriminalized in many states So it is nolonger considered a crime so to speak :-\

IMO... Reckless behavior such as Drunk driving and shooting a firearm in the air (for instance), May be victim-less crimes. But they need to be against the law because they are potentially deadly.

I think it is a drag that society needs to be baby sat...but they do. :-\


Right. Look who's doing the babysitting, Ken.

What qualifies the babysitter to babysit?


well, It used to be a "government of the people, by the people, for the people,"

Its a shame its not like that anymore :(

[madfranks]

I think the state takes into account potential victims. Sure, if you speed there's no victim...yet if you go faster than you can control your vehicle, you do take the safety of others around you, and put them in jeopardy.

Take smoking marijuana...an obvious "victimless" crime. It is, victimless. Yet, if a hiker stumbles upon a pot field that's is booby trapped, gets killed...was he a victim of this victimless crime? If there was no demand for marijuana, there would be no need to cause hazards to innocent hikers.

There is a lot of gray area here, to think about.


The "potential victim" logic is bullshit. Everybody on earth "could" hurt or kill someone else. I think the actual crime should be punished, not a potential crime. Remember the movie Minority Report? People were being arrested and imprisoned for crimes they didn't commit. Do you think a man should be arrested if he finds his spouse in his room with another lover and in his rage grabs a pair of scissors or a knife?

And regarding the booby trapped field, either the owner is aggressing against others by hurting them with his traps, or others are aggressing against him by trespassing on his land. Those are two totally different incidents neither of which matter if he was growing marijuana or tomatoes. What if someone booby trapped his tomato garden because he didn't want people trespassing on it? Should we get rid of tomatoes because the demand for them is causing people to get hurt?

As long as the state punishes us for potentially hurting others, how far can that arm extend?

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

I think that every crime is required to have an injured party. Produce the injured party.

[StackerKen]

So you wouldn't want the cops to do anything if your neighbor was shooting a gun in the air and/or running a meth lab?

how about if that same neighbor were to drive down your street drunk going 100mph while your kids were playing outside?

[sirgonzo420]

So you wouldn't want the cops to do anything if your neighbor was shooting a gun in the air and/or running a meth lab?

how about if that same neighbor were to drive down your street drunk going 100mph while your kids were playing outside?


Freedom isn't free.


In fact, Freedom can be quite ugly at times.


But God knows I love it!

[StackerKen]

So you wouldn't want the cops to do anything if your neighbor was shooting a gun in the air and/or running a meth lab?

how about if that same neighbor were to drive down your street drunk going 100mph while your kids were playing outside?


Freedom isn't free.




In fact, Freedom can be quite ugly at times.


But God knows I love it!



what freedom?

The freedom to put other peoples lives at risk?

BTW One of the reasons I live up in the hills is so I don't have to deal with crap like the stuff I wrote there.

I don't think Im buying that any of you would let someone be reckless around your family
Or that you want them to have the freedom to do so.

[Gaillo]

So you wouldn't want the cops to do anything if your neighbor was shooting a gun in the air and/or running a meth lab?

how about if that same neighbor were to drive down your street drunk going 100mph while your kids were playing outside?


Honestly? No I wouldn't want the cops involved.
Shooting a gun in the air is irresponsible, but as Julian Hatcher proved bullets fired upward have almost no energy upon returning to the ground, unless the muzzle is angled "sideways" to the extent that the bullets still have sufficient sideways velocity to penetrate the target. In any case, if the shooter ACTUALLY HURTS SOMEONE by shooting a gun in the air, he should be severely punished for his negligence. Otherwise, you could make the claim that the MERE FACT that he is in possession of a weapon means that he MIGHT hurt someone with it, and we all know the end result of that argument by visiting nanny-states like Britain.
Meth lab? I have no problem with people making and ingesting whatever manner of self-destructive substances they want, so long as they are not forcing it on anyone (coercion) or selling/giving to minors who are not yet capable of making those types of decisions in an informed manner (fraud). If the lab is poisoning nearby residents due to the chemists lack of proper fume control, etc. Then I say prosecute for causing actual harm.
100MPH drunk driver while my kids are playing in the street? First of all, WTH would my kids be doing playing in a busy street for? In any case, I've met people in my life I'd trust behind the wheel drunk WAY more than others I've met who get in all kinds of accidents stone sober, just because they don't pay attention or take driving lightly and apply makeup, etc. while going down the interstate! My grandfather's brother (whatever you call that relation, great-uncle I think...) never had a sober day in his life from what I've heard, drove delivery truck for a living, and NEVER got in an accident or hurt anyone. I'm not saying it's a GOOD thing for people to drive drunk, I'm just saying that unless they actually HURT someone, leave them alone!
As Gonzo said, freedom is not free and has risks... but I'd rather live in a dangerous world as a free man than coddled and "protected" as a subject in a nanny slave-State!

[sirgonzo420]

So you wouldn't want the cops to do anything if your neighbor was shooting a gun in the air and/or running a meth lab?

how about if that same neighbor were to drive down your street drunk going 100mph while your kids were playing outside?


Freedom isn't free.




In fact, Freedom can be quite ugly at times.


But God knows I love it!



what freedom?

The freedom to put other peoples lives at risk?

BTW One of the reasons I live up in the hills is so I don't have to deal with crap like the stuff I wrote there.

I don't think Im buying that any of you would let someone be reckless around your family
Or that you want them to have the freedom to do so.

There have been cases of spontaneous combustion - so, with that in mind, everyone is a potential timebomb. :P

There are already "laws" against "shooting a gun in the air", "meth labs", and "drunk-driving" and "speeding".

However, those things continue to happen from time to time. Laws, in and of themselves, do not keep people safe.

I see your point ken, and if I felt someone were endangering my family, I would have a good old fashioned man-to-man talk with them about it.

Both Freedom and tyranny come with their own "problems"...

Freedom is not always pleasant or "safe", and neither is tyranny; I choose Freedom.

[StackerKen]

100MPH drunk driver while my kids are playing in the street? WTH would my kids be doing playing in a busy street for?

I meant the street that You live on.

Should someone or a company then be allowed to dump dangerous chemicals in the let's say a river or a lake? and not be stopped until some one is hurt?


I'd rather live in a dangerous world than a "protected" nanny slave-State!

well, good luck finding a place that isn't both.

[solid]

I'd rather live in a dangerous world than a "protected" nanny slave-State!

well, good luck finding a place that isn't both.


Move to the inner city, move to the ghetto, and you can fire your gun in the air...drive 100 mph down the street drunk, and then go home to a meth lab.

Nobody will do anything about it, most likely. What some folks are arguing, is actually true in some areas.

Perhaps ghettos are more "free" then the rest of the country, in that manner. But, you are right, you do have to pay for it.

You have to live around it. You have to be willing to become a victim, before you can attempt to solve the problem.

That's the problem with being a victim, or "victimless" crimes...you have to react, instead of taking a proactive approach to solving the problem. You have to wait until someone gets hurt, or someone gets wronged...before you can make it right.

That is a high price to pay sometimes.

[StackerKen]

Im all for Freedom...I just don't think a person should be free to recklessly endanger another person

[StackerKen]

I think this is a good one and I don't want it to be missed...

I would like an answer from those who love freedom



Should someone or a company be allowed to dump dangerous chemicals in the let's say a river or a lake? and not be stopped until some one is hurt?

[sirgonzo420]

LOL

I just got solid's username...

[solid]

I think this is a good one and I don't want it to be missed...

I would like an answer from those who love freedom



Should someone or a company be allowed to dump dangerous chemicals in the let's say a river or a lake? and not be stopped until some one is hurt?



That is a good one Ken, also is putting flouride in a our drinking water a crime? What about chemtrails, is that a crime?

Apparently not, because nobody can prove if these things actually have "victims".

[Gaillo]

I think this is a good one and I don't want it to be missed...

I would like an answer from those who love freedom



Should someone or a company be allowed to dump dangerous chemicals in the let's say a river or a lake? and not be stopped until some one is hurt?



Sure, Ken... I'll tackle that one.
Dumping toxic chemicals in a river or lake IS an act of coercion (poisoning what is reasonably expected to be a source of culinary/agricultural water) as well as an act of fraud (whoever is doing such a thing is OBVIOUSLY not going to be advertising the crime!). An act like that should be vigorously prosecuted, hopefully with the end result of the perpetrator of the crime being made to clean up his toxic mess, among other punishments.

