It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Lew Rockwell slams the criminal State for criminalizing non-crimes.
What precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment. The crime is having the wrong substance in your blood. Yet it is possible, in fact, to have this substance in your blood, even while driving, and not commit anything like what has been traditionally called a crime.
What have we done by permitting government to criminalize the content of our blood instead of actions themselves? We have given it power to make the application of the law arbitrary, capricious, and contingent on the judgment of cops and cop technicians. Indeed, without the government’s “Breathalyzer,” there is no way to tell for sure if we are breaking the law.
Jaywalking could cause the same type of incident that a drunk driver causes. So should you not punish a jaywalker the same?
You and others are talking risk management. Sorry to tell you this, risk management has nothing to do with freedom. So, if the government comes up with an idea that certain types of food are bad for you, are you going to allow them to make that criminal?
Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Maslo
Yeah, another that thinks that doing something that could cause harm, is the same as doing harm.
Oh well, the SKY is not red.
Well, you could cause harm by just being allowed to live. Have you not heard that Global Warming and Over population is a boon to Gaia.