[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Name one crime that doesn’t. Most of the “victimless” crimes either directly or indirectly involve on of those issues. Property values is the first thing that comes to mind and is impacted by prostitution, drugs etc.
How’s smoking weed involved in these “issues”?
Tell me how it does not impact people lives or property. Those are Lift’s qualifications.[/quote]
Maybe you should qualify your statements first. How exactly does smoking pot in my own home constitute victimization? How exactly does employing a prostitute constitute victimization?
Where there is no victim there can be no crime.
What you are criticizing are the effects that regulating these actions have not what the actions themselves constitute with regard to voluntary association. Turning a neighborhood into a black-market haven is the result of regulation not the result of the actions themselves.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…
In a free society there are no laws against personal behavior that don’t involve crimes against life, liberty, and property. …
Name one crime that doesn’t. Most of the “victimless” crimes either directly or indirectly involve on of those issues. Property values is the first thing that comes to mind and is impacted by prostitution, drugs etc.
Smoking pot (in the premise of one’s own domain) is a victimless crime.
[/quote]
What happens when a pot smoker/drinker/crack head leaves his house and interacts with others? When their judgement is impaired they can risk others lives. That is why society has deemed that controls be placed on intoxicating substances. Whether you agree the controls are the right match for the substance is a different debate.
[quote]
Not wearing a seatbelt is a victimless crime. [/quote]
Not when society pays for those that are injured because they refused to wear a seatbelt. That is a confiscation of property.
Not when the whorehouse next door is bringing down my property values. I could go on ad infinitum on how “victimless” crimes impact the lives and property of others and why society has a right to regulate and outlaw things.
Or I can ask a resident of Nevada. Prostitution is legal in some zones and not in others because not many people want whorehouses next door, even in Holland. In places prostitution is legal there are strict laws regulating it.
[quote]
Just because you may not want to live near a red light district doesn’t mean everyone doesn’t. Value is subjective and all individuals value things differently – hence the point of this thread.[/quote]
So go live next door to a whorehouse. Most people don’t want to , that is why society only allows them in very few areas.
[quote]gotaknife wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
On a sidenote: Is/was there a civilization on this curious little planet, where animal husbandry was done solely for sexy purposes, and where slaughtering and eating the beast’s meat would have been considered morally outrageous? I mean, perhaps they even had this kind of conversation, thought of this very question, just vice versa?
(“Can you imagine, he then proceeded to roast the dead parts of Lucy -poor Lucy- over the fire and put them afterwards in his mouth. I even think he swallowed a little bit of it, that fucking pervert…”)
Well bestiality is legal in Sweden, Denmark, and Holland i believe, as long as the animal is not harmed. I can’t find the actual legislation in English, could some Swedes, Danes or Dutch members help? How does this law actually operate?
[/quote]
I presume they ask the (hairy) wench if the sex was good and then she gets a carrot?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
But then again, you can OWN sheep, hell, you can even SLAUGHTER and EAT them, it is actually expected! So a little rape should be OK, n’est-ce pas?
Issues?
[/quote]
My dear, good Headhunter,
the world is a bigger place then you will ever imagine.
Our ancestors lived side by side with their animals. Sodomy was not this uncommon. My point is that when you find it “unhumane” to “rape” them , you shouldn’t eat them like a cannibal!
Oh wait, the steak is so juicy it has to be good, well that would be exactly what Balbos would say, only that instead of “steak” he says …well never mind.
In ancient stone-age societies, people often lived with animals without actually putting them to good use like with shepard dogs, for example. We know this from observing the few stone age societies that are left. Animals are treated like (and referred as) brothers and sisters and are most often kept for the children as playing companions. It’s very common to let them drink from the same breast, simply out of convenience.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
What happens when a pot smoker/drinker/crack head leaves his house and interacts with others? When their judgement is impaired they can risk others lives. That is why society has deemed that controls be placed on intoxicating substances. Whether you agree the controls are the right match for the substance is a different debate.
[/quote]
Where to begin? You are judging actions that have nothing to do with pot smoking. I can have my judgment impaired by a huge pair of tits. I can take someone’s life with my vehicle without being impaired. Smoking pot in my home and smoking pot and going for a joy-ride are two different actions. It is not a crime to be impaired with booze why is pot different? Why are you pretending to not understand this?
When an accident happens and someone is hurt because of their own actions it is not a crime. The confusion happens when society is allowed to bear the burden of negligent actions when the individual should be held responsible first and foremost. That it does not happen this way is because property rights are not respected. Again, that someone commits destruction while impaired is an obfuscation of the fact that destruction was committed in the first place. The whys and wherefores are irrelevant – all that matters for the relevance of a crime is the end result not the means of committing such crime.
That is how the free market works. In places where it is legally regulated you would be free to enter into a dialog about it. Unfortunately, you won’t have pimps coming around to ask your permission while it is illegal and unregulated. Again, that is a failing of the system not a direct consequence of prostitution.
In a free society people are free to live where ever their means allow them. Prostitution does not drive property value down. Those are your own valuations because you do not want to live near it. People who want to enter into that business would value it differently knowing there were a pool of customers already available.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
What happens when a pot smoker/drinker/crack head leaves his house and interacts with others? When their judgement is impaired they can risk others lives. That is why society has deemed that controls be placed on intoxicating substances. Whether you agree the controls are the right match for the substance is a different debate.
Where to begin? You are judging actions that have nothing to do with pot smoking. I can have my judgment impaired by a huge pair of tits. I can take someone’s life with my vehicle without being impaired. Smoking pot in my home and smoking pot and going for a joy-ride are two different actions. It is not a crime to be impaired with booze why is pot different? Why are you pretending to not understand this?
[/quote]
Yes it is. Drunk in public is a crime. Intoxicants have regulations and laws for their use. I happen to think the laws on pot should be loosened to be more akin to alcohol but society has the right to regulate substances.
Not wearing a seatbelt is not an accident. It is willful negligence. As long as society pays for peoples medical care (and it does in many ways) society has a right to regulate dangerous behavior.
We have a free market. We have a place it is legally regulated. All other places in our country have regulated it out of existence. We have laws made by elected officials. If our society wants legalized prostitution it can elect officials to change the laws.
[quote]
So go live next door to a whorehouse. Most people don’t want to , that is why society only allows them in very few areas.
In a free society people are free to live where ever their means allow them. Prostitution does not drive property value down. Those are your own valuations because you do not want to live near it. People who want to enter into that business would value it differently knowing there were a pool of customers already available.[/quote]
Those valuations are shared by the majority of people. These people set the market value.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I happen to think the laws on pot should be loosened to be more akin to alcohol but society has the right to regulate substances.
[/quote]
Where does this right come from? There is no such right. In fact, restraining personal behavior by force or threat of force is immoral as it is an infringement on individual liberty. Individuals cannot use coercion to constrain an other individual’s will nor can one empower groups or other individuals to act on their behalf in such ways – this includes government regulation.
Where there is no victim there is no crime. Where there are regulations that indirectly create victims that is not a result of said victimless crime but rather the regulation of that action itself. It is the system that is broken not the behavior of individuals.
I have the right to act in whatever capacity I wish as long as I do not infringe on the liberty of others. Where an infringement should occur it is my responsibility to make reparations – not other individuals on my behalf.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I happen to think the laws on pot should be loosened to be more akin to alcohol but society has the right to regulate substances.
Where does this right come from? There is no such right. In fact, restraining personal behavior by force or threat of force is immoral as it is an infringement on individual liberty. Individuals cannot use coercion to constrain an other individual’s will nor can one empower groups or other individuals to act on their behalf in such ways – this includes government regulation.
Where there is no victim there is no crime. Where there are regulations that indirectly create victims that is not a result of said victimless crime but rather the regulation of that action itself. It is the system that is broken not the behavior of individuals.
I have the right to act in whatever capacity I wish as long as I do not infringe on the liberty of others. Where an infringement should occur it is my responsibility to make reparations – not other individuals on my behalf.[/quote]
You listed 3 items in your magic triangle. Protection of Life, Property and Liberty. These 3 are often in conflict.
Society has learned that intoxicated people often threaten others Life and Property. Society has chosen to set regulations that limit intoxicated peoples Liberty to do this.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Society has learned that intoxicated people often threaten others Life and Property. Society has chosen to set regulations that limit intoxicated peoples Liberty to do this. [/quote]
And it is wrong.
There is no crime until there is a victim. Preventing victimization thru regulation by the use of force or threat of force is immoral – exactly because it is contradictory to the values of liberty. People have to be given the opportunity to choose their own best means to pursue happiness no matter what might result in such behavior.
I know how laws and regulations work. Legality does not necessarily make something morally right and vice-verse – that is my argument.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Society has learned that intoxicated people often threaten others Life and Property. Society has chosen to set regulations that limit intoxicated peoples Liberty to do this.
And it is wrong.
There is no crime until there is a victim. Preventing victimization thru regulation by the use of force or threat of force is immoral – exactly because it is contradictory to the values of liberty. People have to be given the opportunity to choose their own best means to pursue happiness no matter what might result in such behavior.
