Replies

My mistake -- I was in a hurry. I meant to say, "I suppose you support the legalization of these "victimless crimes" also. I did not mean to imply that you would support the activity, just the legalization of it.

My 7-11 example in post #151 was strictly a response to post #150 which stated:

" Conclusion: if you want to reduce the number of people for whom marijuana is a "gateway" drug, make it available so that it is not necessary for them to come into contact with the criminal element that leads to harder drugs."

I was just illustrating that other petty crimes put people in contact with criminals, too. I don't think the solution is to legalize the petty crime.

BTW, some pornography is illegal, and I don't see the LP making any distrinctions. But a point to ponder: Isn't viewing such pornography (pictures or movies) a victimless crime? Granted, making it is, but viewing? Do you see where this leads?

The truth is these victimless crimes have victims. They're just harder to see.

Thanks for the clarification, and thank you for handling this debate in a civilized manner - it's refreshing after dealing with the virulent anti-libertarians for so long.

Honestly, I'm not at all comfortable discussing the LP's views - I'm not a Big L, and only know enough about their platform to know that, well, I'm not a Big L. But from a personal standpoint, as much as the thought of child and non-consensual (i.e. bestiality) pornography disgusts me, I don't believe it should be illegal to view. As far as I'm concerned, that type of pornography is illegal because the act of producing it creates a direct victim, not because of the product itself. I believe it should be illegal to produce and to purchase, but not to be in possession of. I know that seems like a dangerous loophole, but I'm just not comfortable with the government making laws based on "See where this could lead?" I just don't think that a convincing argument can be made for the illegality of most victimless crimes beyond "because it's illegal".