Total Posts:95|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A Simple Proposal on Crime

jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 8:42:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Victimless crimes are the most insanely stupid things in the world. These include underage drinking laws, drug laws, DUI laws, speeding laws, and plenty more laws. Now, if roads are not privatized (as they should be), we have to have some basic, reasonable laws of the road. But, DUIs as they stand are far too strict but I digress.

I am talking about criminal court. The proposal is that every single crime MUST have a victim. That means somebody had their right to property or life violated (rights are a complicated cookie but we'll assume a fairly traditional view of negative rights for this which is certainly superior to views about positive rights). If somebody was murdered, then that person is the victim and the assumption is that they would press charges against whoever killed them (which it is the court's role to figure out). If somebody had their stuff stolen, they are the accusing party.

The state CANNOT be the victim or the accuser (technically you could say the state is accusing those suspected of murder but that would be the exception).

In other words, drug laws, underage drinking laws, all DUI laws (as far as they go in criminal court), are all eliminated.

Traffic court is a sticky issue, but it would remain so long as the state monopoly on roads is maintained. However, there would be no jail time or criminal charges under ANY circumstances involving any traffic violation that did not involve the destruction of property (private property) or death/injury of another.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 11:27:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 8:42:30 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
Victimless crimes are the most insanely stupid things in the world. These include underage drinking laws, drug laws, DUI laws, speeding laws, and plenty more laws. Now, if roads are not privatized (as they should be), we have to have some basic, reasonable laws of the road. But, DUIs as they stand are far too strict but I digress.

I am talking about criminal court. The proposal is that every single crime MUST have a victim. That means somebody had their right to property or life violated (rights are a complicated cookie but we'll assume a fairly traditional view of negative rights for this which is certainly superior to views about positive rights). If somebody was murdered, then that person is the victim and the assumption is that they would press charges against whoever killed them (which it is the court's role to figure out). If somebody had their stuff stolen, they are the accusing party.

The state CANNOT be the victim or the accuser (technically you could say the state is accusing those suspected of murder but that would be the exception).

In other words, drug laws, underage drinking laws, all DUI laws (as far as they go in criminal court), are all eliminated.

Traffic court is a sticky issue, but it would remain so long as the state monopoly on roads is maintained. However, there would be no jail time or criminal charges under ANY circumstances involving any traffic violation that did not involve the destruction of property (private property) or death/injury of another.

Agreed.

It is a statist view that laws should be made to prevent people from committing crimes, 'deterrents' are a statist view. Laws should only be there to serve justice when one is broken, not as a 'deterrent'
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 11:38:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 11:27:42 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/31/2013 8:42:30 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:

It is a statist view that laws should be made to prevent people from committing crimes, 'deterrents' are a statist view. Laws should only be there to serve justice when one is broken, not as a 'deterrent'

Nuclear attack. Courts no longer exist. Deterrence is necessary. Nothing "statist" about this.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 11:41:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 11:38:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:27:42 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/31/2013 8:42:30 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:

It is a statist view that laws should be made to prevent people from committing crimes, 'deterrents' are a statist view. Laws should only be there to serve justice when one is broken, not as a 'deterrent'

Nuclear attack. Courts no longer exist. Deterrence is necessary. Nothing "statist" about this.

Not sure how nuclear attacks aren't illegal seeing as how that falls under the law against murder.

I am saying there shouldn't be laws against certain items or acts that are prone to or might cause the violation of a law, so while in theory it seems absurd, the acquisition of nuclear materials should not be illegal from a legal perspective, although possibly from an environmental perspective.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 11:43:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Plus that is an extreme outlier, not sure that in practice the regular citizenry even have the means to carry out a nuclear attack.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 11:45:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 11:41:49 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:38:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:27:42 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/31/2013 8:42:30 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:

It is a statist view that laws should be made to prevent people from committing crimes, 'deterrents' are a statist view. Laws should only be there to serve justice when one is broken, not as a 'deterrent'

Nuclear attack. Courts no longer exist. Deterrence is necessary. Nothing "statist" about this.

Not sure how nuclear attacks aren't illegal seeing as how that falls under the law against murder.

The point is, without courts surviving the attack, there would be no prosecution of the crime. The idea is that some crimes are either impractical or impossible to prosecute for the sake of justice, leaving deterrence as the best means available for prevention, as opposed to retribution.

