23

Shouldn't laws only stop one from harming other (socially, physically etc)? What is the purpose of other laws?

For example, if an individual takes drugs without causing harm to others - what gives the government the right to stop him?

|improve this question
  • 5
    Why does this have VTCs? – user4012 Mar 28 '17 at 14:01
  • 1
    I believe the question would be more useful if it was "Are there laws that don't relate to harming another?" or "Why does law XYZ exist which does not seem to prevent any harm?". As given now, it is strongly opinionated (i.e., expressing the believe that there indeed are laws like this) and leading to extremely opinionated answers. – AnoE Mar 28 '17 at 14:44
  • 2
    This is a great political theory question... this isn't too broad at all. I've voted to reopen. – David says Reinstate Monica Mar 28 '17 at 15:31
  • 1
    @DrunkCynic - what does any of that have to do with closing the question? That doesn't make it too broad. – user4012 Mar 28 '17 at 19:42
  • 1
    @DrunkCynic none of what you said serves as a valid justification for a vote to close. Your comment presupposes that there is such a thing as "societal costs" when no such thing exists without a Collectivist's perverse point of view. – K. Alan Bates Mar 28 '17 at 19:45
43

There are three major arguments which are often brought up to justify it when societies decide to punish people for victimless crimes:

  1. The values of the society in general are considered the victim of the crime (e.g. criminalization of certain sexual acts between consenting adults)
  2. Society has the duty to protect individual citizens from harming themselves (e.g. recreational drug use, children smoking cigarettes)
  3. Society declares an act a crime to make it easier to prevent secondary crimes (e.g. making gun ownership illegal to prevent homicides)

Whether or not these arguments are valid is more of a philosophical discussion.

In specific cases, there are also sometimes utilitarian arguments for or against certain policies against specific victimless crimes. To pick up the example of recreational drug use, one could argue about the economic damage caused by drug abuse and whether or not it justifies the restriction of liberties and the economical cost of enforcing them. But these only apply to specific examples and not to victimless crimes in general.

|improve this answer
  • 4
    Might add a subcategory -- cost to the general public. In theory, if you can ban the use of a highly toxic hallucinogen, then you reduce the cost of medical followups, or state support of the now-indigent family after you die. This can be labelled "secondary harm to others," maybe. – Carl Witthoft Mar 28 '17 at 12:33
  • 4
    @CarlWitthoft I think I covered this with the last paragraph. – Philipp♦ Mar 28 '17 at 12:34
  • 2
    This is a perfectly fine answer, though it's mostly opinion (that said, the question is asking for opinions, so...+1) – user1530 Mar 28 '17 at 14:11
  • 3
    Praeteritio: trotting out controversial examples, then excusing their mention by calling them philosophical controversies. And let's not conflate argumentative validity with soundness. – agc Mar 29 '17 at 4:44
  • 6
    #4 Conservation of resources: government boating safety programs are considerably more efficient and effective when people wear Personal Flotation Devices. Or, the low cost act of wearing a motorcycle helmet greatly decreases medical costs that are often passed on to society (eg. the ICU care for an uninsured cyclist who cracked his skull open). – Paulb Mar 29 '17 at 11:27
0

Wow, that's a lot of questions.

Shouldn't laws only stop one from harming other (socially, physically etc)?

Maybe. But how do you define harm? Look at these cases:

  • Should it be legal to intentionally run someone over with a car?
  • Should it be legal to unintentionally run someone over and kill them?
  • Should it be legal to unintentionally run someone over if they don't get hurt?
  • Should it be legal to drunk drive without a license, even if I don't run anyone over?

The first one is clearly doing harm, and the last one is not. Yet drunk driving without a license does not directly harm someone, yet most people agree that it's a bad thing which needs to be forbidden by law.

What is the purpose of other laws?

The list is nearly open ended.

  • Remember the licenses above? We need laws that define what they are, who can hand them out, what training we require for people who hand out licenses, etc.
  • Laws that allow people to lend money to each other and have means to get the money back.
  • Laws that define what money is.
  • Laws that deal with passing on property rights, for example in case of death or divorce.
  • Laws that deal with disputes.
  • Laws that deal with liability.
  • Laws that help people make better decisions (mandatory retirement plans and mandatory health care are quite common in most developed countries)
  • Laws that deal with what happens once a law is broken.
  • Laws that define how to read a law.
  • ...

That list goes on and on, and just covers the laws that do serve a purpose that is in the interest of both the government and the governed. There are lots of other laws too, due to reasons such as legacy, unfortunate wording of a law leading to unintended effects, corruption, and more.

what gives the government the right to stop him?