Some of these examples are just silly... people will, of course, commit some of them just to see "how far" they can stretch things when there is no strong arm of tyranny there to stop them, but I'm betting that Darwinian selection will weed most of them out (particularly those engaged in reckless gunplay, stupid car tricks, or drug abuse!) before they become a real problem to a free society.

[StackerKen]

I think this is a good one and I don't want it to be missed...

I would like an answer from those who love freedom



Should someone or a company be allowed to dump dangerous chemicals in the let's say a river or a lake? and not be stopped until some one is hurt?



That is a good one Ken, also is putting flouride in a our drinking water a crime? What about chemtrails, is that a crime?

Apparently not, because nobody can prove if these things actually have "victims".



Apparently there are some here that don't think those things should becrimes unless there is proof that someone is hurt by them.

[StackerKen]

I don't think the examples I used are silly at all Gaillo
they happen all the time...I don't want them to be legal

Meth labs are huge polluters

Thats one of the reasons I asked if you wouldn't mind having one nextdoor

[Gaillo]

I think this is a good one and I don't want it to be missed...

I would like an answer from those who love freedom



Should someone or a company be allowed to dump dangerous chemicals in the let's say a river or a lake? and not be stopped until some one is hurt?



That is a good one Ken, also is putting flouride in a our drinking water a crime? What about chemtrails, is that a crime?

Apparently not, because nobody can prove if these things actually have "victims".



Apparently there are some here that don't think those things should becrimes unless there is proof that someone is hurt by them.


And there are others here, Ken, who think the bailiff should "whack off your pee-pee" since you MIGHT potentially rape someone! ;D

[StackerKen]

I think this is a good one and I don't want it to be missed...

I would like an answer from those who love freedom



Should someone or a company be allowed to dump dangerous chemicals in the let's say a river or a lake? and not be stopped until some one is hurt?




That is a good one Ken, also is putting flouride in a our drinking water a crime? What about chemtrails, is that a crime?

Apparently not, because nobody can prove if these things actually have "victims".



Apparently there are some here that don't think those things should becrimes unless there is proof that someone is hurt by them.


And there are others here, Ken, who think the bailiff should "whack off your pee-pee" since you MIGHT potentially rape someone! ;D


Now that...Is silly. :P

Might do something that could hurt someone is NOT what we are talking about here.

Doing something that could easily hurt someone...is what Im talkin about :)

[madfranks]

So you wouldn't want the cops to do anything if your neighbor was shooting a gun in the air and/or running a meth lab?

how about if that same neighbor were to drive down your street drunk going 100mph while your kids were playing outside?


Stacker, I think you are responding the way most people respond when faced with these scenarios; that is, if the State didn't take care to discourage this type of behavior, then it would run rampant and uncontrolled. But that's not the case at all. Private property owners could easily ban shooting guns for non-defensive purposes or ban guns at all on their property. Insurance companies can (and probably already do) prohibit using an insured property for drug production and distribution. The fact that people will still do these things is not the point; they still do even though gov't laws forbid it. The larger point is, unless you are hurting someone or aggressing against them or their property, there is no victim, and therefore no crime. Like Gaillo said, if the meth lab was aggressing against their neighbors by emitting toxic fumes or otherwise hurting them, then the law should be invoked to stop the aggression on the part of the meth lab.



Should someone or a company then be allowed to dump dangerous chemicals in the let's say a river or a lake? and not be stopped until some one is hurt?

Of course not! If someone dumped chemicals into a water supply that people used, that person would be committing a heinous act of aggression against the whole population! That person would be punished under laws protecting people's property from attack or intrusion by others. And for the record, public ownership of lands/rivers/water sources is why people pollute them so much! Here's why: It's easy to throw your trash on the city street because it's not your problem anymore. It's not your property, it's nobody's. How many private properties do you see trashed or polluted like public lands? Private property provides more incentive to keep it clean, because it is owned and valued by someone. Public property is owned by "everyone" which means it's owned by nobody and it's easy to trash it.

[Gaillo]

I think this is a good one and I don't want it to be missed...

I would like an answer from those who love freedom



Should someone or a company be allowed to dump dangerous chemicals in the let's say a river or a lake? and not be stopped until some one is hurt?




That is a good one Ken, also is putting flouride in a our drinking water a crime? What about chemtrails, is that a crime?

Apparently not, because nobody can prove if these things actually have "victims".



Apparently there are some here that don't think those things should be crimes unless there is proof that someone is hurt by them.


And there are others here, Ken, who think the bailiff should "whack off your pee-pee" since you MIGHT potentially rape someone! ;D


Now that...Is silly. :P

Might do something that could hurt someone is NOT what we are talking about here.

Doing something that could easily hurt someone...is what Im talkin about :)


Ken, you either believe in freedom (along with the responsibility and vigilance/trust over your fellow man that freedom requires) or you don't. There is no "gray area". This conversation has shown CLEARLY which side of the fence you are on. Start prosecuting for "potential" crimes, instead of ACTUAL crimes, and it will end up in EXACTLY the type of scenario you call "silly" - you don't think the courts might eventually forceably castrate people for the POTENTIAL that they might rape? Think again. They're already castrating our self-protection rights (gun control), our privacy rights (the war on terror), our rights to our bodies and minds (the war on drugs) and our right to enjoy the fruit of our labor (taxes). The "potential" abuses of most of those are FAR less serious than rape.

[StackerKen]

Ken, you either believe in freedom (along with the responsibility and vigilance/trust over your fellow man that freedom requires) or you don't. There is no "gray area". This conversation has shown CLEARLY which side of the fence you are on.

I think Your wrong there.

You know that most people are stupid...I think they need a baby sitter



Start prosecuting for "potential" crimes, instead of ACTUAL crimes, and it will end up in EXACTLY the type of scenario you call "silly" -
Again, I disagree


you don't think the courts might eventually forceably castrate people for the POTENTIAL that they might rape?

No I don't. Unless maybe that person has been convicted of rape more than once...Then I think that might not be a bad idea

[StackerKen]

would you all prefer if I went along with the "Group think" here?

Sorry I don't and can't do that :-\

[Gaillo]

Ken, you either believe in freedom (along with the responsibility and vigilance/trust over your fellow man that freedom requires) or you don't. There is no "gray area". This conversation has shown CLEARLY which side of the fence you are on.

I think Your wrong there.

You know that most people are stupid...I think they need a baby sitter


Your love and compassion for your fellow man is commendable!
Ken, you have nothing to worry about... your "baby sitter" (The NWO) will be arriving soon... and you'll fit right in with the new plan, provided they let you live. If not, then one day soon when you and your family is locked away in a FEMA camp starving, you'll remember conversations about freedom on a "group think" website you used to visit and argue on when you HAD any freedom, and you'll wonder why you took the position you did!

Oh... and I noticed that Solid is taking the "pro-active" stance on all this... This thread is truly turning into an effective litmus test! ;)

[solid]

Your love and compassion for your fellow man is commendable!
Ken, you have nothing to worry about... your "baby sitter" (The NWO) will be arriving soon... and you'll fit right in with the new plan, provided they let you live. If not, then one day soon when you and your family is locked away in a FEMA camp starving, you'll remember conversations about freedom on a "group think" website you used to visit and argue on when you HAD any freedom, and you'll wonder why you took the position you did!


Gaillo, I understand Ken's viewpoint.

What about that thread about the Chinese richest city? That's a good example, you have that city, everyone walks the line, nobody is free, but comfortable. Yet, you have places like Liberia, where everyone is free to rape each other and shit on the beach. You can do whatever you want there, nobody cares, it's a crime ridden nightmare.

Ken has a lot of very good points. You do too.

There's no easy answer to this discussion, there is so many gray areas.

[StackerKen]

There were 11,773 drunk driving deaths in 2008.
2008 showed a 9.7% decrease from 2007 in alcohol-impaired driving deaths.
Drunk driving deaths (11,773) accounted for 32% of the total amount of United States car accident deaths (37,261) in 2008.
1,347 children ages 14 and younger died as occupants in car accidents in 2008. Of those deaths, 216 (approx 16%) were the direct result of drunk drivers.
Along with the 1,347 child occupant fatalities, another 34 children died as pedestrians or bikers who were hit by drunk drivers.
Nighttime drivers were four times more likely to die in drunk driving crashes in 2008 than those driving during the daytime.
In 2008, weekend drivers were twice as likely to be involved in drinking and driving car crashes than weekday drivers.
The 21-24 age group accounted for 34% of all alcohol-impaired-drivers who died in accidents in 2008. The 25-34 demographic accounted for 31%, while those from 35-44 years of age accounted for 25%.
Despite being under the legal drinking age, American teens from the ages of 16-20 were more likely to be killed while driving under the influence than adults ages 55-64. Teens accounted for 17% of all drivers who were involved in drunk driving crashes, while those from 55-64 accounted for 12%.
Of the drunk driving crashes where seat belt use was known, nearly 75% of all drunk drivers killed in accidents in 2008 weren't wearing seat belts.
In the United States, a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) level of .08 or higher is considered above the legal limit in nearly every state. The most frequently recorded BAC level among drivers who were killed in alcohol-impaired-driving accidents in 2008 was .16, or twice the legal limit.
Drunk drivers who were over the legal limit when they died in 2008 were eight times more likely to have been previously convicted for drunk driving.
In 2008, 6,316 passenger vehicle drivers were over the legal limit when car crashes claimed their lives.

