Abolish Character Flaw and Thought Crimes
Simple new executive order:
“Expunge all victimless crimes”
We must begin to distinguish and re-evaluate the difference between character flaws and admittedly terrible thoughts that affect only the individual, and a crime against another man. This is a simple understanding of crimes that are committed against God, and crimes against man.
Right and wrong is the basis of all law. Immorality may be wrong, but if it is against the law, where do we limit the mental interference? The following are a few ideas to correct this waste of taxpayer resources on issues of virtue control. We spend too much money on crime and punishment, especially crimes where the only injured party is the perpetrator himself, and he did it unto himself intentionally. I say go for it - let him hurt himself if he wishes.
Any individual should have the right to do whatever he wants privately unless it can be shown unquestionably that his actions are directly injuring someone else in some demonstrable, provable way. The absence of injury to another indicates a legal activity.
To suggest that we can do whatever we want in public based on our own personal morality would lead to all kinds of bizarre behavior. To legislatively restrict private actions which injures no one is not the proper role of government.
Nude heterosexual and homosexual orgies all over public parks and streets are unfit for children based on anyone’s reasonable moral code. No, the simple, logical and cost effective approach is to allow free people to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes as long as they hurt no one else. Say, do or ingest anything, - as long as they do not force it upon another.
Some examples of crimes one commits upon himself which should be removed from the law books:
The amount of time, money and energy fighting “The drug war” over the past four decades is astounding, and has produced almost no results. In addition, the sale and use of drugs has no victim. The violence associated with it is a crime, much of that is because it is illegal, forced underground, and so pushers are fighting over territory and money.
Does this mean we encourage abuse of drugs? Of course not. Here in the United States drugs are illegal when purchased through an unregistered pharmaceutical provider, (street drug dealer) yet we still have a serious drug problem – so does the rest of the civilized world. We have users who are in jail for being drug addicts. Some countries in Europe have legalized drugs. Their problem with addicts is about the same as a percentage of the population as is ours. If an individual wants to destroy his life by using and abusing drugs, unless he commits crimes in order to obtain those drugs, or while using, then let him be. Legalize and tax them. When he steals money from me to buy his drugs, put him in jail for theft, don’t imprison him for destroying his own life. That is not a crime against a fellow man; it is a victimless crime, and therefore it is up to God to decide.
It doesn’t make any sense to continue our war on drugs because we can never win it. We tried it with prohibition in the 1920’s and early 1930’s. That resulted in crime of bootlegging of unprecedented proportions and the rise of Al Capone, and Joe Kennedy, Sr. in Chicago (before he moved to Massachusetts). There were stills all over Tennessee, Nebraska and anywhere else a farmer could get copper tubing. This is what happens when the government forces legislation people don’t want to obey. We have a habit of disobeying laws we don’t like, sometimes it takes a while, other times it is nearly immediate.
Don’t take any more of my money to try to stop people from doing what they want to do that hurts no one but themselves. There is a simple solution here. Legalize, tax and forget about them and those who ruin their lives doing them.
Why is it anyone’s business if a man wants to pay a woman for sexing him up? Where is the victim here? The man agrees to pay, the woman aggress to provide service. Yes – a lot of us believe it is immoral, but how about the woman who won’t put out for her man unless he takes her to a nice restaurant and a play? Or buys her a new piece of jewelry? Yes, a crude analogy, but can you explain the difference? The point is that this is between two consenting adults and no crime against man is committed here. If God believes it to be immoral, as many people do, let Him deal with it. I don’t care and I don’t want to pay for enforcing a law in which no one is personally or financially injured.
Prostitution is a service industry. Apparently many people wish to pay for it, and it is willingly provided for a price. No one gets hurt other than those directly involved. Like drugs, legalize it, tax it and stop wasting my money trying to stop people who bother no one but themselves.
Immorality in the Bedroom
Some states have laws on the books restricting certain bedroom activities between consenting adults. These actions are punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. It doesn’t matter whether more people than not find them disgusting, immoral or believe the participants will immediately go to hell upon death, they hurt no one. It doesn’t matter whether or not they are even enforced, get rid of them. Restricting activities of that sort is not the role of government.
There are many more punishable crimes where no victim can be found to exist. Eliminate all in which no unwilling victim can be identified.