I am saying there shouldn't be laws against certain items or acts that are prone to or might cause the violation of a law, so while in theory it seems absurd, the acquisition of nuclear materials should not be illegal from a legal perspective, although possibly from an environmental perspective.

I'm saying that the supposed necessity of eliminating deterrence is not an adequate justification for eliminating victimless crimes.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 11:46:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 11:43:19 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Plus that is an extreme outlier, not sure that in practice the regular citizenry even have the means to carry out a nuclear attack.

Granted, but there are plenty of scenarios where a crime is difficult to impossible to prosecute, and in such cases, deterrence may be a much more viable solution.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 11:47:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 11:45:41 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:41:49 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:38:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:27:42 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/31/2013 8:42:30 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:

It is a statist view that laws should be made to prevent people from committing crimes, 'deterrents' are a statist view. Laws should only be there to serve justice when one is broken, not as a 'deterrent'

Nuclear attack. Courts no longer exist. Deterrence is necessary. Nothing "statist" about this.

Not sure how nuclear attacks aren't illegal seeing as how that falls under the law against murder.

The point is, without courts surviving the attack, there would be no prosecution of the crime. The idea is that some crimes are either impractical or impossible to prosecute for the sake of justice, leaving deterrence as the best means available for prevention, as opposed to retribution.

I am saying there shouldn't be laws against certain items or acts that are prone to or might cause the violation of a law, so while in theory it seems absurd, the acquisition of nuclear materials should not be illegal from a legal perspective, although possibly from an environmental perspective.

I'm saying that the supposed necessity of eliminating deterrence is not an adequate justification for eliminating victimless crimes.

But aren't a large portion of victimless crimes deterrents to 'victim' crimes?

Also the OP more or less made his justification, I just further affirmed it with my own two cents.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 11:49:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 11:47:48 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:45:41 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:41:49 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:38:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:27:42 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/31/2013 8:42:30 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:

It is a statist view that laws should be made to prevent people from committing crimes, 'deterrents' are a statist view. Laws should only be there to serve justice when one is broken, not as a 'deterrent'

Nuclear attack. Courts no longer exist. Deterrence is necessary. Nothing "statist" about this.

Not sure how nuclear attacks aren't illegal seeing as how that falls under the law against murder.

The point is, without courts surviving the attack, there would be no prosecution of the crime. The idea is that some crimes are either impractical or impossible to prosecute for the sake of justice, leaving deterrence as the best means available for prevention, as opposed to retribution.

I am saying there shouldn't be laws against certain items or acts that are prone to or might cause the violation of a law, so while in theory it seems absurd, the acquisition of nuclear materials should not be illegal from a legal perspective, although possibly from an environmental perspective.

I'm saying that the supposed necessity of eliminating deterrence is not an adequate justification for eliminating victimless crimes.

But aren't a large portion of victimless crimes deterrents to 'victim' crimes?

Also the OP more or less made his justification, I just further affirmed it with my own two cents.

Right. I'm disagreeing with both of you. I think there is no problem with prosecuting victimless crimes.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 11:49:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 11:46:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:43:19 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Plus that is an extreme outlier, not sure that in practice the regular citizenry even have the means to carry out a nuclear attack.

Granted, but there are plenty of scenarios where a crime is difficult to impossible to prosecute, and in such cases, deterrence may be a much more viable solution.

I never denied that, in fact we are in agreeance with that.

But can efficiency be weighed effectively against morality?

I am a staunch individualist, so of course I consider victimless crimes to be immoral.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 11:50:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 11:49:42 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:46:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:43:19 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Plus that is an extreme outlier, not sure that in practice the regular citizenry even have the means to carry out a nuclear attack.

Granted, but there are plenty of scenarios where a crime is difficult to impossible to prosecute, and in such cases, deterrence may be a much more viable solution.

I never denied that, in fact we are in agreeance with that.

But can efficiency be weighed effectively against morality?

I am a staunch individualist, so of course I consider victimless crimes to be immoral.

If you view morality through the lens of utilitarianism, then maximal efficiency is "moral" and anything less would be "immoral".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 11:55:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 11:50:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:49:42 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:46:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:43:19 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Plus that is an extreme outlier, not sure that in practice the regular citizenry even have the means to carry out a nuclear attack.