That's a very interesting question. I'd go with "tradition", and "people being used to it".

|improve this answer
  • Didn't mean to insult you, in all seriousness. But I don't understand your answer at all. You lost me with the analogy of running someone over with a car, which clearly isn't a harmless act (crime or not). – dan-klasson Apr 9 '17 at 19:58
  • Yeah that was another thing I didn't understand. Speaking of definitions, what do you mean by using the word gradient in this context? – dan-klasson Apr 9 '17 at 20:07
  • Actually bullet point 2 and 3 are already legal. And then you reference drunk driving in the paragraph below, referring to the fourth bullet point, even though drunk driving is not present there, which is a bit confusing. But now it's starting to make more sense. Regarding gradient, that wouldn't be a word I would use in this context. If you don't mind me asking, you wouldn't happen to be German by any chance? – dan-klasson Apr 9 '17 at 20:47
  • @dan-klasson Point 2 and 3 will get you fined in many places of the world, and point 2 can also get you significant jail time in many jurisdictions (usually depending on who's considered to be at fault). – Peter Apr 9 '17 at 20:51
  • 1
    Actually, if you are not in violation of any traffic rules, then running someone over without intent is not a crime. It's called an accident. So are you German or what? – dan-klasson Apr 9 '17 at 21:06
0

Laws defending acts that appear not to harm anyone exist for very different reasons. The first ones are cases of what Philippe describes as "The values of the society in general are considered the victim of the crime."

1. Laws that demonstrate power

For instance laws against expressing political opinions (in a peaceful, polite manner).

2. Laws that enforce identity

For instance laws that privilege a religion

3. Laws that prevent self harm

For instance defending the burka to prevent social isolation and inequal rights (imagine you have to defend yourself in court, in a burka while your opponent disposes of all possible non verbal expressions.)

4. Laws that prevent indirect damage

For instance, in a society were health care is based on solidarity, laws against smoking reduce the cost on health care for everyone.

Also, imposing a minimal wage prevents social dumping.

Remark: Criticising a laws defending acts that don't harm anyone is often a way to deny that harm

For instance laws that protect our environment

|improve this answer
-1

I'll answer the root cause. Why are there laws for victimless crimes? What gives government the right to stop them? The government doesn't have the right - they have the power.

Governments outlaw victimless crimes because they want to reap the maximum profits of their citizens. If you were a diary farmer, and your cattle ate a weed that caused them to sleep all day and produce only 50% milk, you would 'outlaw' that weed and take it away from them. As citizens are the chattel of government, then government also seeks to prevent their citizens from consuming various plants that would reduce its income from taxes and fees. Governments are merely incentivized to increase their money and power over citizens with laws that they declare 'protect' the people or 'society'.

|improve this answer
-2

Victimless crimes are victimless under and only under libertarian rules.

However, most of those crimes have "victims". The victims are not what people often said.

Let me give you an example.

Say you are selling cakes.

Then someone else sell cakes at cheaper price than you.

Is that victimless?

According to libertarian yes.

But there is a victim. You lost sales because of it.

Do you have "right" not to lost sales? In most cases no. In most cases there is no big reason for societies to prevent others from competing against you.

So you made something up. You said the competitors' cakes are poisonous, dangerous, bad, that no body would consensually buy things.

Would that convince anyone?

Could be.

Let's talk about prostitution. We all wants mates. We offer our self in mating market and try to get higher spec mates.

Imagine some super rich guys just pay up many women to mate with him instead? Is it victimless? It is. In libertarian sense.

But most men that are not actually Brad Pitt would see that the quality of their mates are greatly reduced because of this. In most democratic countries there are "ideas" that prostitution is harmful for women, that no women consent to it, bla bla bla,.... And MOST MEN believe it because they are benefited by those idea. Those ideas justify prohibiting of prostitution.

Most women are indeed "harmed" by porn. No. Their right is not harmed in anyway. Their interests are. Why would men pay attention to ugly girls if they can watch hot JAV stars doing more. Porn greatly reduce rape. It also greatly reduce marriage and so on. Most women have a harder time finding guys thanks to porn.

Then what? Those ugly women will cry that porn hurt...... the porn star. No. No body complains because something hurt others. If anything humans are selfish. People complain because they are hurt. But they want to maintain image that they are protecting others.

Or imagine drugs. Say some government officials got tons of kickback from drug dealers he close his eyes on. Say drugs are legal. Cops are happy. Drug dealers are happy.

Are there any victim if drugs are legal. Obviously. When drugs are legal drug dealers' money profit will drop. So most drug dealers will want drugs to be as illegal as possible.

The list can go on.

It seems to me, every time something can be done better under free market, somebody will scream that it is not victimless under some ridiculous reason. When something can be produced cheaply and can be sold a lot everyone would want to control it.

If the can convince ignorance majority to believe their bullshit then the act becomes victimless crime.

Quite often victimless crimes are told that they are so bad that they should be prohibited.

Quite often, the victimless crimes are product that are so good that left to free market they will obliterate competitors.

|improve this answer
  • Which statement above isn't obvious? That porn hurt ugly women? Of course. That porn actually hurt no one's right? Of course. In most cases at least. – user4951 Jun 11 '19 at 2:09
-3

Why are there laws for victimless 'crimes'

because victims of those "victimless" crimes are defined out of their victimhood. think about those homeowners in a neighborhood infested with drug dealers; kids in families broken up because of prostitutions; beautiful lives lost to alcoholism; countless scientists or artists that we don't get to have because of drug abuses; taxpayers who got sucked dry by corrupt politicians. ...

they / we are not victims because somepeople elected to turn their eyes away, for whatever reasons.

Shouldn't laws only stop one from harming other (socially, physically etc)?

yes. google "standing".

What is the purpose of other laws?

to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

|improve this answer
  • There are already laws against corrupt politicians. Alcohol is not illegal - and when it was, it caused much violence, and more corrupt politicians. – Chloe Oct 15 '17 at 19:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .