3 ms·

I don't think this works for you. Most "victimless crimes" have victims, you just don't believe they should count as victims, or the punishment isn't proportion

I don't think this works for you. Most "victimless crimes" have victims, you just don't believe they should count as victims, or the punishment isn't proportional. I suppose you could say not every instance actually has a victim, just some of them, but then should I get to walk if I shoot at you and miss? Copyright: IP owners who lose money, everyone who no longer benefits from new content because making it is economically unsustainable. Regulation: consumers who buy defective and dangerous products (particularly drugs), people who drink contaminated water and breathe contaminated air, people whose radio electronics won't work anymore because some asshole is jamming them, people whose retirement accounts evaporate on irresponsible trades or investment in fraudulent businesses, people who become suddenly homeless on the whims of their landlords, people who get hit by speeding cars, drunk drivers, cars without working brakes, cars that don't properly signal their presence and intentions. War on Drugs: people whose friends and family members become unreliable and/or dead because of their addictions. Tax fraud: people whose economic and medical situations get worse when government is underfunded.

the_ancient 11y ago
>>>Copyright: IP owners who lose money, everyone who no longer benefits from new content because making it is economically unsustainable. Setting aside the fact that I do not believe in the concept of IP. To the extent that the government grants such a privilege, there is a victim, the "owner" of the intellectual privilege. That person can raise their hand and say "I am a victim of Infringement on my government granted intellectual privilege" >>>Regulation: consumers who buy defective and dangerous products (particularly drugs), people who drink contaminated water and breathe contaminated air, people whose radio electronics won't work anymore because some asshole is jamming them, people whose retirement accounts evaporate on irresponsible trades or investment in fraudulent businesses, people who become suddenly homeless on the whims of their landlords, people who get hit by speeding cars, drunk drivers, cars without working brakes, cars that don't properly signal their presence and intentions. All of these are victims to some extent, I do not think you understand what the term victim means in this context. One does not have to be physically harmed to be a victim, you can be a victim of fraud, theft, negligence, these are all victims. >>>War on Drugs: people whose friends and family members become unreliable and/or dead because of their addictions. A person using drugs of their own free will can not be classified as a Victim, it is tragic yes but so is suicided, or countless other things. Family members are not being "victimized" by that. Further arresting a Drug abuser has been objectively proven to be about the worst thing you can do for them, and a sure fire way to turn a drug user into an abuser is to ruin their lives with criminal records and penalties. No Families are not "victims" when a family member uses drugs, any more than they are "victims" when a family member makes any other life choice that is poor. >>>Tax fraud: people whose economic and medical situations get worse when government is underfunded Setting aside the fact that I believe taxation to be theft, Taxation produces victims every day, every single taxpayer is a victim of unethical and immoral theft by government... Setting that aside no one is entitled to other peoples money, if a government program is underfunded that does not make a victim.
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  every single taxpayer is a victim of unethical and immoral theft by government... But insofar as governments are constituted or upheld by the will of the citizens, there's no moral injury. People want physical and social infrastructure and voluntarily group together to set up institutions to achieve those ends. Now, since nobody alive in the USA today was around to sign the Constitution you could argue that everyone living in the US at present was opted into a social contract without their consent, but on the other hand there's a longstanding legal principle called quantum meruit that says it's OK to charge for services that were provided out of reasonable necessity even if they weren't requested. This is why you can be knocked unconscious and later receive a bill for being transported to the hospital by ambulance, even though you were aware of or competent to contract with the ambulance operators. (This has happened to me, and it's quite a strange experience to get a large bill for a service you have no memory of receiving.)
- superuser2 11y ago
  Many countries prosecute attempted suicide, and yes family members are absolutely "victimized" by their loved ones' self-destruction. Of course the response of jailing suicidal people and drug users isn't helpful either, but now we're talking about a more interesting standard (whether punishment is helpful) than whether a victim exists. >using drugs of their own free will Some proponents of drug prohibition would argue that people (particularly teens) are not using drugs of their own free will, but exploited by dealers and peer groups. Others of a more liberal bent might argue that people don't use hard drugs of their own free will, but as a release from desperate circumstances - becoming a heroin addict is no more a "free" act than jumping from a burning building. >no one is entitled to other peoples money Says you. It's certainly not a property of the universe - just 400 years ago there'd have been no question that the lord of the manor owned all your labor, graciously giving you your daily bread out of Christian obligation. Every man for himself is a relatively recent development in human history. You may consider it progress. But a leftist wouldn't - he would say progress is the replacement of the lord of the manor by a democratic state, or the people as a whole, or something like that. Failure to help your fellow man obviously has victims - thousands of people die of circumstances that could have been alleviated by your money. As do taxes, as do environment regulations (some are spared cancer; some are out of a job; some are out a great deal of capital equipment). The question of politics is what distribution of harm is just. Incidentally, if you're ever tempted to shit on liberal arts majors... this is what they do all day. Philosophy is, in large part, working through very old and complex arguments on questions such as this. "What is justice?" is at least as old as Plato's Republic and the conversation continues for thousands of years.