Granted, but there are plenty of scenarios where a crime is difficult to impossible to prosecute, and in such cases, deterrence may be a much more viable solution.

I never denied that, in fact we are in agreeance with that.

But can efficiency be weighed effectively against morality?

I am a staunch individualist, so of course I consider victimless crimes to be immoral.

If you view morality through the lens of utilitarianism, then maximal efficiency is "moral" and anything less would be "immoral".

But considering there are multiple outcomes for making victimless laws, and utilitarianism is based on the theory that the morality of an act can only be determined by it's objective outcome, there are many objective outcomes for victimless laws

For example, if you ban certain weapons as a deterrent to murder, there are multiple outcomes, but two are:

- You just banned a weapon

- You just took away an individual's right to own said weapon

Objectively, we can not be sure if banning that weapon actually prevented any murders.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 11:56:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Subjectively through projections made by statistics and assumptions, and speculation we can claim it prevented murders, but objectively we will never know.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 11:58:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also objectively it is the governments duty to defend your individual rights, by taking those rights in exchange for security you are increasing the efficiency of one thing (security) while being detrimental to the efficiency of another (protecting rights), and I would gladly argue any day that on balance, the rights of an individual far outweigh the importance of security.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 12:02:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's a slippery slope to start compromising on your values, and creating a new 'one fits all' rule which even you don't agree with. When you advocate this rule you are not only advocating the parts which are better than the system we currently have, you're also advocating all the worst parts.

The holes in the rule, which you pointed out, are examples and consequences of this. Almost everyone who supports something evil believes that some subset of what they're promoting is a 'necessary evil.' I agree with your intention, and do think that victim-less crime laws are horrendous, but honestly I'd like to see more people making complicated proposals on crime.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 12:02:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 11:55:27 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:50:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:49:42 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:46:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:43:19 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Plus that is an extreme outlier, not sure that in practice the regular citizenry even have the means to carry out a nuclear attack.

Granted, but there are plenty of scenarios where a crime is difficult to impossible to prosecute, and in such cases, deterrence may be a much more viable solution.

I never denied that, in fact we are in agreeance with that.

But can efficiency be weighed effectively against morality?

I am a staunch individualist, so of course I consider victimless crimes to be immoral.

If you view morality through the lens of utilitarianism, then maximal efficiency is "moral" and anything less would be "immoral".

But considering there are multiple outcomes for making victimless laws, and utilitarianism is based on the theory that the morality of an act can only be determined by it's objective outcome, there are many objective outcomes for victimless laws

My understanding of utilitarianism is that it makes heavy allowance for a rational solution, as opposed to an objective solution. It allows for a maximally efficient solution based upon imperfect information.

For example, if you ban certain weapons as a deterrent to murder, there are multiple outcomes, but two are:

- You just banned a weapon

- You just took away an individual's right to own said weapon

Objectively, we can not be sure if banning that weapon actually prevented any murders.

The idea behind such a ban would be that there is demonstrable evidence that banning the weapon would lead to fewer murders. I'm not saying this is true for guns, but I am almost certain this is true for drunk driving.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 12:09:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/1/2013 12:02:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:55:27 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:50:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:49:42 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:46:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:43:19 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Plus that is an extreme outlier, not sure that in practice the regular citizenry even have the means to carry out a nuclear attack.

Granted, but there are plenty of scenarios where a crime is difficult to impossible to prosecute, and in such cases, deterrence may be a much more viable solution.

I never denied that, in fact we are in agreeance with that.

But can efficiency be weighed effectively against morality?

I am a staunch individualist, so of course I consider victimless crimes to be immoral.

If you view morality through the lens of utilitarianism, then maximal efficiency is "moral" and anything less would be "immoral".

But considering there are multiple outcomes for making victimless laws, and utilitarianism is based on the theory that the morality of an act can only be determined by it's objective outcome, there are many objective outcomes for victimless laws

My understanding of utilitarianism is that it makes heavy allowance for a rational solution, as opposed to an objective solution. It allows for a maximally efficient solution based upon imperfect information.

But once again, you are only how it will increase the efficiency of one aspect, in this case that is the law. You are not looking at how victimless laws are detrimental to the efficiency of a strong republic and the government's job to protect our rights.

