But not the government.
so-called "victimless" crimes (e.g. prostitution) are not crimes simply because they have been made illegal. Indeed, they are crimes because they are wrong.
Prostitution is malum in se, how? malum in se addresses acts that damage others, like killing, theft and fraud. Now, it can spread STDs, and for that proven purpose it may be prohibited under the states' police power.
I'll note here that abortion is the arbitrary killing of a human being, allowed by Roe v Wade using the 14th amendment purview through the 9th amendment, whatever the hell that means.
However, mandatory testing of prostitutes can take it out of the police power. That leaves God's prohibition of selling a natural gift of His nature for being fruitful and multiplying. That is between the prostitute and God.
You want to ascribe a socialist justification to such laws, but I certainly haven't. Laws designed to protect an individual from himself need not be justified by any collectivist argument.
Yes, it is. Laws that protect an individual from himself, made by fallible human beings subject to corruption are open to abuse and the seeking after money and power, not the good of the individual.
Under our system of law, only under a socialist presumption can a law against a human being damaging his own body, with no clear proof that it damages society, exist. The golden rule does not apply to one's self without respect to others.
Since all those powers which are not reserved to the federal constitution are those of the states (or the people), then the states have the power to restrict such activities. Do you really believe the founders thought otherwise?
I agree here. The states are subject to much more public scrutiny and affect than the federal government. I am willing to place all malum prohibitum law there. But it is not. Much of it is federal (or the national character of federalism).