scribblings from a deist transhumanist libertarian minarchist citizen soldier

Ten crimes that aren’t

Posted by Trevor in under other on Feb 4th, 2006 | View Comments |

Libertarians believe that for something to be a crime, there must be a victim. Therefore, we believe that consensual acts between legal adults cannot be crimes. They might be morally repugnant. They might be unhealthy and disgusting. They might be tasteless and silly. But they aren’t crimes.

Stripper being arrested, courtesy of Smoking Gun

Law enforcement would serve us better if they spent their time pursuing real criminals and stopped worrying about these ten crimes that aren’t:

Prostitution – renting yourself out may be lots of things but it shouldn’t be a crime.
Drug use – certain substances are OK if the gubmint says so and you’re too dumb to decide for yourself. However, you’re smart enough to elect your own politicians. Nuff said.
Seat belt laws – if you are too dumb to wear a belt perhaps you should be removed from the gene pool. Either way, government has no right to tell you must wear a belt. Unless you believe government owns your body. Do you?
Helmet laws – same as seat belt laws.
Licenses to practice various professions – Are you too stupid to figure out who you want to cut your hair? Too stupid to pick your own doctor? The state thinks you are. Shouldn’t that be insulting?
Minimum wage laws -get an education if you want to earn a decent living. How hard is it to figure out?
Speeding & other traffic laws - a) they are poorly and irregularly enforced b) there is no crime committed until an accident occurs, at which point there are plenty of laws to take care of the offender. Convince me our traffic laws make my driving experience any safer.
Laws against suicide – again, this is about who you believe owns your body, you or the government. Can you commit a crime against yourself? These laws are idiotic.
Gambling laws – you make a wager every day when you get out of bed. This is another example of the arrogance of the state, especially when states create a legal monopoly on gambling by offering a state lottery. How disgusting.
Pornography – human beings are born with a genetic drive to have sex. How can you be a victim of pornography? You can’t. Perhaps you can become addicted to it, but that makes you a victim of your own stupidity. Stop looking at pornography if you think it’s a problem.

I could list thousands of consensual or solo activities that Americans have foolishly allowed their government to make into crimes. But I’ll stop with these ten which are particularly irritating to me. Every time I read statistics about our per capita rates of incarceration I get infuriated. If you think these people are learning to lead productive lives in jail you are delusional.

Similar Posts:

Print This Post |

athensguy

While I am not a Libertarian, I am a civil libertarian. I do agree with 7.5 of 10 of these.

I do not agree at all with #5. Of course, I find that capitalism leads to a few rich people and a bunch of poor serfs that couldn't afford medical care anyway, so that would be a moot point in a pure Libertarian society.

#6 -- Poor serfs, and 90%+ couldn't afford an education without subsidies.

#7 -- Speeding laws are nothing but vile revenue generators. However, I don't particularly have a problem with rules of the road such as stop signs and lights, yield signs, no parking signs, and other warning signs. If you are in the left lane, you should get out of the way.

@swamijie

The only ideas here I really can't bring myself to agree with are #s5 and 6. I can even stretch to agree with the thoughts on helmet and seat belt laws (however, we really are that dumb and I know of at least one individual who's lost his life in a motorcycle accident where he wasn't wearing a helmet, and as a counter to play devil's advocate, you may call it thinning out the gene pool, until that "thinning" happens to a loved one). However, with licensing and minimum wage, there is genuine tort involved and individuals can be hurt. Licensing is borne out of trade guilds that can guarantee that members can properly and safely perform the work they are licensed to do. If I know a doctor is licensed, I have a reasonable expectation not to be hurt by any medical intervention and a reasonable expectation that the medical intervention has a good chance to have the expected, intended outcome because the doctor knows what's being done... as per the certification from the license. Similarly, electrical work done by a licensed electrician or plumbing done by a licensed plumber should meet similar, stringent expectations and my domicile shouldn't burn down from faulty wiring or be drowned in sewage from faulty plumbing done by licensed individuals. As far as minimum wage goes, we humans (while not all of us) are greedy and want every penny we can get for ourselves while giving others as little as possible. This has been demonstrated over and over again throughout US as well as global history, anywhere capitalism is practiced. Capitalism, while good in practice, must often be tempered, as dictated even by the Man himself, Adam Smith, precisely because humans are the ones practicing it. In a monopoly situation where a person owns every factory and means of employment in any given sector, he or she can control wages. The simple fact is the majority of us are workers and a select few, for various reasons can ever achieve ownership. Therefore the owner can be and often times is in a position to screw his employee by underpaying him for marketable skills and many times, also for various reasons, the employee can't simply pick up and take his skills to a higher bidder. I believe, in order to protect the employee and the economy at large, minimum wages must be utilized and those minimum wages must be concurrent with present buying power and market conditions. The employee who has more money can buy more goods, driving the economy. While abolishing or having no minimum wages can (and did in US history) concentrate wealth and slow down the larger economy to a grind.