I know some of you would say that those numbers a not truthful...
So lets say they are half of what they are claiming...

Apparently Gaillo thinks folks should have the freedom to Drive as drunk as they want And drive as fast as they want. and do what ever else they want Until they mame or kill someone.

I say it's a little late then.

And apparently Gaillo thinks that because I and many others feel this way It will bring on the NWO and we will all end up in Fema camps.

Gaillo Yes...there will be a NWO someday.... it will not be my fault....that crap started before I was born. There is nothing you or I can do to stop it. Its gonna happen...But I don't think it will happen in my lifetime and Im not really worried about ending up starving in a FEMA camp.....I don't think thats gonna happen..and...I just don't worry about that kind of stuff ;) :-*

[StackerKen]

And...

The argument "there are laws already and people still do it" "So why have the law?"

Is a stupid argument ;)



you have places like Liberia, where everyone is free to rape each other and sh*t on the beach. You can do whatever you want there, nobody cares, it's a crime ridden nightmare.

Great Point Solid!

[Gaillo]

And...

The argument "there are laws already and people still do it" "So why have the law?"

Is a stupid argument ;)



you have places like Liberia, where everyone is free to rape each other and sh*t on the beach. You can do whatever you want there, nobody cares, it's a crime ridden nightmare.

Great Point Solid!




I'm not arguing against laws, I'm arguing against "victimless crimes". In places like the Liberian slum that Solid brought up, NOBODY is free, because there is no law to protect people from the coercion/fraud of others. That's not freedom, that's SLAVERY to anyone who comes along with a bigger gun than yours!

I would argue that a few WELL ENFORCED laws that actually target REAL crimes where coercion or fraud have been committed would lead to a far free-er society than our U.S. model: TONS of laws that often penalize things that lead to no real harm, and are poorly (or worse... SELECTIVELY) enforced.

[BillBoard]

If there was no victim and no crime, there would be nothing to talk about.

A so-called "victimless crime" which is prosecuted has both victim and crime: the victim is the one prosecuted, the crime is the prosecution and punishment, the criminals the ones carrying these out.


In which case the real victims have no recourse or way to seek relief from the criminals. But that's not what I'm really wondering about. Say when you get a traffic ticket for speeding. There was no victim, so was a crime really committed? The state argues that you are a criminal for violating their law, but really, since nobody was hurt and you aggressed against nobody, are you really a criminal?


I think you are looking at it the wrong way, this is more like breach of contract or breach of fiduciary duty. You agree to abide by the traffic code when you signed for a license.

[willie pete]

If there was no victim and no crime, there would be nothing to talk about.

A so-called "victimless crime" which is prosecuted has both victim and crime: the victim is the one prosecuted, the crime is the prosecution and punishment, the criminals the ones carrying these out.


In which case the real victims have no recourse or way to seek relief from the criminals. But that's not what I'm really wondering about. Say when you get a traffic ticket for speeding. There was no victim, so was a crime really committed? The state argues that you are a criminal for violating their law, but really, since nobody was hurt and you aggressed against nobody, are you really a criminal?


I think you are looking at it the wrong way, this is more like breach of contract or breach of fiduciary duty. You agree to abide by the traffic code when you signed for a license.


..And in the state of California, probably others too...if you're operating a motor vehicle on private property (doesn't have to be yours) say you're on the farm or your yard is big enough to drive your car around on, if you don't have a license (suspended for example) with you....you can be ticketed...goes for drinking a beer in your front yard, ..a cop drives by, sees you standing there drinking a beer in your front yard, he could ticket or arrest you ...even though you're on your property..now these are extreme cases, but none the less it is the law

[StackerKen]

While you guys are wanting to give people the freedom to drive as drunk and as fast as they want to. Why not give people the freedom to run red lights, and drive on the sidewalk while they are at it?

as long as there are no victims of course

I mean...where do you draw the line?

and who are you to decide where to draw the line?

thats right...We the people...should be the ones that draw the line...

government of the people, by the people, for the people

[Glass]

I would argue that a few WELL ENFORCED laws that actually target REAL crimes where coercion or fraud have been committed would lead to a far free-er society than our U.S. model: TONS of laws that often penalize things that lead to no real harm, and are poorly (or worse... SELECTIVELY) enforced.


I agree. Have laws for the fundamentals. Harm someone, physically or financially then it's a crime. A Duty of Care. Make that harmed person whole again or be imprisoned. We don't need all of the twisting or turning. We just need a simple test. Were they harmed? Yes or No. Can you repair the damage? Yes or No?

All of the rest of it is contractural/trust obligations shenanigans where the Govt, which I contend has the orimary business of interdicting commerce and applying a fee much like a highway man demands a fee or toll before allowing you to pass. This is what the Govt primary activity is. Interdicting commerce and applying fees, duties and levys. Traffic fines are commercial contracts. No doubt about it and they levy a fee on it.

[Gaillo]

...as long as there are no victims of course

I mean...where do you draw the line?

and who are you to decide where to draw the line?

thats right...We the people...should be the ones that draw the line...

government of the people, by the people, for the people




So you are a proponent of "mob rule", Ken? If enough people say so, it's LAW to be ENFORCED at the point of a gun? If you and enough of your neighbors don't like that I drink a beer or 6 on my front porch with my car keys in my pocket (whether or not I actually intend to get IN my car) because it makes you feel UNCOMFORTABLE then I should be arrested and jailed?

I personally draw the line where REAL HARM has been done, not "potentials", "fears", "public security" and all those other watch-phrases that are used so often to make slaves of men.

[StackerKen]

...as long as there are no victims of course

I mean...where do you draw the line?

and who are you to decide where to draw the line?

thats right...We the people...should be the ones that draw the line...

government of the people, by the people, for the people




So you are a proponent of "mob rule", Ken?

I am a proponent of just what I said ....government of the people, by the people, for the people
the Kind of government the founding fathers of this country meant for us to have
apparently you have a problem with that.


If enough people say so, it's LAW to be ENFORCED at the point of a gun? If you and enough of your neighbors don't like that I drink a beer or 6 on my front porch with my car keys in my pocket (whether or not I actually intend to get IN my car) because it makes you feel UNCOMFORTABLE then I should be arrested and jailed?

Don't put words in my mouth man...I am talking about obvious reckless Dangerous behavior. Not something someone Might do

I personally draw the line where REAL HARM has been done, not "potentials", "fears", "public security" and all those other watch-phrases that are used so often to make slaves of men.

after real harm like someone being killed?...it is kinda late then.


Why did you leave the rest of my post out bro?

care to answer it?

While you guys are wanting to give people the freedom to drive as drunk and as fast as they want to.
Why not give people the freedom to run red lights, and drive on the sidewalk while they are at it?

[solid]

What about trespassing? That could be a victimless crime. Do you mind folks hiking on your private property? Oh, that is right, they could potential cause a crime.

[Buddha]

No victim = no crime.

Why make something more difficult then it needs to be?

[Gaillo]

Ken,
The kind of government the founding politicians of this country meant for us to have was a Constitutional Republic, where the Government was STRICTLY limited as to what it could do. They recognized that government was SERIOUSLY, NO SHIIT, THE most dangerous and potentially destructive social structure ever created by human kind! They based this government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" (as you've brought up) on the idea that government served ONE purpose, and one purpose only: to SECURE THE RIGHTS of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In short, to protect people from the aggressions and deceptions of other people. This new government was NOT meant to grant roads, to make people "feel safe", to protect against all manner of "potential" harms and fears, or to take property from one person and give it to another in the name of "fairness" or "social justice".

