God. 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).
malum in se addresses acts that damage others Says who?
Malum in se - An innately immoral act, regardless of whether it is forbidden by law. Examples include adultery, theft, and murder. See, e.g. United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998).Malum Prohibitum - An act which is immoral because it is illegal; not necessarily illegal because it is immoral. See, e.g. United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998).
Prostitution is illegal because it is immoral. Malum prohibitum refers to things like traffic laws, which the violation of are not really immoral in and of itself, but only because they've been prohibited. Prostitution is immoral in and of itself.
Consensual crime - "...while the definition here bears some superficial resemblance to the legal concept malum prohibitum ("bad because prohibited", as opposed to malum in se, "inherently bad"), these crimes are legally considered malum in se, because it is expected that all members of the culture correlating with the state know that these acts are forbidden in that culture."
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.
This is a criticism of the misuse of the law, not the law itself. Any law can be misused. We can fight corruption without overturning the law.
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.
No, attempting to prove that it damages "society" is a socialist presumption. Laws against individual damaging themselves are not.
Tailgunner joe wrote:
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?
Joe, the founders thought & wrote exactly that in Article VI. States do not have the power to ignore the US Constitution, - "notwithstanding" anything in their own Constitutions.
William Terrell wrote:
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).
Neither States nor Feds were given the power to write prohibitive types of law that infringe upon individual rights to life, liberty, or property.
This point was clarified by the 14th amendment; -- then immediately ignored once again.