For example, if you ban certain weapons as a deterrent to murder, there are multiple outcomes, but two are:

- You just banned a weapon

- You just took away an individual's right to own said weapon

Objectively, we can not be sure if banning that weapon actually prevented any murders.

The idea behind such a ban would be that there is demonstrable evidence that banning the weapon would lead to fewer murders. I'm not saying this is true for guns, but I am almost certain this is true for drunk driving.

But once again, you are taking away the empowerment of the individual to be a rational actor on their own, all people are different and should be treated as such. Even if only 1% of people can still drive sensibly under the influence, why punish that 1%, for the good of society? That is collectivist and by it's very nature statist.

Someone who commits drunk driving will still be punished, although I do not agree with added sentences for being under the influence, I will justify that later if need be.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 12:10:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Woops

I mean if someone commits a traffic violation of is the instigator of a car accident while drunk driving they will still be punished.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 12:14:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/1/2013 12:09:27 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:02:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:55:27 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:50:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:49:42 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:46:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:43:19 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Plus that is an extreme outlier, not sure that in practice the regular citizenry even have the means to carry out a nuclear attack.

Granted, but there are plenty of scenarios where a crime is difficult to impossible to prosecute, and in such cases, deterrence may be a much more viable solution.

I never denied that, in fact we are in agreeance with that.

But can efficiency be weighed effectively against morality?

I am a staunch individualist, so of course I consider victimless crimes to be immoral.

If you view morality through the lens of utilitarianism, then maximal efficiency is "moral" and anything less would be "immoral".

But considering there are multiple outcomes for making victimless laws, and utilitarianism is based on the theory that the morality of an act can only be determined by it's objective outcome, there are many objective outcomes for victimless laws

My understanding of utilitarianism is that it makes heavy allowance for a rational solution, as opposed to an objective solution. It allows for a maximally efficient solution based upon imperfect information.

But once again, you are only how it will increase the efficiency of one aspect, in this case that is the law. You are not looking at how victimless laws are detrimental to the efficiency of a strong republic and the government's job to protect our rights.

The idea behind the law is the everything available was considered, to include your points.

The existence of government is an acknowledgment of the necessity of infringement upon rights, so a rights-based argument would lack some bite IMHO.

For example, if you ban certain weapons as a deterrent to murder, there are multiple outcomes, but two are:

- You just banned a weapon

- You just took away an individual's right to own said weapon

Objectively, we can not be sure if banning that weapon actually prevented any murders.

The idea behind such a ban would be that there is demonstrable evidence that banning the weapon would lead to fewer murders. I'm not saying this is true for guns, but I am almost certain this is true for drunk driving.

But once again, you are taking away the empowerment of the individual to be a rational actor on their own, all people are different and should be treated as such. Even if only 1% of people can still drive sensibly under the influence, why punish that 1%, for the good of society? That is collectivist and by it's very nature statist.

- Right. So a ban would have to be weighed against such considerations. A seat-belt law has very few such considerations, so it passes without any controversy.

- The idea is that 99% of society dying off is in no one's interest.

- About collectivism, do you acknowledge military force as a basic, foundational aspect of any society? If you do, do you recognize the military as being the pinnacle of collectivism?

Someone who commits drunk driving will still be punished, although I do not agree with added sentences for being under the influence, I will justify that later if need be.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 12:19:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 8:42:30 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
Victimless crimes are the most insanely stupid things in the world. These include underage drinking laws, drug laws, DUI laws, speeding laws, and plenty more laws. Now, if roads are not privatized (as they should be), we have to have some basic, reasonable laws of the road. But, DUIs as they stand are far too strict but I digress.

I am talking about criminal court. The proposal is that every single crime MUST have a victim. That means somebody had their right to property or life violated (rights are a complicated cookie but we'll assume a fairly traditional view of negative rights for this which is certainly superior to views about positive rights). If somebody was murdered, then that person is the victim and the assumption is that they would press charges against whoever killed them (which it is the court's role to figure out). If somebody had their stuff stolen, they are the accusing party.

The state CANNOT be the victim or the accuser (technically you could say the state is accusing those suspected of murder but that would be the exception).

In other words, drug laws, underage drinking laws, all DUI laws (as far as they go in criminal court), are all eliminated.

