personal responsibility and the victimless crime

Post Reply New Topic

This is a question for the conservatives.

You talk about personal responsibility being a major tenet of your faith, but what about me taking responsibility personally for the consequences of my own trifling peccadilloes?

Granted I'm such a square that the worst things i do are:

1: exceed the speed limit on the freeway so carefully that i have not been cited since 2002 and have never caused an accident
2: occasionally get just drunk enough in the privacy of my own house (that i own) that i MIGHT trip and wrench my own back a bit
3: watch porn that i might not have paid for. And enjoy it.

But let's suppose i was more outgoing and engaged in some of the following:

1: Used cannabis produced by a local non-gang-affiliated grower in the privacy of my own house and without operating a vehicle
2: Engaged in consensual sodomy with some other person
3: Made myself a nice strong rum & coke in my stainless steel water bottle advertising the local NPR affiliate and walked across the street (potentially jaywalking) to the park to get very slighly toasted before walking right back home.
4: sold a 6-pack of beer to my good friend on Sunday when it is forbidden to sell alcohol in my city - saving him the trouble of driving 15 minutes in any direction to buy beer.

What say ye, conservatives? I am fully prepared to live with the real (non-legal) consequences of any of these actions. Why not?

If we are to accept [which I do not and never have] the principles [which I have heard ad nauseam - though in this case nausea comes early - pushed by Socialized and Socializers of a Liberal cast [not so say that Conservative Socialized and Socializers may not have their equivalent]:

A. No man is an island

B. I am my brother's keeper

C. Every man's death diminishes me

D. The State has an interest in the physical and mental health and education of its citizenry.

E. Not to forget thde butterfly effect

THEN it follows as the day the night that there is no such thing as a victimless crime because the State would not give us an arbitrary rule and if I do something the State has determined is bad for me I have negatively impacted the State and all humanity.

If I binge on [whatever I choose to binge on] I am sabotaging humanity by injuring one human unit.

If you choose instead to look at it from a moral standpoint, then the scofflaw by ignoring the rule injures his moral self. and if of certain religious backgrounds offends God or messes with his karma.

------------

AS usual much depends on your definitions. Is it a crime [in the eyes of God, of society, of my conscience] to offend against an unjust law? Is it a crime to break a law which is long forgotten but was never repealed?

-------------

One may ask - if a crime is actually victimless, why is there a law about it?

You know how I'm going to answer this, right?

All of the above, at the same time, while snorting coke off a hooker's ass and shooting wildly into the air while possibly shouting some variation on "yeehaaw!! !".

On a personal note, I did just roll in from a local Seattle tradition known as Hempfest, which is sort of like a street fair except that you can light a joint in front of the cops and not hear a word about it and a contact high is pretty much a certainty when you walk through the gates. I'm pretty sure something very much like I described went down somewhere on the premises while I was there, though perhaps without the shouting.

Whoever first said, "I am my brother's keeper" either didn't have any brothers, or he had his brother locked up in the cellars where he could do no harm.

I am not now, nor will I ever be, my brothers' keeper.

Also, I was raised mormon. I am 35 years old and have been drinking for 3 years. The only grandfather i ever knew was an alcoholic who drank himself to death - literally pickled himself. I understand the teetotaler perspective.

And yet, I recall a couple years ago that some state had decided to ban the sale of single beers from convenience stores and gas stations, to clamp down on the "one for the road" phenomenon.

One beer. A guy buying one beer to drink between the gas station and his destination is supposed to be a public safety hazard.

Just. One. Beer.

You can still buy a six pack, but you can't buy a single beer. Because that means you're going to consume a tiny amount of alcohol, potentially while driving.

One beer is merely refreshing. As for myself i don't think i can get drunk on beer that is less than 10% ABV, and even then i'd have to drink more of it than I'd be interested in drinking.

How is this rational?

How in principle do the laws regulating the use of alcohol and other drugs A B C differ from laws regulating the use of tobacco and other drugs D E F?

And of course various foodstuffs and the like.

And various types of literature.

And other things which this state or that feels bound to control.

That's the Democratic/Leftist/Liberal "Nanny State" for you - protect people from themselves at everybody's expense by making it illegal for anyone with a little common sense from having any fun at all.