When you talk about reckless behavior and how it should be illegal, even when nobody has been hurt, you are talking about "fears", "discomfort", "concerns for safety", and a WHOLE SLEW of other excuses to inflict THE MOST DANGEROUS FORCE KNOWN TO MAN upon each other. You can justify it all you want, spew all the drunk driving statistics at us you can find, and point out how much of a threat meth labs present to public health, but in the end it is YOU who have a problem with the type of strictly limited government our founding fathers had in mind, not me. You have a problem with their proposed government not only because you talk of "by the people" as if it means "most of you" or the "majority" agree on something, so that is the way it should BE (the definition of a foul and stinking DEMOCRACY, by the way... Not a Republic!). You have a problem with it because you don't believe, as one of these "fathers" you look up to wrote: "those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither". Finally, you have a problem with the form of government they wanted us to have because you write that "people are stupid and need a baby sitter" - an idea that goes against EVERYTHING those "fathers" wrote about and held to be sacred.

Enough already - YES... I think it's OK for people to behave recklessly, JUST AS LONG as nobody gets hurt. Cross that line, and I think they should be VIGOROUSLY prosecuted, maybe with extra "endangerment" penalties thrown in. Anything else amounts to "thought crime" - and has NO PLACE in the kind of country and government this was supposed to be, and once was.

[Buddha]

What about trespassing? That could be a victimless crime. Do you mind folks hiking on your private property? Oh, that is right, they could potential cause a crime.


If some one is trespassing on your territory then you are the victim. Your property then ceases to be private, and the trespasser is using your earnings for their gain.

[madfranks]

While you guys are wanting to give people the freedom to drive as drunk and as fast as they want to. Why not give people the freedom to run red lights, and drive on the sidewalk while they are at it?

as long as there are no victims of course

I mean...where do you draw the line?

and who are you to decide where to draw the line?

thats right...We the people...should be the ones that draw the line...

government of the people, by the people, for the people





But Ken, in the absence of the government passing laws and criminalizing people who haven't hurt anyone, it wouldn't be anarchy in the streets like you seem to imagine. Like Gaillo said, we're not talking the abolition of laws, just the abolition of criminalizing victimless behavior. Regarding streets and cars, in the absence of gov't regulation, any number of free, private means of controlling traffic would surface. Insurance policies might prohibit speeding and driving drunk, and reasonable people would abide by these laws. But there's no reason why, if on an early Sunday morning going to church and the highway is empty so you speed 10-15 mph over the suggested speed that you should be criminalized. When you crash your car or kill someone, then you are penalized according to the law and your own voluntary contracts (insurance). And if you were on a privately owned street or road, you would have to agree to abide by their rules regarding speeding and drinking or illegitimately drive on their property. If you ignored those rules you would either be in violation of your contractual agreement or trespassing.

There are many ways free people working voluntarily with each other can take care of the problems that would surface if the gov't got out of the picture. But if the question is, should someone be punished if they crash into another car or kill someone, then we're all on the same page with a resounding YES! But if someone sped down the road or drove after a few beers but nobody was hurt, then there was no crime! That's the point!

[BillBoard]

There are no victimless crimes.

What you all are missing is very simple: ALL IS CONTRACT.

You know, even the deal with God for those that believe, the new covenant...

Where is the contract, where did you received the benefit? Have you received protection from the state? Have you received access to the courts? Have you used the paved roads?

Are you a member of the political body, i.e., citizen?

What you may not recognize is that the connecting dot in everything that ties you to the state comes down to one simple thing: the Currency.

If you were to exchange substance for substance... you would be squared away, you could pay your debts and obligations, but since you use debt instruments to discharge your debts and obligations you are de minimis receiving a substantial benefit.

When the nature of the currency was changed, the underlying default law changed. You went from presumed innocent to presumed guilty.

[Buddha]

Hey, lets get personal for a second. Let's see what you all think of this. I got a D.W.I. a couple weeks ago + speeding 20 mph over the limit ( I must be a horrible man huh?). Was driving going 60 in a 40 at 1am a main street completely empty, all flashing yellow lights. I get pulled over for speeding,I blew, and blew over the limit (I had a six pack in me). No victim here, not even close, wasn't swaying or anything just driving fast. Now I have to pay 2k or so in fees and lawyers. + the SR-22. Gotta take alcohol abuse classes which cost about 400. If I complete it all it won't go on my record. Not to mention my license being suspended for at least 30 days, how will one get to work? (I'm still going to drive)

Victimless crime.

It seems as though I'm the victim.

[BillBoard]

Hey, lets get personal for a second. Let's see what you all think of this. I got a D.W.I. a couple weeks ago + speeding 20 mph over the limit ( I must be a horrible man huh?). Was driving going 60 in a 40 at 1am a main street completely empty, all flashing yellow lights. I get pulled over for speeding,I blew, and blew over the limit (I had a six pack in me). No victim here, not even close, wasn't swaying or anything just driving fast. Now I have to pay 2k or so in fees and lawyers. + the SR-22. Gotta take alcohol abuse classes which cost about 400. If I complete it all it won't go on my record. Not to mention my license being suspended for at least 30 days, how will one get to work? (I'm still going to drive)

Victimless crime.

It seems as though I'm the victim.


Why drive if you are not going to honor your word? If you want to drink and get behind the wheel don't have a license, do not register your property.

[vacuum]

I think most "victimless crimes" have no immediate victim, but have larger social consequences. For example, you could very easily say charging interest is a victimless crime. Someone needs money so you lend it to them with a little bit of interest. Hardly seems like a crime at all, and certainly not one with a victim. Yet if that practice is legal in a country it will eventually destroy it.

Also, look at the 10 commandments. Only 4 or 5 of them actually have victims.

[Buddha]

Hey, lets get personal for a second. Let's see what you all think of this. I got a D.W.I. a couple weeks ago + speeding 20 mph over the limit ( I must be a horrible man huh?). Was driving going 60 in a 40 at 1am a main street completely empty, all flashing yellow lights. I get pulled over for speeding,I blew, and blew over the limit (I had a six pack in me). No victim here, not even close, wasn't swaying or anything just driving fast. Now I have to pay 2k or so in fees and lawyers. + the SR-22. Gotta take alcohol abuse classes which cost about 400. If I complete it all it won't go on my record. Not to mention my license being suspended for at least 30 days, how will one get to work? (I'm still going to drive)

Victimless crime.

It seems as though I'm the victim.



Why drive if you are not going to honor your word? If you want to drink and get behind the wheel don't have a license, do not register your property.


What word would that be? The car is mine, I'll drive it as I see fit.

Don't register my property? Get real. Id be f*cked more for doing less that way.

[G2Rad]

"No Victim No Crime" is just another way of saying there is no God.

[palani]

You want to change your perspective to the viewpoint of the one charging you.

Quod remedio destituitur ipsa re valet si culpa absit. What is without a remedy is valid by the thing itself. Bacon's Max. Reg. 9.

The charge is the remedy chosen by the system. If the system has no remedy then you can rest assured that whatever you did was valid.


REMEDY. The means employed to enforce a right or redress an injury.
Remedies may be considered in relation to 1. The enforcement of contracts. 2. The redress of torts or injuries.

So if there is no injury and a remedy is being sought (a claim or charge filed) then look to the enforcement of a contract. If driving intoxicated or speeding the contract is the drivers license.

[Book]

Take smoking marijuana...an obvious "victimless" crime. It is, victimless.



http://www.patientsafetyfirst.com/images/300_MedicalError.jpg

http://images.oprah.com/images/tows/200902/20090219/20090219-tows-oz-cut-here-120x90.jpg



Your stoned surgeon has no victims...lol.

:D

[madfranks]

Hey, lets get personal for a second. Let's see what you all think of this. I got a D.W.I. a couple weeks ago + speeding 20 mph over the limit ( I must be a horrible man huh?). Was driving going 60 in a 40 at 1am a main street completely empty, all flashing yellow lights. I get pulled over for speeding,I blew, and blew over the limit (I had a six pack in me). No victim here, not even close, wasn't swaying or anything just driving fast. Now I have to pay 2k or so in fees and lawyers. + the SR-22. Gotta take alcohol abuse classes which cost about 400. If I complete it all it won't go on my record. Not to mention my license being suspended for at least 30 days, how will one get to work? (I'm still going to drive)

Victimless crime.

It seems as though I'm the victim.


I agree with you that you're the real victim here, but "officially" society is the victim and you're the culprit. According to the state, you are a criminal who needs to be punished for potentially hurting others, even though nobody was hurt. Although I don't think driving under the influence is a good idea, some people can handle more alcohol than others without it significantly affecting their faculties. I'm glad nobody got hurt, but I'm sorry you are getting raped by the State for your victimless crime.

