If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Libertarianism and crime
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Why should victimless crimes be in place?
For example, if a man grows cannabis, who is the 'victim'? Whose rights are being infringed?
Ideally, shouldn't the only crimes which lead to prosecution be those in which one's rights are violated (, i.e. theft, rape, assault, murder, etc.)?
For example, if a man grows cannabis, who is the 'victim'? Whose rights are being infringed?
Ideally, shouldn't the only crimes which lead to prosecution be those in which one's rights are violated (, i.e. theft, rape, assault, murder, etc.)?
0
Comments
using your example, if a man does grow cannabis, no one's rights are infringed, but if caught in posession, then he is liable for prosectuion. catch 22
For instance, if a motorbike rider chooses not to wear a helmet it is surely their decision. So is the law wrong in punishing a rider for not wearing a helmet? We all know some teenagers would not wear a helmet if given the choice simply because it is 'uncool'. Most of these kids eventually grow older and see the error of their ways. So do we give over-18s the choice of wearing a helmet but make it compulsory on minors?
the carter administration tackled this one with the cannabis. the conclusion was that the punishment was far more detrimental to the individual and society than the cannabis. it was agreed that such a situation was madness.
then a plane fell out of the sky in iran and that was the end of that.
i can testify truthfully that jail is far more damaging to the individual and his family, both short and long term than smoking cannabis.
I actually agree with the sentiment, but it is impossible to draw the line. Such as a boy who rides without a motorcycle helmet- if he falls off and dies then his family is affected. Some illergal acts were, and still are, patently ridiculous though- until the 1960s sucide was a capital offence, for crying out loud, and even now it is illegal for men to partake in a homosexual orgy, regardless of where it took place.
But unfortunately retards like Newt Gingrich *spit* dont agree, and think that if you are caught with drugs who should be hung, drawn and quartered. I agree with Bill Bryson on the drugs situation, but not many on either side of the Atlantic do. Look at the treatment the poor policeman who was on Urban75 got.
Yes.
I don't see why a person who carries (say) a 1/4 oz. of pot in their pocket should be prosecuted.
Yes. And?
So, in the event of an accident, should the NHS refuse to pay for treatment?
If they should pay, then society should be protected from incurring excessive costs, they way you do that is to make people wear helmets (or seatbelts)...
What about the cost to socety of this person making that decision - not just healthcare but other issues, supporting the family, what about employers costs...
There are so many aspects of what this means to society that don't appear to have been taken into account.
Should this person pay extra tax? Like smokers do?
Much of this could also be levied at the cannabis issue to...
The NHS is free at the point of delivery.
That makes no sense. Why force people to wear helmets?
Again, another non sequitur. In the event of an accident, why should the family be compensated?
Why should it be the place of the state to dictate what is safe behaviour and what is not?
Don't you see the link?
The law encourages safety thus reducing the cost to the NHS, why should the taxpayer have to pay for the behaviour of some people?
It should not be the place of the state to dictate what is safe behaviour and neither is it necessary but it may be helpful and this can justify it if there are no serious harmful effects, as in this case.......
Sometimes you have to look at the wider picture beyond the individualist sense of 'I shall do what i want, what has it got to do with you?'
It can be rewarding for a community to have rules on how people behave especially in a huge coomunity such as a state where rules are unlikely to be enforced purely by social custom.......
Thus freedom has risks. Do you want more freedom or less.
Is freedom the removal of all constraints on action or is it the creation of an environment of certainty and limited risk in which to conduct your actions?
The point is that if a person has pot and uses it responsibly is not putting society at risk (same for the person with a gun or car or alchohol or hammer) all substances or objects can be used in a violent manner that could possible be used to harm society in general. So having freedom to own or grow certain items carries a certain amount of risk for society. Life without risk/freedom is not life, it is a fake shadow of life. I want no government protecting me from everything that "may" cause harm just the really dangerous ones like drunk drivers and madman with WMD.
Well I would feel more in danger if i knew all my neighbours had guns than if i knew Saddam had some chemical warheads, maybe thats just me........
You are still asking the state to decide what is too much of a risk and what isn't, how do you objectively draw a line. Especially given different peoples perceptions and poreferences which are important in a democracy?
Of ALL constraints? So I have the freedom to steal or kill?
No, I shouldn't as they violate others' freedoms.
That is why it seems more resonable to see the path to freedom as through a safe, less risky and well organised society, rather than through anarchy.......
Perhaps it is the removal of constraints on actions which do not themselves impose constraints on others. That could get quite difficult to enforce, though. Suppose I hate people smoking in public. I should have the freedom not to breathe in their smoke. But what about people who enjoy smoking? Shouldn't they have the right to smoke, even though it imposes an artificial constraint on my happiness, and arguably, depending on who you listen to, my health? Where do you draw the line?
All (or most) of my neighbors have guns and I feel safe.
I am not asking the state to protect me from anything. The people decided by voting what is an immediate danger. If politicians decide for us without consulting their constituants they are voted out of office. Thus the people do control the government if they choose to do so.
If then it was decided to ban guns in the US through a democratic consensus you would yield to that?
i also do not share your faith in the democratic process, most people in britain did nto support the war but it does not mean they will vote out their pro-war MP's as there are many other issues and factors involved.........
That doesn't seem logical. If one defines freedom as simply being free without restraint, why aren't people free to steal or smoke where they please?
IMO, that's not a very good definition of freedom.
Not quite, because in the U.S. the Federal governments powers are outlined in the constitution. Anything not dicussed in the constitution is regulated to the individual states. The constitution does give us the right to keep and bear arms (as do most state constitutions). The U.S. constitution would have to be ammended to ban all civilian ownership of firearms. Individual states would have the right to succeed from the union if they so choose.
The state where I live overwhelmingly supports gun ownership (700,000 people) in contrast N.Y. state has about 30 mil? with probably only 45%? of the population supporting gun ownership, with 2,500 miles lying between. Why should those people in new york dictate what I can or cannot do in South Dakota.
It is a complex issue as well as the legalization of pot or other drugs. How much freedom is too much?
The point I was trying to get at with regards to the issue of what the state should protect us from is whether it is an issue of rights or democracy.
If a majority feel threatened by something, be it drugs, guns etc then should the state outlaw them or do the people that want to own and use these things have a right to enjoy them?