Traffic court is a sticky issue, but it would remain so long as the state monopoly on roads is maintained. However, there would be no jail time or criminal charges under ANY circumstances involving any traffic violation that did not involve the destruction of property (private property) or death/injury of another.

I will say this only once: You're not helping yourself by citing things that most people agree are stupid (e.g. DUI, underage drinking) as examples of why victimless crimes should be abolished. All you're doing is making yourself look like a wingnut who values staying in line with your ideology over following common sense.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 12:20:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/1/2013 12:14:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:09:27 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:02:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:55:27 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:50:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:49:42 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:46:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 11:43:19 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Plus that is an extreme outlier, not sure that in practice the regular citizenry even have the means to carry out a nuclear attack.

Granted, but there are plenty of scenarios where a crime is difficult to impossible to prosecute, and in such cases, deterrence may be a much more viable solution.

I never denied that, in fact we are in agreeance with that.

But can efficiency be weighed effectively against morality?

I am a staunch individualist, so of course I consider victimless crimes to be immoral.

If you view morality through the lens of utilitarianism, then maximal efficiency is "moral" and anything less would be "immoral".

But considering there are multiple outcomes for making victimless laws, and utilitarianism is based on the theory that the morality of an act can only be determined by it's objective outcome, there are many objective outcomes for victimless laws

My understanding of utilitarianism is that it makes heavy allowance for a rational solution, as opposed to an objective solution. It allows for a maximally efficient solution based upon imperfect information.

But once again, you are only how it will increase the efficiency of one aspect, in this case that is the law. You are not looking at how victimless laws are detrimental to the efficiency of a strong republic and the government's job to protect our rights.

The idea behind the law is the everything available was considered, to include your points.

The existence of government is an acknowledgment of the necessity of infringement upon rights, so a rights-based argument would lack some bite IMHO.

I am only for an Anarcho-Capitalist in theory, in practice I'm a Minarchist. Odd I know, elaboration will be given if asked for. So idealy I do recognize that the government in itself is an infringement on individual rights, and if society was ready for it I would propose AnCap, but right now Minarchism is more logical.

For example, if you ban certain weapons as a deterrent to murder, there are multiple outcomes, but two are:

- You just banned a weapon

- You just took away an individual's right to own said weapon

Objectively, we can not be sure if banning that weapon actually prevented any murders.

The idea behind such a ban would be that there is demonstrable evidence that banning the weapon would lead to fewer murders. I'm not saying this is true for guns, but I am almost certain this is true for drunk driving.

But once again, you are taking away the empowerment of the individual to be a rational actor on their own, all people are different and should be treated as such. Even if only 1% of people can still drive sensibly under the influence, why punish that 1%, for the good of society? That is collectivist and by it's very nature statist.

- Right. So a ban would have to be weighed against such considerations. A seat-belt law has very few such considerations, so it passes without any controversy.

I am against seat-belt laws, of course our government would bi-partisanly pass seatbelt laws, democrats and republicans are both staunch collectivist.

- The idea is that 99% of society dying off is in no one's interest.

- About collectivism, do you acknowledge military force as a basic, foundational aspect of any society? If you do, do you recognize the military as being the pinnacle of collectivism?

I am not for a standing army.

Someone who commits drunk driving will still be punished, although I do not agree with added sentences for being under the influence, I will justify that later if need be.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 12:21:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, I would rather see 99% of society die off than see any individual lose their rights to protect the 99%

Infringing even one person's rights to protect the rest of the populous is collectivist.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 12:23:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/1/2013 12:20:15 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:14:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

- About collectivism, do you acknowledge military force as a basic, foundational aspect of any society? If you do, do you recognize the military as being the pinnacle of collectivism?

I am not for a standing army.

But you are for force when necessary, yes?

I think most people would not be for a standing army if it wasn't necessary.

Currently our military is a historically low levels of % of GDP and % of population serving. We are about as close as we have ever been to the elimination of a standing army since WWII.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 12:23:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/1/2013 12:19:52 AM, drhead wrote:
At 7/31/2013 8:42:30 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
Victimless crimes are the most insanely stupid things in the world. These include underage drinking laws, drug laws, DUI laws, speeding laws, and plenty more laws. Now, if roads are not privatized (as they should be), we have to have some basic, reasonable laws of the road. But, DUIs as they stand are far too strict but I digress.