[madfranks]

"No Victim No Crime" is just another way of saying there is no God.



Really? Because I am a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ, and I don't think I follow you. Care to elaborate?

[madfranks]

Take smoking marijuana...an obvious "victimless" crime. It is, victimless.




Your stoned surgeon has no victims...lol.

:D


Well that's just silly. If a surgeon inhibits his ability to perform his duties and injures someone as a result, well there is a very obvious victim there!

[solid]

Well that's just silly. If a surgeon inhibits his ability to perform his duties and injures someone as a result, well there is a very obvious victim there!


Yeah, but if a driver inhibits his ability to drive, that's not a crime?

This waiting for a victim to surface mentality is off, imo. Everyone bashes the police because they get there too late...now, we bash them for getting there too early to stop a crime from happening. To stop a potential 'victim'.

Bottom line is good people need to be protected from the bad people. It's about intent, that's the key word here.

Buddha's example, is a tough break. I'm about as anti-drinking and driving as one can get, I've seen too much damage caused by it. All those incidents, were from people tanked, completely smashed, to the point where they could barely walk.

The color of the law trumps the letter of the law, imo. Buddha may very well have been able to operate a vehicle in a safe manner, everyone is different, and everyone's tolerance to alcohol is different. But in that case, the letter of the law is the trump card. This is where everyone suffers. These laws come about because one idiot after another not only tests the limit, but completely ignores any common sense and innocent folks get hurt.

We need to protect each other, we need to stop crimes from happening.

If the police arrest a man, 2 blocks from his victim, gun in hand....the man admits, in a statement he was going to kill the guy, was that a crime? Or was it injustice? Should the police have waited to for him to kill the guy?

[G2Rad]

"No Victim No Crime" is just another way of saying there is no God.
Really? Because I am a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ, and I don't think I follow you. Care to elaborate?


Suppose someone machines a part on a lathe.
When machining goes wrong he stops and corrects the error.
As the maker of the part he gets to decide what to deem as "wrong". He has certain intentions and knows the purpose.
He terminates deviations to get on the right track, until the product is perfect.
Just like that God's law is: The remedy for sin is death (termination).
Man being a proxy for his Creator, makes God a victim of man's sin.
All "wrongs", must be "owned" and remedied either by man himself or by his Maker.
I believe ultimately there is no such thing as victimless crime.
In absence of third-party victims (f.e. in case of masturbation), either the sinner himself, or God is the victim and pays with death.

That's the view I like the most.

[sirgonzo420]

"No Victim No Crime" is just another way of saying there is no God.
Really? Because I am a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ, and I don't think I follow you. Care to elaborate?


Suppose someone machines a part on a lathe.
When machining goes wrong he stops and corrects the error.
As the maker of the part he gets to decide what to deem as "wrong". He has certain intentions and knows the purpose.
He terminates deviations to get on the right track, until the product is perfect.
Just like that God's law is: The remedy for sin is death (termination).
Man being a proxy for his Creator, makes God a victim of man's sin.
All "wrongs", must be "owned" and remedied either by man himself or by his Maker.
I believe ultimately there is no such thing as victimless crime.
In absence of third-party victims (f.e. in case of masturbation), either the sinner himself, or God is the victim and pays with death.

That's the view I like the most.



Why couldn't/didn't God make a machine that unfailingly worked from the start?

Is God incompetent? If not, then why has his Creation failed him so?

[G2Rad]

Why couldn't/didn't God make a machine that unfailingly worked from the start?
Is God incompetent? If not, then why has his Creation failed him so?


A toddler will never learn to walk unless he is given the freedom to fall.

In my view His Creation is a success.

His children will remember the lesson and will be ready for life.

[solid]

Why couldn't/didn't God make a machine that unfailingly worked from the start?

Is God incompetent? If not, then why has his Creation failed him so?


Perhaps that is what makes us unique. Perhaps, that is the challenge/test we must all pass. Life sure would be boring, if God created us all the same.

When folks talk about purgatory, I've always thought that we are there now. What we do in our lives here, each test we pass, brings us closer to God in that way.

It's not a failed creation, it's a unique creation and a unique challenge, each one of us.

[G2Rad]

Note that if the tree was planted outside of reach of Adam & Eve, there would have been no way to learn what good is and what evil is.

IMHO, this life is about learning. ( of what the true love is and what our true purpose is ).

[sirgonzo420]

I see what you all are getting at, but at the same time, I seems a bit cold-hearted for God to design Man to fall, which incurs penalties of death, sickness, evil, etc, to him and all his children and their children until the end of the world (character-building notwithstanding)!

Everything that happens MUST be God's will, right?

There are no "surprises" to God, are there?



(I believe in that which some call "God"... but I think the "God" character in the Bible is quite far removed from the true nature of God)

[solid]

Everything that happens MUST be God's will, right?

There are no "surprises" to God, are there?


Maybe we surprise God by bringing the hammer down on the bad guys.

God is only responsible for building this place, it's up to us to make sure it's just and people are treated fairly.

God created the bad guys too, maybe to test our strength and courage, for doing what is right.

[G2Rad]

I see what you all are getting at, but at the same time, I seems a bit cold-hearted for God to design Man to fall, which incurs penalties of death, sickness, evil, etc, to him and all his children and their children until the end of the world (character-building notwithstanding)!

I would not say that every toddler was designed to fall on the ground and hurt himself and that's it.
Toddlers were designed to walk and run and play and enjoy themselves.
Don't make a big deal of this life. It is nothing.


Everything that happens MUST be God's will, right?
I believe it is not God's will for us to fall, but how else we could learn to walk on our own? there are things that simply can't be done. even for God.



There are no "surprises" to God, are there? as far as I understand there aint any

[G2Rad]

Maybe we surprise God by bringing the hammer down on the bad guys.


I humbly disagree, because God does not condone suicides.

[solid]

I humbly disagree, because God does not condone suicides.


What do you mean by this?

G2Rad, there's people on this earth who have no souls. You look into their eyes, you see blankness, a predator, seeking weakness. There's no unique spark, with those folks.

Yes, they are God's creations..but they are a test, to the rest of us.

[Book]

Hey, lets get personal for a second.

Victimless crime.



Hey, lets get personal for a second.

Drunk driver in a pickup truck killed my best friend eighteen months ago. Also killed himself and his passenger.

:oo-->

[G2Rad]

I humbly disagree, because God does not condone suicides.

What do you mean by this?

G2Rad, there's people on this earth who have no souls. You look into their eyes, you see blankness, a predator, seeking weakness. There's no unique spark, with those folks.

Yes, they are God's creations..but they are a test, to the rest of us.

Once I realized that I am guilty of manslaughter.
The victim was not ordinary man, but God's only son. My sins killed him. He had to do that, because there was simply no other way to pull my dumb behind out of the mess.
So, before pointing to other "bad guys", let us realize that we killed Jesus and His blood is on our hands.
we aint any better than them
We found the enemy. It is us.

[solid]

So, before pointing to other "bad guys", let us realize that we killed Jesus and His blood is on our hands.
we aint any better than them
We found the enemy. It is us.



If you aren't preying on innocent folks, you are better than them, imo. We have all sinned, we all have blood on our hands, in some form or another.

Make no mistake though, if you live a decent, humble, honest life, you are going about God's plan.

If you come across a predator, it IS God's plan to stop that beast from harming others, innocent folks. God would understand that.

[G2Rad]

If you come across a predator, it IS God's plan to stop that beast from harming others, innocent folks. God would understand that.
solid, I would not hesitate pulling a gun to protect my family from an animal like that, if that's what you mean

[sirgonzo420]

Hey, lets get personal for a second.

Victimless crime.



Hey, lets get personal for a second.

Drunk driver in a pickup truck killed my best friend eighteen months ago. Also killed himself and his passenger.

:oo-->




I'm sorry for your loss book.

Would you feel any better if the driver HADN'T been drunk?

[Playswithfire]

I think this is a good one and I don't want it to be missed...

I would like an answer from those who love freedom



Should someone or a company be allowed to dump dangerous chemicals in the let's say a river or a lake? and not be stopped until some one is hurt?



That is a good one Ken, also is putting flouride in a our drinking water a crime? What about chemtrails, is that a crime?

Apparently not, because nobody can prove if these things actually have "victims".



Apparently there are some here that don't think those things should becrimes unless there is proof that someone is hurt by them.


And there are others here, Ken, who think the bailiff should "whack off your pee-pee" since you MIGHT potentially rape someone! ;D


I think if you rape someone or molest a child, you should definitely get your pee pee whacked off!

