SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Solon who wrote (45178)2/10/2006 3:53:15 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
"victimless crime" is simply jargon for a certain class of violation. Society is always a victim where a crime has been committed, so your denial fails to convince.

Your assertion that - "Society is always a victim where a crime has been committed" fails to convince.

I said " "People enforcing those laws are not protecting the rights and freedoms of others at least not directly.", you deny it or in other words assert that law do protect the rights and freedom of others, and not "some laws", or "many laws", or even "most laws", but laws in general and specifically those against victimless crimes. Laws can purport to defend public health and safety all they want but what they purport to do isn't nearly as meaningful as what they actually do. Many laws do no such thing.

"I had not been saying that the laws were bad when I said that enforcing them was initiating force"

You're quibbling.


Not at all. Its an important distinction. I used to support laws against marijuana but even that I would have denied the claim that smoking it in the privacy of your home was an attack on society. That claim is ridiculous.

You've spent a lot of time telling me what you DON'T want to say.

Because you continually assert that I have said something that I have not, either directly, or more often by just responding as if I had said something that I did not.

Tim