I know how laws and regulations work. Legality does not necessarily make something morally right and vice-verse – that is my argument.[/quote]
It is immoral to allow victimization of others by not trying to stop it before it happens. Especially when something is well documented as being hazardous to others.
Punishing a drunk driver after he killed a kid is far worse than trying to stop him from getting behind the wheel.
This is all a balance in your magic triangle of Liberty, Life and Property.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This is all a balance in your magic triangle of Liberty, Life and Property.
[/quote]
Your definition of liberty is skewed. Protectionism is not liberty – it is a form of control.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
But then again, you can OWN sheep, hell, you can even SLAUGHTER and EAT them, it is actually expected! So a little rape should be OK, n’est-ce pas?
Issues?
My dear, good Headhunter,
the world is a bigger place then you will ever imagine.
Uh…okay…
Our ancestors lived side by side with their animals. Sodomy was not this uncommon.
You live in a strange world.
My point is that when you find it “unhumane” to “rape” them , you shouldn’t eat them like a cannibal!
Oh wait, the steak is so juicy it has to be good, well that would be exactly what Balbos would say, only that instead of “steak” he says …well never mind.
In ancient stone-age societies, people often lived with animals without actually putting them to good use like with shepard dogs, for example. We know this from observing the few stone age societies that are left. Animals are treated like (and referred as) brothers and sisters and are most often kept for the children as playing companions. It’s very common to let them drink from the same breast, simply out of convenience."
[/quote]
Balbos, is that you? C’mon man, fess up!! Seriously. Balbo(s), the ultimate wild man!!
Are you one of those guys who complains about barbaric asians eating noble dogmeat, while simultaneously chewing on a hamburger?
Why can’t a guy not make love to his beloved mare, yet he can eat horse meat? You don’t need to be Doctor Dolittle to learn that the horse will probably be happy to live and get occasionally mounted by a human then to be torn to shreds in the meat grinder.
So why some guys here view it as grave as robbery.
And my stoneage example was to show you that the very proto society we came from had a very “close” relationship to animals.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I’ll spell it out for you, Headhunter:
R-e-l-a-t-i-v-i-t-y
Are you one of those guys who complains about barbaric asians eating noble dogmeat, while simultaneously chewing on a hamburger?
Why can’t a guy not make love to his beloved mare, yet he can eat horse meat? You don’t need to be Doctor Dolittle to learn that the horse will probably be happy to live and get occasionally mounted by a human then to be torn to shreds in the meat grinder.
So why some guys here view it as grave as robbery.
And my stoneage example was to show you that the very proto society we came from had a very “close” relationship to animals.
[/quote]
I suppose we need to examine what makes something inherently bad, to get to the MIS/MP distinction that varq queried in his initial posting.
From a societal-harm standpoint, it seems to me that some of those diseases we worry about making the jump from beasts to humans would be much more likely to do so if there was this type of close contact…
One varq didn’t ask about but which goes down this continuum: necrophilia?
I’d have to call that MIS and worse than beastiality – particularly from a gut-reaction revulsion standpoint (there may or may not be a lot of stored genetic wisdom in our revulsion impulses, depending on how much they are societally influenced in their origination (as opposed to societally influenced in their suppression)).
For those who are confused about Boston and my references to MIS and MP, they stand for the Latin terms malum in se (wrong in and of itself) and malum prohibitum (wrong [because it is] prohibited).
One implication of this legal distinction is that malum prohibitum is in fact malum solum quia prohibitum (wrong only because it is prohibited), and therefore far less wrong than a malum in se.
The difficulty, of course, lies in agreeing on which is which. One man’s (or culture’s) MP is another’s MIS. And nothing is unequivocal, even murder.
FightinIrish has stated that he would avenge the death or rape of a loved one. So would I. However, the laws of most jurisdictions would prohibit us from doing so. Is a revenge killing evil in and of itself (MIS) or is it wrong only because the law says so (MP)?
My opinion is that every individual has a different interpretation of right and wrong, and the moral standards of a society (which of course are subject to evolution like everything else) reflect not some Universal Moral Standard, but the aggregate of the moral standards of all individuals within that society.
Feel free to disagree. After all, I could be wrong.
Boston: it seems that many of the acts deemed by you (and by extension, by society) to be MIS are in fact MF (mala fastidiosa: wrong because they are icky).
While “icky” may serve to inform our societal mores, do you think it is really a sufficient justification for legislation?
In other words, if something is so repulsive that people naturally avoid doing it, is it necessary to pass a law against it?