[Playswithfire]

The larger point is, unless you are hurting someone or aggressing against them or their property, there is no victim, and therefore no crime. Like Gaillo said, if the meth lab was aggressing against their neighbors by emitting toxic fumes or otherwise hurting them, then the law should be invoked to stop the aggression on the part of the meth lab.

So you don't consider reckless and/or drunk driving aggression against someone, but you do consider meth lab pollution aggression against someone?



Should someone or a company then be allowed to dump dangerous chemicals in the let's say a river or a lake? and not be stopped until some one is hurt?


Of course not! If someone dumped chemicals into a water supply that people used, that person would be committing a heinous act of aggression against the whole population! That person would be punished under laws protecting people's property from attack or intrusion by others.

But reckless and/or drunk driving isn't aggression against the population? And they shouldn't be punished to protect human life, but polluters should be punished to protect people's property?

[Playswithfire]

So you are a proponent of "mob rule", Ken? If enough people say so, it's LAW to be ENFORCED at the point of a gun? If you and enough of your neighbors don't like that I drink a beer or 6 on my front porch with my car keys in my pocket (whether or not I actually intend to get IN my car) because it makes you feel UNCOMFORTABLE then I should be arrested and jailed?

I personally draw the line where REAL HARM has been done, not "potentials", "fears", "public security" and all those other watch-phrases that are used so often to make slaves of men.


This is ridiculous. You can't be arrested for drinking while having your car keys in your pocket so whatever point you're trying to make is moot. Get in the car and drive drunk and then it becomes a problem. All of you people who say drunk driving or speeding should be okay as long as there are no victims have obviously never had a close family member or friend killed by a drunk driver or speeding idiot. Otherwise, you'd probably have a whole different opinion.

You want to see what reckless driving while under the influence can do? Google Porsche girl. Then come back here and tell me you wouldn't mind one of your kids, your wife, your husband, your sister, your brother, etc... ending up like that.

Liking drunk and/or reckless driving laws to being enslaved by the government is... is... effing stupid. Those laws are there to protect you!

[Playswithfire]

Finally, you have a problem with the form of government they wanted us to have because you write that "people are stupid and need a baby sitter" - an idea that goes against EVERYTHING those "fathers" wrote about and held to be sacred.

If the founding fathers were against the idea that people needed a "babysitter," they wouldn't have established a government in the first place.

[Playswithfire]

Hey, lets get personal for a second.

Victimless crime.



Hey, lets get personal for a second.

Drunk driver in a pickup truck killed my best friend eighteen months ago. Also killed himself and his passenger.

:oo-->




A drunk driver killed my friends husband and daughter too. But, eh. It's okay. :oo-->
I'm sure the drunk in that pickup thought he could drive just fine drunk too. Screw the law, he knew what he was doing.

[Playswithfire]

If you come across a predator, it IS God's plan to stop that beast from harming others, innocent folks. God would understand that.
solid, I would not hesitate pulling a gun to protect my family from an animal like that, if that's what you mean


Yes, but you would have to allow the animal to kill your family first. Otherwise, you're committing murder based on perceived intent. No?

[StackerKen]

After last nites discussion I said to myself Maybe I need to think about this more

well I have thought about it

ok

Now I will get personal (completely honest and true)

I drank, smoked pot and did drugs and drove for twenty years and told myself the whole time "Im not hurting anyone.
Finally I got pulled over and arrested for DUI, Possession of Meth and pot (wasn't drinking that time). I told the cops "I'm not hurting anyone"

I told the Judge and the DA "I have never hurt anyone"
It is true. I have never hurt anyone. (Thank God)
I was a bit angry when I was sentanced to 3 months in jail.
I thank God for that now though.

[StackerKen]

I think Ben was full of it when he said "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." ... l

total bs

Who is he to say what someone deserves? Liberty is a God given right.

(like the writers of the Declaration of Independence)
I believe all people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I also believe that I don't have the right to trample on the rights of others

By doing something stupid like driving Impaired, I believe that I am hindering other peoples right to Life. By endangering their life with reckless behavior and I would be hindering their right to liberty by making the road a more dangerous place for them to be and also their pursuit of happiness (kinda like smoking in a public place. that one used to anger me too. No more though)

I guess what I'm getting at is, I Believe in Following the Golden rule.

I try to do to others as I would have them do to me and mine.

I am willing to give up my liberty to do something stupid and dangerous

Because I wouldn't want some drunk ahole crossing the double yellow line and causing a head on with me or one of my family.

It is My Opinion that those people that think they should have the right to drive as fast as the want and drive while Drunk are Selfish.
Because they value their own rights above the rights of others.
Not cool in my book

[Joe King]

I think Ben was full of it when he said "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." ... l

total bs

Who is he to say what someone deserves? Liberty is a God given right.

You're hitting the nail squarely on the head as to why it shouldn't be given up. :)



(like the writers of the Declaration of Independence)
I believe all people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I also believe that I don't have the right to trample on the rights of others

By doing something stupid like driving Impaired, I believe that I am hindering other peoples right to Life. By endangering their life with reckless behavior and I would be hindering their right to liberty by making the road a more dangerous place for them to be and also their pursuit of happiness (kinda like smoking in a public place. that one used to anger me too. No more though)

I guess what I'm getting at is, I Believe in Following the Golden rule.

I try to do to others as I would have them do to me and mine.

I am willing to give up my liberty to do something stupid and dangerous

Because I wouldn't want some drunk ahole crossing the double yellow line and causing a head on with me or one of my family.

It is My Opinion that those people that think they should have the right to drive as fast as the want and drive while are Selfish.
Because they value their own rights above the rights of others.
Not cool in my book

If most people believed that, we wouldn't even need to talk about stupid things like driving 100mph in a residential neighborhood, as someone previously mentioned, because no one would ever do that in the first place.

But because people do things like that, we get nanny-State laws as a result.

The only other choice would be to say, if you're drunk and you kill someone, we're going to call it murder and publicize that fact far and wide so that people realize that if you hurt/kill another via willfull acts of negilgence that your life will essentially be over.

[Book]

The state argues that you are a criminal for violating their law, but really, since nobody was hurt and you aggressed against nobody, are you really a criminal?



http://www.n-sider.com/media/hearts18stoned.jpg

http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2006/12/Drunk-Main.jpg

Get real. The decision to intentionally become impaired then drive on public streets is aggression against everyone. Denial of impairment while drunk or stoned is laughable. Claiming "Freedom" to do so is hilarious.

:oo-->

[StackerKen]

Thanks Book. Good points
Thanks for not being afraid to tell folks how you feel. ( i know you never are) I like and respect that :)



No one should have the right to Blatantly and willfully cause an Unsafe environment for the public. And that what driving drunk is.

[Book]

No one should have the right to Blatantly and willfully cause an Unsafe environment for the public. And that what driving drunk is.



http://www.adams912patriots.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/founding-fathers2.jpg

LIFE. LIBERTY, AND THE FREEDOM TO BE DRUNK ON OUR ROADS AND BYWAYS !!!

:lol

I mock those here at GSUS who claim this is an issue of actual liberty and freedom...lol.

[Glass]

Thanks Book. Good points
Thanks for not being afraid to tell folks how you feel. ( i know you never are) I like and respect that :)



No one should have the right to Blatantly and willfully cause an Unsafe environment for the public. And that what driving drunk is.






In law it's called a duty of care. If someone drives drunk and hurts someone they should be held accountable for the injury and the failure in their duty of care to others. These are both post facto issues not pre facto or pre crime. If people held others with the duty of care that they should then they would not do anything that would injure another person. It's very simple. They would consider the effects of their actions. The fact that people can't do that says everything about their upbringing.

[madfranks]

The larger point is, unless you are hurting someone or aggressing against them or their property, there is no victim, and therefore no crime. Like Gaillo said, if the meth lab was aggressing against their neighbors by emitting toxic fumes or otherwise hurting them, then the law should be invoked to stop the aggression on the part of the meth lab.

So you don't consider reckless and/or drunk driving aggression against someone, but you do consider meth lab pollution aggression against someone?



Should someone or a company then be allowed to dump dangerous chemicals in the let's say a river or a lake? and not be stopped until some one is hurt?


Of course not! If someone dumped chemicals into a water supply that people used, that person would be committing a heinous act of aggression against the whole population! That person would be punished under laws protecting people's property from attack or intrusion by others.

