Victimless Crimes

[Cancel10]

I differ from the Libertarians in that I don't view prostitution, drugs, and gambling as "victimless crimes." Most often, the families of the individuals involved in these activities are the victims.

And in the case of homosexuality, the individual often becomes the victim of the consequences of their actions. I know I'll received a lot of criticism for saying that, but whatever. I'm not arguing this on a "moral" basis - it's purely observational.

That said, I cannot think of one legitimate reason as to why these activities should be illegal. Prostitution, drugs and gambling can all be regulated and safe, allowing legal resources (i.e. police, the court system) to be allocated elsewhere. It is also possible to generate a significant amount of tax revenue from these activities, allowing us to cut income, sales or property taxes.

Thoughts?

 

[WinterBorn]

I differ from the Libertarians in that I don't view prostitution, drugs, and gambling as "victimless crimes." Most often, the families of the individuals involved in these activities are the victims.

And in the case of homosexuality, the individual often becomes the victim of the consequences of their actions. I know I'll received a lot of criticism for saying that, but whatever. I'm not arguing this on a "moral" basis - it's purely observational.

That said, I cannot think of one legitimate reason as to why these activities should be illegal. Prostitution, drugs and gambling can all be regulated and safe, allowing legal resources (i.e. police, the court system) to be allocated elsewhere. It is also possible to generate a significant amount of tax revenue from these activities, allowing us to cut income, sales or property taxes.

Thoughts?

The families of prostitues may suffer but it is because of the illegality of their job not the job itself.

Drugs can cause bad times for addicts and their families. But so can many legal activities.

Gambling should just be seen as a potential tax revenue source.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I differ from the Libertarians in that I don't view prostitution, drugs, and gambling as "victimless crimes." Most often, the families of the individuals involved in these activities are the victims.

whose responsibility is it to provide/protect the family?

And in the case of homosexuality, the individual often becomes the victim of the consequences of their actions. I know I'll received a lot of criticism for saying that, but whatever. I'm not arguing this on a "moral" basis - it's purely observational.

whose responsibility is it to protect themselves?

That said, I cannot think of one legitimate reason as to why these activities should be illegal. Prostitution, drugs and gambling can all be regulated and safe, allowing legal resources (i.e. police, the court system) to be allocated elsewhere. It is also possible to generate a significant amount of tax revenue from these activities, allowing us to cut income, sales or property taxes.

Thoughts?

These activities should not be illegal, in fact, i'm hard pressed to really find where the power for governments to regulate these activities actually comes from, other than the all inclusive commerce clause, which would have every founding father firing their muskets again.

The power to tax is the power to destroy. If we allow the government to regulate it for taxes, it would only be a matter of time before a prohibitive tax is imposed in order to stop the activity.

remember, it took an amendment to the constitution in order for the government to ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of a substance, yet now it only takes adding it to the controlled substances act, so why do they now have this power?

 

[WinterBorn]

whose responsibility is it to provide/protect the family?


whose responsibility is it to protect themselves?


These activities should not be illegal, in fact, i'm hard pressed to really find where the power for governments to regulate these activities actually comes from, other than the all inclusive commerce clause, which would have every founding father firing their muskets again.

The power to tax is the power to destroy. If we allow the government to regulate it for taxes, it would only be a matter of time before a prohibitive tax is imposed in order to stop the activity.

remember, it took an amendment to the constitution in order for the government to ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of a substance, yet now it only takes adding it to the controlled substances act, so why do they now have this power?

True. If they can create a 90% tax on specific employee bonuses and make it retroactive they can destroy anything with the right tax.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

True. If they can create a 90% tax on specific employee bonuses and make it retroactive they can destroy anything with the right tax.

exactly, and while most liberals on here probably supported that 90% retroactive tax, how would they feel about a 90% tax on an abortion? or taxes on protest permits?

 

[WinterBorn]

exactly, and while most liberals on here probably supported that 90% retroactive tax, how would they feel about a 90% tax on an abortion? or taxes on protest permits?

The thing that galled me the most about the bonus theft was an answer the attorney general of CT gave. He was asked what law or statute he was using to take the bonuses. His answer was "They don't deserve those bonuses".

If that doesn't scare you then you are clueless.

 

[Canceled2]

I differ from the Libertarians in that I don't view prostitution, drugs, and gambling as "victimless crimes." Most often, the families of the individuals involved in these activities are the victims.

And in the case of homosexuality, the individual often becomes the victim of the consequences of their actions. I know I'll received a lot of criticism for saying that, but whatever. I'm not arguing this on a "moral" basis - it's purely observational.

That said, I cannot think of one legitimate reason as to why these activities should be illegal. Prostitution, drugs and gambling can all be regulated and safe, allowing legal resources (i.e. police, the court system) to be allocated elsewhere. It is also possible to generate a significant amount of tax revenue from these activities, allowing us to cut income, sales or property taxes.

Thoughts?

Prostitution? I tend to agree that making it illegal has done nothing to protect society, and in fact may have made it more dangerous for those determined to practice prostitution.

Homosexuality is no longer illegal, except to be openly so in the military.

Drugs are another matter as far as I am concerned. Legalizing drugs will make them more available and accessible to children.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Drugs are another matter as far as I am concerned. Legalizing drugs will make them more available and accessible to children.