I am talking about criminal court. The proposal is that every single crime MUST have a victim. That means somebody had their right to property or life violated (rights are a complicated cookie but we'll assume a fairly traditional view of negative rights for this which is certainly superior to views about positive rights). If somebody was murdered, then that person is the victim and the assumption is that they would press charges against whoever killed them (which it is the court's role to figure out). If somebody had their stuff stolen, they are the accusing party.

The state CANNOT be the victim or the accuser (technically you could say the state is accusing those suspected of murder but that would be the exception).

In other words, drug laws, underage drinking laws, all DUI laws (as far as they go in criminal court), are all eliminated.

Traffic court is a sticky issue, but it would remain so long as the state monopoly on roads is maintained. However, there would be no jail time or criminal charges under ANY circumstances involving any traffic violation that did not involve the destruction of property (private property) or death/injury of another.

I will say this only once: You're not helping yourself by citing things that most people agree are stupid (e.g. DUI, underage drinking) as examples of why victimless crimes should be abolished. All you're doing is making yourself look like a wingnut who values staying in line with your ideology over following common sense.

Your argument is essentially moot.

You have the burden of proof to show that there are indeed some justifiable victimless laws, otherwise his should be seen as acceptable examples.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 12:25:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/1/2013 12:23:47 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:20:15 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:14:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

- About collectivism, do you acknowledge military force as a basic, foundational aspect of any society? If you do, do you recognize the military as being the pinnacle of collectivism?

I am not for a standing army.

But you are for force when necessary, yes?

Using force to defend oneself against foreign invaders is not collectivist.

I think most people would not be for a standing army if it wasn't necessary.

Currently our military is a historically low levels of % of GDP and % of population serving. We are about as close as we have ever been to the elimination of a standing army since WWII.

That is true, but we still are nowhere close not having one, and our government as it stands has no intention to eliminate the standing army, so I don't get your point here.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 12:29:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/1/2013 12:25:52 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:23:47 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:20:15 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:14:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

- About collectivism, do you acknowledge military force as a basic, foundational aspect of any society? If you do, do you recognize the military as being the pinnacle of collectivism?

I am not for a standing army.

But you are for force when necessary, yes?

Using force to defend oneself against foreign invaders is not collectivist.

Any and all use of the military is collectivist by nature. Just look at any military parade. Tell me that is not collectivist.

I think most people would not be for a standing army if it wasn't necessary.

Currently our military is a historically low levels of % of GDP and % of population serving. We are about as close as we have ever been to the elimination of a standing army since WWII.

That is true, but we still are nowhere close not having one, and our government as it stands has no intention to eliminate the standing army, so I don't get your point here.

The point is that there is the ideal (anarchism, no standing army) and the practical (minimal government, minimal army).
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 12:32:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/1/2013 12:29:40 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:25:52 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:23:47 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:20:15 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:14:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

- About collectivism, do you acknowledge military force as a basic, foundational aspect of any society? If you do, do you recognize the military as being the pinnacle of collectivism?

I am not for a standing army.

But you are for force when necessary, yes?

Using force to defend oneself against foreign invaders is not collectivist.

Any and all use of the military is collectivist by nature. Just look at any military parade. Tell me that is not collectivist.

I am not for military parades, that is fiscally irresponsible, a militia is private so if they want to have parades it's not collectivist, but of course a government funded military parade is collectivist, and on top if it wasteful fiscally. You still have not shown why using force to counteract an aggressor's force is collectivist in the case of counteracting a foreign attempt at conquest.

I think most people would not be for a standing army if it wasn't necessary.

Currently our military is a historically low levels of % of GDP and % of population serving. We are about as close as we have ever been to the elimination of a standing army since WWII.

That is true, but we still are nowhere close not having one, and our government as it stands has no intention to eliminate the standing army, so I don't get your point here.

The point is that there is the ideal (anarchism, no standing army) and the practical (minimal government, minimal army).

That is why I said earlier that I do not think society is ready for anarchism quite yet, a conversion to minarchism would have to be made first, then anarchism later down the road.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 12:36:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/1/2013 12:32:42 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:29:40 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:25:52 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:23:47 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:20:15 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:14:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

- About collectivism, do you acknowledge military force as a basic, foundational aspect of any society? If you do, do you recognize the military as being the pinnacle of collectivism?