But reckless and/or drunk driving isn't aggression against the population? And they shouldn't be punished to protect human life, but polluters should be punished to protect people's property?



Ugh. Okay, this whole thread has been derailed from what it was intended to be. The original question asked in the first post was a philosophical question regarding victims and crime. Somehow this thread has morphed into a discussion of the merits of driving drunk and crazy people who think we'd be better off with no laws. I am not advocating the abolition of laws that protect people! I started this thread because I was curious about the concept and wanted to discuss it to see what everyone thinks. I think you have a good point regarding reckless driving, and no I do not think it's ok for someone to drive maniacally down a residential street at 100 mph claiming his freedom to do so. As you say, that is an act of aggression against the people in that area. I'm talking the guy who drives 5 miles over the speed limit because the road is clear and he reasonably thinks he can save some time by going a bit faster. He can be pulled over, fined and criminalized for this victimless crime. Totally different concepts: in the former a person is actively putting people's lives in danger, and in the latter the guy isn't increasing anyone's chance of getting hurt.

[madfranks]

Finally, you have a problem with the form of government they wanted us to have because you write that "people are stupid and need a baby sitter" - an idea that goes against EVERYTHING those "fathers" wrote about and held to be sacred.

If the founding fathers were against the idea that people needed a "babysitter," they wouldn't have established a government in the first place.



The founding fathers were aware that overthrowing a tyrannical government would not cause their society to fall into chaos and anarchy. This government was instituted to protect the rights of the people, not baby sit them. I wonder how people survived in early America when there were no laws regulating how fast, slow, sober or drunk you could be when operating a horse carriage or cart. I wonder how they survived when any child could buy heroin over the counter at the store or boys could carry rifles around to shoot rabbits and squirrels?

Do people really think that government and all the outrageous laws they pass to criminalize all of us is the only way to have a safe society? Regarding streets and roads, just because I happen to think the government should get out of this business does not mean I advocate or believe in anarchy and chaos in the streets, with drunks and maniacs crashing through peoples' yards and houses. If the gov't got out of the picture, private enterprise in the form of cooperative agreements and contracts would do an incredibly better job protecting people on the streets than government laws could ever do.

[madfranks]

Hey, lets get personal for a second.

Victimless crime.



Hey, lets get personal for a second.

Drunk driver in a pickup truck killed my best friend eighteen months ago. Also killed himself and his passenger.

:oo-->




A drunk driver killed my friends husband and daughter too. But, eh. It's okay. :oo-->
I'm sure the drunk in that pickup thought he could drive just fine drunk too. Screw the law, he knew what he was doing.


Please don't think I would side with the drunk drivers in this case. I'm very sorry for both your losses.

[madfranks]

After last nites discussion I said to myself Maybe I need to think about this more

well I have thought about it

ok

Now I will get personal (completely honest and true)

I drank, smoked pot and did drugs and drove for twenty years and told myself the whole time "Im not hurting anyone.
Finally I got pulled over and arrested for DUI, Possession of Meth and pot (wasn't drinking that time). I told the cops "I'm not hurting anyone"

I told the Judge and the DA "I have never hurt anyone"
It is true. I have never hurt anyone. (Thank God)
I was a bit angry when I was sentanced to 3 months in jail.
I thank God for that now though.


Thanks for your post Ken. God created man as a sovereign creature, which means He gave you the decision to either do drugs and alcohol or not. God created you with the capacity to make that decision, and He didn't stop you from making your choice either way. I don't believe that what God gives you should be forcibly taken away by others, even if it's a choice to engage in behavior that can lead to hurting or killing others. In the absence of government laws protecting "society" from individuals, voluntary cooperation, contracts, and laws protecting the individual rights that God gave us from aggression by other individuals are enough to provide a safe society, or at least safer than the one we currently have. I'm glad you didn't hurt anyone, regardless of our attitudes towards the laws that currently are or the laws that might be.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

I feel like I'm having words put in my mouth, suddenly I support drunk driving and dumping toxic waste in the name of freedom?

These are two examples I would have never chosen.


Operating a automobile while drunk is like pointing a loaded gun at my face. That's agression. If you point that gun at me I actually have the legal right to defend myself, despite the fact that the gun hasn't "hurt anyone yet".

Dumping toxic chemicals into a water table where they are obviously going to be distributed, yeah obviously that's harm, too.


I can't believe these are the examples you people come up with.

Perhaps you should spend a little bit more time thinking about what real harm is.

[madfranks]

I can't believe these are the examples you people come up with.


Really, when I mention victimless crimes, I meant thinks like owning a dog without a license, or building a shed in your yard without a permit. These things make you lawbreakers, criminals in the eyes of the State.

[Playswithfire]

I can't believe these are the examples you people come up with.


Really, when I mention victimless crimes, I meant thinks like owning a dog without a license, or building a shed in your yard without a permit. These things make you lawbreakers, criminals in the eyes of the State.


I will agree that there are some really stupid laws out there. Owning a dog without a license, and the inability to build a shed or addition to your house or property, unless you pay a crapload of money for a permit, are on that list. I do agree with that. Having to pay exorbitant amounts of money just to get your car tagged is another stupid one. Auto insurance is another one. I could go on and on.

Madfranks, I understand what you're saying about victimless crimes.

I just couldn't believe anyone in their right mind would think that drunk driving falls into that category. That they have a right to drive drunk and put others lives at risk. And that because there is a law against drunk driving, that is taking away their freedom. Yeah I guess they are taking away your freedom. Freedom to be an idiot. ;D

I've never heard of anyone getting a speeding ticket for only going 5 miles per hour over the speed limit though, unless maybe they are in a residential area or near a school zone or park or anywhere kids might be playing. And then, in my case, I go slower than the speed limit allowed because I would die if I ever hit a kid, or an adult for that matter. Otherwise, I'm just like anyone else on the open road. I drive over the speed limit. Mostly because if you don't everyone else will tailgate and curse you... LOL. I've never gotten a ticket yet though. ;)

[Joe King]

I can't believe these are the examples you people come up with.


Really, when I mention victimless crimes, I meant thinks like owning a dog without a license, or building a shed in your yard without a permit. These things make you lawbreakers, criminals in the eyes of the State.


I will agree that there are some really stupid laws out there. Owning a dog without a license, and the inability to build a shed or addition to your house or property, unless you pay a crapload of money for a permit, are on that list. I do agree with that. Having to pay exorbitant amounts of money just to get your car tagged is another stupid one. Auto insurance is another one. I could go on and on.

Madfranks, I understand what you're saying about victimless crimes.

I just couldn't believe anyone in their right mind would think that drunk driving falls into that category. That they have a right to drive drunk and put others lives at risk. And that because there is a law against drunk driving, that is taking away their freedom. Yeah I guess they are taking away your freedom. Freedom to be an idiot. ;D

I've never heard of anyone getting a speeding ticket for only going 5 miles per hour over the speed limit though, unless maybe they are in a residential area or near a school zone or park or anywhere kids might be playing. And then, in my case, I go slower than the speed limit allowed because I would die if I ever hit a kid, or an adult for that matter. Otherwise, I'm just like anyone else on the open road. I drive over the speed limit. Mostly because if you don't everyone else will tailgate and curse you... LOL. I've never gotten a ticket yet though. ;)


And that's only because there are so many people that apparently completely lack any empathy at all for their fellow man and think that the only Rights that matter are theirs.
...and then act accordingly.

Those are the ones who mess things up for everyone else because if it weren't for them, most of the victimless crime laws would have never been needed in the first place.
...but because too many idiots thought it was ok to drive fast down a residential street and ended up hurting someone, we get 25mph speed limits with $200 fines for breaking it.

How many here need to be constantly reminded by "the man" to not blaze through a school zone or speed down a residential street?
....but we've all seen people do it.

If everyone knew they couldn't get a ticket for it, how many more would do it too? Remember, thery're running late and are in a hurry and they promise they'll do it as safely as they can.......until they can't for whatever reason and then hit you or your car.

[vacuum]

I think I posted a really good example that was completely ignored: usury. When I give someone a loan and ask that they pay it back to me with a little "interest" to make the deal worthwhile to me, and it works out and I help someone start a business or something, where is the victim? Yet there have been points in history where this crime carried a severe penalty (death).

There is no specific victim, it just has a detrimental effect on society. This "detrimental to society" thinking can be extended to other things.

[solid]

It all depends upon how deep you want this discussion to go..

Probably the most obvious victimless crime, is prostitution. A contract negotiated by two consenting adults. I think most of us are against prostitution, being a sin, on a moral level. But it is a victimless crime, at it's truest sense. What's really confusing is how pornography is not viewed as prostitution, it basically is. Getting paid to have sex, yet since it is being filmed...it escapes that law for some reason.