I hate to be rude about this, but wake the fuck up. do you know how easy it is right now for teens to get just about any drug they want? I've struggled with that issue for 5 years now with my teenage stepkids, finding easy to get drugs in their pockets and having them tell me that it's as easy as just asking one of their friends.

 

[Canceled2]

I hate to be rude about this, but wake the fuck up. do you know how easy it is right now for teens to get just about any drug they want? I've struggled with that issue for 5 years now with my teenage stepkids, finding easy to get drugs in their pockets and having them tell me that it's as easy as just asking one of their friends.

Well wake the fuck up then yourself!

Making them legal and EVEN EASIER to get is not the solution. Putting a socitetal stamp of approval is NOT the right avenue to take nor message to send. I have teenagers too. I understand what transpires among their peers. Kids still NEED rules, guidelines and social mores put in place by thinking caring adults.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Well wake the fuck up then yourself!

Making them legal and EVEN EASIER to get is not the solution. Putting a socitetal stamp of approval is NOT the right avenue to take nor message to send. I have teenagers too. I understand what transpires among their peers. Kids still NEED rules, guidelines and social mores put in place by thinking caring adults.

are you under the impression then, that 'legalizing' them is going to go hand in hand with not applying some sort of age requirement, like tobacco and alcohol?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I differ from the Libertarians in that I don't view prostitution, drugs, and gambling as "victimless crimes." Most often, the families of the individuals involved in these activities are the victims.

And in the case of homosexuality, the individual often becomes the victim of the consequences of their actions. I know I'll received a lot of criticism for saying that, but whatever. I'm not arguing this on a "moral" basis - it's purely observational.

That said, I cannot think of one legitimate reason as to why these activities should be illegal. Prostitution, drugs and gambling can all be regulated and safe, allowing legal resources (i.e. police, the court system) to be allocated elsewhere. It is also possible to generate a significant amount of tax revenue from these activities, allowing us to cut income, sales or property taxes.

Thoughts?

You could say that not wearing a seatbelt, or doing drugs isn't a victimless crime in that, if you were to die or get hurt, it would do vast violence to the ones who loved you. Libertarians often entirely ignore emotional damage and only treat physical damage as "real" in their calculations, and I wonder why that is?

 

[Canceled2]

are you under the impression then, that 'legalizing' them is going to go hand in hand with not applying some sort of age requirement, like tobacco and alcohol?

No, I am convinced that it will put them inside of stores like tobaco and alcohol making them MORE available, MORE widespread and EASIER to get. In addition it puts a societal stamp of approval on them. This is not a solution it is a nutty surrender. I believe the real solution to drug problems and other problems harming our children is a HUGE and determined investment in the nuclear family. That to continue in this slide of an anything goes society that is being promulgated even by our own leaders, is what harms and has harmed our children; our families; and therefore our society at large.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

exactly, and while most liberals on here probably supported that 90% retroactive tax, how would they feel about a 90% tax on an abortion? or taxes on protest permits?

A tax on abortion would be legal. If it were, for instance, a 1 trillion percent tax that clearly only had the effect of banning abortions, that would run into constitutional territory. A tax on protest permits would be pretty stupid, being that the government is the one who gives them out.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You could say that not wearing a seatbelt, or doing drugs isn't a victimless crime in that, if you were to die or get hurt, it would do vast violence to the ones who loved you. Libertarians often entirely ignore emotional damage and only treat physical damage as "real" in their calculations, and I wonder why that is?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

A tax on abortion would be legal.

would it be?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No, I am convinced that it will put them inside of stores like tobaco and alcohol making them MORE available, MORE widespread and EASIER to get. In addition it puts a societal stamp of approval on them. This is not a solution it is a nutty surrender. I believe the real solution to drug problems and other problems harming our children is a HUGE and determined investment in the nuclear family. That to continue in this slide of an anything goes society that is being promulgated even by our own leaders, is what harms and has harmed our children; our families; and therefore our society at large.

not disagreeing with you about the nuclear family argument, but did you accurately read the part about age?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Legalizing something is not putting a stamp of "approval" on it. Nazi speech is legal; but that certainly doesn't mean society has put its stamp of approval on it. Your line of thinking (that legalizing is the same approving) reaches dangerous conclusions.

 

[Canceled2]

not disagreeing with you about the nuclear family argument, but did you accurately read the part about age?

I remember when I was a teenager on a few occasions my friends and I soliciting the help of a wino to get us some cheap alcohol, cigarettes, etc. Putting drugs into the same kind of availablity will not be hindered due to age.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I remember when I was a teenager on a few occasions my friends and I soliciting the help of a wino to get us some cheap alcohol, cigarettes, etc. Putting drugs into the same kind of availablity will not be hindered due to age.

and like i said before, its not any different right this very moment with drugs. its as simple as asking a friend

 

[Canceled2]

and like i said before, its not any different right this very moment with drugs. its as simple as asking a friend

Without the permission of society saying "hey drugs are Ok so long as you are old enough". Just as alcoholism increased with its legalization so shall drug addictions increase with their legalization. It is flat out the wrong thing to do and as I said before nothing more than surrender not a solution.