trevorsnyder

Here's a question - which is more important: freedom of choice or being "protected" from one's own actions?

In regards to monopolies, isn't the government in and of itself a monopoly? If monopolies are bad then why is there a master monopoly on forcing others to follow the rules?

@swamijie

As far as the government being a monopoly concerned, the difference is, in this particular case, the US government monopoly is a monopoly in which we are all shareholders, so to speak, i.e. we citizens make up that monopoly, therefore have the right and the power to institute and change the rules as we see fit. None of us are a country unto ourselves, unless you opt to become a stateless individual, and that can and should be done if you don't want to be subject to laws of any country; however, make no mistake about it, should you withdraw citizenship and become a stateless individual, while you are still subject to international law, many of the protections and guarantees you receive as a US citizen are also withdrawn. My point is, if you take the libertarian viewpoint that laws should protect the individual from harm or tort, than that should include any monopoly and government (i. e. collective citizenry through our elected representatives) is the only mechanism through which that can be achieved as the power of the consumer is nullified in the monopoly situation. BTW, protection from government harm and tort is written into US law, including the US Constitution (e.g. 1st amendment right of redress clause)
As far as freedom of choice is concerned, while freedom of choice is a fundamental freedom from harm is also a fundamental right; while I don't believe government has the right to protect me from my own actions I do believe government ought to protect me from someone else's "freedom" that might harm me

trevorsnyder

Are we really shareholders? I for one do not feel like a shareholder. I feel more like an oppressed minority forced to pay for a system with which I have deep rooted moral issues. It's not an evil system, on the face of things, but it certainly needs a lot of change to be considered a good system.

Other guest

Then again, I have the cynical opinion that sometimes traffic laws are only enforced to increase income for the municipality.

Guest

Are you seriously telling me that you'd prefer to take the time necessary to personally confirm that the doctor your considering to trust with decision about your health has actually attended all the schools and passed all the tests he claims to have? Have you considered how many hours and hours of your personal time would be required for you to achieve that?
Because without the certification process that you apparently wish to do away with, there would be no need for records. At least not in government facilities. You'd have to contact his schools. All of them.
And they probably would have privacy policies, so they wouldn't tell you without his permission in writing. And of course, he might be a dishonest guy, so you'd have to try to figure out if he were simply paying the records guy from his college to clean up the records for him.
I just don't get it....
Libertarians sometimes sound so naive.

trevorsnyder

I think you're being a little dramatic and assuming that I wouldn't hire someone else to do the checking if government didn't insist on having a certification monopoly in regards to various service sectors like health care. There is no perfect system and there are lots of dishonest doctors under the current system. Many of them defraud Medicare because it is so easy.

Evilagram

I agree that people should be given most of the rights here, however a few are simply absurd.

Seatbelt and helmet laws exist to protect the people, and have vastly decreased the rates of death in automotive accidents since the 80s. I agree that people not wearing a seatbelt probably deserve their fate, but the law acts as a psychological reminder that wearing a seatbelt is not merely recommended for survival, but necessary as a mandate. As much as I despise the idea that a law can affect our psyche in any positive way, this is a rare case where it is true.

Traffic laws serve a similar purpose in most cases. I agree that the laws are too strict, but to throw them eschew is a terrible idea.

Laws regarding professional licenses exist to keep people from dying. Not all people end up in the hospital for simple checkups with their family doctor. A lot of people end up there due to accidents or disease. License laws exist to prevent untrained idiots from entering these positions. Every doctor must match standards to enter such a position, guaranteeing safety to patients.

Minimum wage laws exist to prevent mistreatment of workers like in third world countries. Without minimum wage laws, employers can pay whatever they, leading to people being unable to survive. This isn't an issue where you can say, "Well they should have studied harder and gotten a better job." Not all people are offered even the chance for a good education, and many with excellent educations end up in such a job due to simple coincidence, beyond their control.

