Victimless crimes.
Is it viable to ignore the social contract when said contract iniaites force and infringes upon the rights of autonomous individuals with full moral standing?
For those naysayers who say the social contract doesn't exist, I would say that it does in that the social contract is basic psychology/sociology.
To a loose extent this applied with the definition of abnormal behavior. "Behavior is abnormal when applied to the norm." I'm not sure if that is the exact wording, but that is the basic jist of it.
As an extension of this, what right does the government have to proactively protect our rights and to proactively enforce laws in situations where someone may or may not be harmed?
If you want a reference to this (beyond real life ones which include drugs laws, drunk driving laws, et cetera) we can apply this to the Tom Cruise film Minority Report in which they use people with precognition in order to prevent crime by arresting the offenders before the event occurs.
All victimless crimes can result in further crimes which are more heinous. Just as use of certain drugs can lead to some people suffering from psychotic breaks which result in a murderous rampage.
So, the question I ask you: Should drunk driving be illegal?
My answer: It should be completely legal. Drunk driving in and of itself harms no one. It is not an initiation of force and as such it does not violate the Non-Aggression pact.
Drunk driving doesn't kill people, traffic infractions do.
While I am not saying that people involved in car accidents shouldn't be held responsible for their actions, I am merely saying that drunk driving in and of itself should not be a crime, nor should it be tacked on as a charge in resulting of an accident.
For example: Bob goes out to the local pub for a few drinks after which he proceeds to get in his car and drive home. He makes it home safely. Where is the victim? Who has been hurt? The answer: No one. Now say that he had driven past several cops even, and still the cops did not perceive him to be a threat on the road. Again, who has been harmed? No one.
If you were to answer me with the scenario in which you decide to randomly fire your gun into a crowd of people, I would respond that this is a notoriously bad response. Mainly because of the fact that it doesn't take into account the matter of intent.
If you are to say that intent doesn't matter, as I have seen some argue, then we would have to place everyone who killed in sef defense into prison.
What is the intent of a person driving drunk? I would postulate that it is simply to get home.
What is the intent of a person firing a gun into a crowd? It would be hard to argue that it was anything other than to kill someone.
So, the question is: How much should we let the government into our life? What right does the government have to dictate what we do with our lives? Because the majority, the people decided seventy years ago that it was the right of the government to regulate what drugs we can or can not do, or what actions we can or cannot take while on those drugs, does that make it right for the government to do so?
If the majority decides, do they have the right to infringe upon my own personal freedoms?
Sorry, this is a little rough. Please, discuss.
For those naysayers who say the social contract doesn't exist, I would say that it does in that the social contract is basic psychology/sociology.
To a loose extent this applied with the definition of abnormal behavior. "Behavior is abnormal when applied to the norm." I'm not sure if that is the exact wording, but that is the basic jist of it.
As an extension of this, what right does the government have to proactively protect our rights and to proactively enforce laws in situations where someone may or may not be harmed?
If you want a reference to this (beyond real life ones which include drugs laws, drunk driving laws, et cetera) we can apply this to the Tom Cruise film Minority Report in which they use people with precognition in order to prevent crime by arresting the offenders before the event occurs.
All victimless crimes can result in further crimes which are more heinous. Just as use of certain drugs can lead to some people suffering from psychotic breaks which result in a murderous rampage.
So, the question I ask you: Should drunk driving be illegal?
My answer: It should be completely legal. Drunk driving in and of itself harms no one. It is not an initiation of force and as such it does not violate the Non-Aggression pact.
Drunk driving doesn't kill people, traffic infractions do.
While I am not saying that people involved in car accidents shouldn't be held responsible for their actions, I am merely saying that drunk driving in and of itself should not be a crime, nor should it be tacked on as a charge in resulting of an accident.
For example: Bob goes out to the local pub for a few drinks after which he proceeds to get in his car and drive home. He makes it home safely. Where is the victim? Who has been hurt? The answer: No one. Now say that he had driven past several cops even, and still the cops did not perceive him to be a threat on the road. Again, who has been harmed? No one.
If you were to answer me with the scenario in which you decide to randomly fire your gun into a crowd of people, I would respond that this is a notoriously bad response. Mainly because of the fact that it doesn't take into account the matter of intent.
If you are to say that intent doesn't matter, as I have seen some argue, then we would have to place everyone who killed in sef defense into prison.
What is the intent of a person driving drunk? I would postulate that it is simply to get home.
What is the intent of a person firing a gun into a crowd? It would be hard to argue that it was anything other than to kill someone.
So, the question is: How much should we let the government into our life? What right does the government have to dictate what we do with our lives? Because the majority, the people decided seventy years ago that it was the right of the government to regulate what drugs we can or can not do, or what actions we can or cannot take while on those drugs, does that make it right for the government to do so?
If the majority decides, do they have the right to infringe upon my own personal freedoms?
Sorry, this is a little rough. Please, discuss.