Another good one is possession of burglary tools, pc 466 I think. Basically, if you get pulled over driving around with "tools" such as gloves, black mask, pick, crowbar, etc...it can be "articulated" that you were planning on a burglary.

But was there a crime? No, and this "crime" is a felony. It all comes down to that gray area here, how things get interpreted. The color of the law, or the letter of the law.

[StackerKen]

The right to drive drunk question made for a lively topic at the other forum I go to :)


http://www.thetreeofliberty.com/vb/showthread.php?t=124724

[Buddha]

I thought that this would liven the discussion up a bit ;D

[Playswithfire]

Probably the most obvious victimless crime, is prostitution. A contract negotiated by two consenting adults. I think most of us are against prostitution, being a sin, on a moral level. But it is a victimless crime, at it's truest sense. What's really confusing is how pornography is not viewed as prostitution, it basically is. Getting paid to have sex, yet since it is being filmed...it escapes that law for some reason.



Silly willy, the Government is the victim because they can't collect taxes on prostitution. They can and do collect taxes from the porn industry. ;D

[madfranks]

Victims on Trial: The Everyday Business of Courts

It is inherently implausible, if you think about it, that the state could be an effective administrator of justice, for which there is a supply and demand like any other good. Shortages, inefficiencies, arbitrariness, and high costs will be main features of such a system. And because we are dealing here with the meting out of coercion, we can add the presence of inhumane treatment and outright cruelty.

Even so, nothing had prepared me for what I witnessed in the courtroom the other day. Like a fool, I thought I might be able to beat a traffic ticket I received a block from my home. The policeman says I slowed almost to a stop rather than completely stopping at a three-way stop where there were no cars in any case. So my prize was a ticket.

The officer assures me that I’m not declaring guilt, but I have to sign this form anyway. I can challenge it on my court date. So, again foolishly, I decide not to go the route of everyone else—admit guilt and cough up—but instead to exercise my citizen’s right to make a challenge.

I show up at court. Except that on my appointed date, the judge wasn’t there. Why? They wouldn’t say. Is he sleeping in? No. Taking a family vacation? Outrageous that I should even ask! Ok, then, how about I see the substitute judge? There is no such thing. But if I hadn’t shown up I would go to jail for “failure to appear.” How is it that he can fail to show up and everyone acts like this is normal? The clerk rolled her eyes.

Silly me. This is the state. Different rules apply to it as versus me. So I am given a new court day, six weeks later.

I show up again, and tell the clerk that I plan to say that I am not guilty. This moved my papers to the bottom of the stack, which is a very bad omen. I would end up sitting in the court room all morning, listening to some 40 cases of people who are not so foolish as to protest the judgment of the officer of the law.

But then again, it wasn’t so bad. I got an education. It turns out that in a courtroom packed with purported criminals, not even one of the people who appeared before the judge was a danger to society. Nearly all were in for victimless crimes. The two who had perpetrated actual crimes—petty theft from Wal-Mart and the local mall—could have easily been dealt with without involving the state. So far as I could tell, the place could have been emptied out completely and our little community would have been no worse off, and massive human suffering could have been avoided.

But that’s not the way it works. These people, overwhelmingly black and poor but dressed very nicely in the hope of impressing the master, found themselves entangled in the web, and thereby elicited the glare and killer instinct of the spider. How painful it was to watch and not be able to do anything about it.

The first case turned out to be typical. This was a person picked up for “public intoxication,” which amounted to overcelebrating following a football victory and daring to walk on the government’s sidewalks under the influence of one too many. Arrested, jailed, bailed out. Now was the time to face the judge.

What is your plea? Guilty, your honor.

What do you have to say for yourself? I’m so sorry that I did this and I won’t do it again.

The judge then decides to be lenient. He gives the minimum fine plus court costs. I couldn’t find any consistency in this pricing scheme, but generally it amounted to between $400 and $1,500. The judge asks the person to pay it now. When he says that he doesn’t have the money, the judge considers a payment plan, contingent on the guilty declaring his income to the courtroom; it averages $400 per month.

How about you pay $100 per month? Fine.

Oh, and there’s one more thing. The criminal’s driver’s license is suspended for six months. How can he get to work? That’s his problem. It is a very special problem since the court has decided to loot the person of a quarter of his income during this very period. How can you keep your job?

Hard to say. Life is tough. And that’s the price you pay for drinking a few beers and daring to walk on the sidewalk.

So on it went for person after person. Tragedy all around. Pointless suffering. There were other victimless crimes. There were a few people who smoked pot—and one who had carried a joint clip or some other drug paraphernalia in his car. There was a person who made a “false report,” which seems to be lying to the policeman. He was dragged off to jail on the spot.

Another victimless crime of which these people tended to run afoul: “resisting arrest.” I’d never thought about this charge much, since it is a rather stupid thing to be disobedient to the police. Still, we must ask questions. To protect oneself from danger, threat, and capture is the most basic of all human instincts. We resist criminals. We duck when someone tries to hit us. Maybe we fight back if we think we can win. We lock our doors to deter invasion and to protect our property and person. The right to resist being captured is the very heart of the idea of security.

Why is it that we are expected to utterly gut our instinct for self protection when the cops, for any reason they happen to manufacture on the spot, say we must? It doesn’t matter if we are guilty or innocent, whether the cop is wonderful or wholly corrupt, or whether the crime was tiny or big: we must immediately turn into human rag dolls and obey our masters. And if we do not, and instead we walk away or run, we can be tasered and shot unto death. (The highly disturbing video of the Utah cop tasering the fellow who didn’t want to sign a ticket provides fundamental insight here.)

Think what it means to criminalize what they call resistance. It means what we believe to be our rights and our freedom are really grants of privilege by the state and they can be instantly revoked on the whim of anyone with a badge. These poor souls in the courtroom were all under the illusion that they were free agents; they therefore ran and resisted when confronted with danger to themselves. Now they are learning otherwise.

But what about the actual crimes in the courtroom that day? A lady had stuffed a package of sliced ham or something into her purse while shopping at Wal-Mart. She was fined $800 and had her license taken away.

What do you have to say for yourself, asked the judge. “I’m very sorry. I need to find other ways to deal with my lack of money,” she answered.

Yes, you do, because “we will not tolerate theft in this town,” unless, he might have added, it is done by the judge under the cover of the law.

Oh, one more thing. This lady was banned from Wal-Mart for life. Now, this sounds extreme, but it was the only decision taken that day that had the feel of something potentially reasonable. Might Wal-Mart have handed down this penalty itself ? Isn’t this a good principle, keeping the thieves away from its store? Makes sense, perhaps not for a lifetime but perhaps for a year or two.

But there is one problem. Wal-Mart can’t do that. Its shopping space is considered under federal law to be a “public space,” even though it is entirely privately owned. You can’t decide who you are going to let in or out so long as you charge no membership fee. You have to accept all comers. Only the state can ban people from public property. And so Wal-Mart must use the state’s services. It is coerced like everyone else. A compassionate and reasonable private solution is against the law.

But keep in mind that this was a case of theft. The others had done no harm to anyone.

The machine continued to operate. The judge hardly looked up, not even to notice how well these nice but exceedingly poor people had dressed in an attempt to impress him. They and their lives meant nothing. It was all about keeping the machine working.

Finally 11 a.m. rolls around. The court has already raised for itself some $20,000, from my calculation. The judge says that there will be a short recess before he hears the not-guilty cases, mine among them. He will then assign public defenders to those whose income is low enough and then schedule jury hearings. In other words, I would have to wait and then return at some later date. I realized that there was more involved in beating tickets than I knew. I would need to make it my vocation—and might not prevail.

My kids, who had come with me, persuaded me that this was hopeless and ridiculous and very costly. I should declare my guilt and pay the $200 and be free. They didn’t want their dad entangled anymore in this system. This is what I did, and I was free to go and join the multitudes who put up with this system of blackmail and money extraction every hour and know better than to attempt to use the system to challenge it. Most people in my position would have never gone to court, and they will never see just how cruel this system is for the poor, for minorities, and for everyone who gets tangled up in this web of coercion and legalized plunder.

But now I understand something more fully that I once only understood abstractly. I see how utterly ridiculous it is to think that the state can be the right means to help those who are poor or living at the margins of society. The state is their enemy, as it is for everyone else.

------------

http://mises.org/resources/5509 - chapter 33