I'm heavily libertarian, and I love the ideas of a lot of this article, but I just can't ignore such blatant disregard for public safety on some of these. (nearly) All laws are made for the purpose of serving the public good. Many go beyond acceptable limits, but the basic intention needs to be recognized.

mad

don't forget the rescue and care costs communities and tax-payers are forced to pay when someone is dumb enough to ride without a helmet and crashes, drives without a seatbelt and crashes, uses drugs and overdoses, or goes hiking and gets lost
if you're going to be stupid there should be a law that protects me from paying for it

Eric Vogel

As a libertarian myself, I agree with everything stated, except #3. What you fail to take into account is that, by not wearing a seatbelt, you are not only putting yourself at greater risk but are also putting the other drivers on the road (and other passengers in your car) at greater risk. If you get into a head-on collision without a seatbelt, your body becomes a projectile and there are countless cases of such projectiles causing harm to others - thereby creating a victim (as per your criteria). I suppose the argument could be made that (adult) passengers are giving their consent to accept this risk by riding in the car with you, but that does not hold true for minors or other drivers on the road.

By the same token, I don't think traffic laws go against the libertarian philosophy - even if no harm is done, simply putting other drivers at greater risk without their consent makes them a victim. I do agree that the current system seems corrupt and more focused on extorting money from the public than keeping it safe, but having driven in countries where such laws are not enforced I must say I'd rather have it our way. Still, in this day and age where we have automatic traffic cameras that can give tickets to EVERYBODY that speeds or violates the law, it seems suspicious that enforcement is such that the vast majority get away with it, thereby encouraging the illegal behavior to continue. If you knew you were going to get a ticket every time you sped, you wouldn't speed- yet because you know that you usually will get away with it (and because you know it is possible to drive safely at speeds in excess of the posted limit), you will continue to speed at the risk of occasionally having to pay the "driving tax."

trevorsnyder

Eric,

Thanks for dropping by. I think it's a bit of a stretch that risking my body as a projectile should entail forcing me to strap into a car. Why don't we force motorcyclists to wear a huge web around them that is attached to the motorcycle frame? Either way, it's too lonely being libertarian to argue with a fellow freedom lover.

I'll take every freedom I can get.

Trevor

@Don: Please sir, don't claim a monopoly on truth.

There are half a dozen major religious texts being disseminated around the planet and those who publish them generally claim their versions are the only correct will of God. Why would God make the truth so obtuse?

Don

Then, as a deist, you aknowledge there is a God. Do you not believe He has a will for our lives and a crime against ourselves and He is called sin?

Your whole theory shows little understanding in truth.

Dale

Yes, there are laws on the books that are over-the-top responses to the probability of harm. agreed.

To everyone , I ask the question, do you believe that some laws are about/for individual people, other laws are about/for societal norms, and other laws are about/for humanity?

As for the examples stated here, Traffic laws and irregular enforcement let me know that I have a high probability that people will comply and stop for stop signs and red lights. I beleive I am safer as a result of these laws.

I do beleive that some laws are written to prevent hazards to the public at large. Everyone should not have to go through their own learning experience to discover 'good' business from 'bad' business'.

Pornography laws and gambling reflect a society norm. When we are feeding some behaviors or traits, they can become 'institutionalized' with businesses devoted to the expansion of their societal acceptance of their business. Are we a nation that condones the acceptance of these irreligious behaviors? So far we are not. However, many people indulge in them even with the laws in place.

Sometimes I note that we have few laws that actually promote anything. We love to prohibit but not to promote. How about a law that allows you to vote twice if you demonstrate competence in understanding the Constitution? That is one example but I am sure people can come up with others.

Barb

Trevor, I have to disagree with you on #5. You have seen the shows depiciting what so called plastic surgeons have done to people's bodies and faces when they were not truly trained in plastic surgery. Would you want someone without a license cutting into you, or an anesthesiologist knocking you out that has not "proven" somewhere that they are capable of doing so without killing you (most of the time)?

I agree that various other licenses are basically meaningless and should not be mandated by government.

EXDemocrat

Maybe one day we will get lucky and have our own political party. I totally agree with you in regards to these laws. They are not a danger to others, although just like everything in the world, somebody will find some reason they are.

Thank you.