I am not for a standing army.

But you are for force when necessary, yes?

Using force to defend oneself against foreign invaders is not collectivist.

Any and all use of the military is collectivist by nature. Just look at any military parade. Tell me that is not collectivist.

I am not for military parades, that is fiscally irresponsible, a militia is private so if they want to have parades it's not collectivist, but of course a government funded military parade is collectivist, and on top if it wasteful fiscally. You still have not shown why using force to counteract an aggressor's force is collectivist in the case of counteracting a foreign attempt at conquest.

I don't think you understand what a military parade is. It's just a dog-and-pony presentation of the military, like any parade.

A militia is collectivist. A militia will find strength in operating as a unit, not as individuals given the ability to make their own judgment within their own sphere of knowledge and influence.

I'm not talking about explicit use of force as being collectivist. I'm talking about the organization of the military. Can't you see how the very organization of any cohesive fighting force would be collectivist?

I think most people would not be for a standing army if it wasn't necessary.

Currently our military is a historically low levels of % of GDP and % of population serving. We are about as close as we have ever been to the elimination of a standing army since WWII.

That is true, but we still are nowhere close not having one, and our government as it stands has no intention to eliminate the standing army, so I don't get your point here.

The point is that there is the ideal (anarchism, no standing army) and the practical (minimal government, minimal army).

That is why I said earlier that I do not think society is ready for anarchism quite yet, a conversion to minarchism would have to be made first, then anarchism later down the road.

Then what don't you understand about my point?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 12:39:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Great movie. Makes my point succinctly. Effective use of force necessitates collectivist tendencies.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 12:46:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/1/2013 12:36:13 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:32:42 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:29:40 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:25:52 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:23:47 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:20:15 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/1/2013 12:14:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

- About collectivism, do you acknowledge military force as a basic, foundational aspect of any society? If you do, do you recognize the military as being the pinnacle of collectivism?

I am not for a standing army.

But you are for force when necessary, yes?

Using force to defend oneself against foreign invaders is not collectivist.

Any and all use of the military is collectivist by nature. Just look at any military parade. Tell me that is not collectivist.

I am not for military parades, that is fiscally irresponsible, a militia is private so if they want to have parades it's not collectivist, but of course a government funded military parade is collectivist, and on top if it wasteful fiscally. You still have not shown why using force to counteract an aggressor's force is collectivist in the case of counteracting a foreign attempt at conquest.

I don't think you understand what a military parade is. It's just a dog-and-pony presentation of the military, like any parade.

But you would have to pay soldiers to come out for the parade, plus gas for the tanks and jeeps, etc.

A militia is collectivist. A militia will find strength in operating as a unit, not as individuals given the ability to make their own judgment within their own sphere of knowledge and influence.

But you volunteer for a militia, I don't see how it's my concern if a group of people want to volunteer to band together and form groups that have a hierarchy and are collectivist.

I'm not talking about explicit use of force as being collectivist. I'm talking about the organization of the military. Can't you see how the very organization of any cohesive fighting force would be collectivist?

Yes, but once again it's voluntary. If people want to be collectivist it doesn't concern me, they can purchase land and make their own little collectivist settlement where the citizenry can sign a contract that forces them to stay and live under the rules of their leader.

I think most people would not be for a standing army if it wasn't necessary.

Currently our military is a historically low levels of % of GDP and % of population serving. We are about as close as we have ever been to the elimination of a standing army since WWII.

That is true, but we still are nowhere close not having one, and our government as it stands has no intention to eliminate the standing army, so I don't get your point here.

The point is that there is the ideal (anarchism, no standing army) and the practical (minimal government, minimal army).

That is why I said earlier that I do not think society is ready for anarchism quite yet, a conversion to minarchism would have to be made first, then anarchism later down the road.

Then what don't you understand about my point?

You are claiming anarchism is altogether unachievable, I believe that we would still need minarchism, but after the societal disorder subsidided we could go to anarchy.

Conversion from statism to minarchism is necessary to prevent order and the rule of law from collapsing. What are people going to do who lived off of government assistance for a living except be thieves, make their own impoverished colonies and band together, mass riot/loot, etc.