the_ancient 11y ago

>>>Copyright: IP owners who lose money, everyone who no longer benefits from new content because making it is economically unsustainable. Setting aside the fact that I do not believe in the concept of IP. To the extent that the government grants such a privilege, there is a victim, the "owner" of the intellectual privilege. That person can raise their hand and say "I am a victim of Infringement on my government granted intellectual privilege" >>>Regulation: consumers who buy defective and dangerous products (particularly drugs), people who drink contaminated water and breathe contaminated air, people whose radio electronics won't work anymore because some asshole is jamming them, people whose retirement accounts evaporate on irresponsible trades or investment in fraudulent businesses, people who become suddenly homeless on the whims of their landlords, people who get hit by speeding cars, drunk drivers, cars without working brakes, cars that don't properly signal their presence and intentions. All of these are victims to some extent, I do not think you understand what the term victim means in this context. One does not have to be physically harmed to be a victim, you can be a victim of fraud, theft, negligence, these are all victims. >>>War on Drugs: people whose friends and family members become unreliable and/or dead because of their addictions. A person using drugs of their own free will can not be classified as a Victim, it is tragic yes but so is suicided, or countless other things. Family members are not being "victimized" by that. Further arresting a Drug abuser has been objectively proven to be about the worst thing you can do for them, and a sure fire way to turn a drug user into an abuser is to ruin their lives with criminal records and penalties. No Families are not "victims" when a family member uses drugs, any more than they are "victims" when a family member makes any other life choice that is poor. >>>Tax fraud: people whose economic and medical situations get worse when government is underfunded Setting aside the fact that I believe taxation to be theft, Taxation produces victims every day, every single taxpayer is a victim of unethical and immoral theft by government... Setting that aside no one is entitled to other peoples money, if a government program is underfunded that does not make a victim.

anigbrowl 11y ago
every single taxpayer is a victim of unethical and immoral theft by government... But insofar as governments are constituted or upheld by the will of the citizens, there's no moral injury. People want physical and social infrastructure and voluntarily group together to set up institutions to achieve those ends. Now, since nobody alive in the USA today was around to sign the Constitution you could argue that everyone living in the US at present was opted into a social contract without their consent, but on the other hand there's a longstanding legal principle called quantum meruit that says it's OK to charge for services that were provided out of reasonable necessity even if they weren't requested. This is why you can be knocked unconscious and later receive a bill for being transported to the hospital by ambulance, even though you were aware of or competent to contract with the ambulance operators. (This has happened to me, and it's quite a strange experience to get a large bill for a service you have no memory of receiving.)
superuser2 11y ago
Many countries prosecute attempted suicide, and yes family members are absolutely "victimized" by their loved ones' self-destruction. Of course the response of jailing suicidal people and drug users isn't helpful either, but now we're talking about a more interesting standard (whether punishment is helpful) than whether a victim exists. >using drugs of their own free will Some proponents of drug prohibition would argue that people (particularly teens) are not using drugs of their own free will, but exploited by dealers and peer groups. Others of a more liberal bent might argue that people don't use hard drugs of their own free will, but as a release from desperate circumstances - becoming a heroin addict is no more a "free" act than jumping from a burning building. >no one is entitled to other peoples money Says you. It's certainly not a property of the universe - just 400 years ago there'd have been no question that the lord of the manor owned all your labor, graciously giving you your daily bread out of Christian obligation. Every man for himself is a relatively recent development in human history. You may consider it progress. But a leftist wouldn't - he would say progress is the replacement of the lord of the manor by a democratic state, or the people as a whole, or something like that. Failure to help your fellow man obviously has victims - thousands of people die of circumstances that could have been alleviated by your money. As do taxes, as do environment regulations (some are spared cancer; some are out of a job; some are out a great deal of capital equipment). The question of politics is what distribution of harm is just. Incidentally, if you're ever tempted to shit on liberal arts majors... this is what they do all day. Philosophy is, in large part, working through very old and complex arguments on questions such as this. "What is justice?" is at least as old as Plato's Republic and the conversation continues for thousands of years.