posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 08:32 PM
This thread is not about what you might think. I have heard the argument that I shouldn't be concerned with what happens between two consenting
adults. In fact this has been argued by liberals in Government time and time again regarding the relations between homosexuals. I have been thinking
that this might be a good argument to be used in many other activities between individuals.
This argument could be used if "two consenting adults" agree to gamble and exchange their money in a game of chance. Why should this be illegal or
against the law?
The argument could be used in euthanasia where as one adult is willing to be euthanised and another adult is willing to assist them in their
How about two consenting adults agreeing to exchange money for sexual gratification? Why is THIS against the law? After all...two consenting
So, I am meandering a little bit and I am basically a natural-law proponent and don't believe a crime has been committed unless it is against a
person or property. There must be a 'victim' for a crime to have occurred. Now, I do allow for some measure of criminal code for reckless
endangerment of people or property, but for the most part you could say that speeding is legal because one assumes the risk of driving on a public
road (much as a sports participant 'assumes the risk' of being injured while playing a sport or a fan assumes the risk of being hit by a ball or bat
that flies into the stands at a baseball game as a normal part of the game (not if some angry player flings his bat into the stands and injures
someone through his own carelessness).
Anyway, I am no legal scholar by any means, but I find myself becoming angry with all the laws and regulations where there are no victims. Gambling,
prostitution and illicit substances are not my cup of tea, but I can't see a valid reason for them to be illegal in and of themselves. People should
be able to do what they want on their own property unless it somehow affects someone other than themselves (like damming a stream and thus depriving
those downstream of water).
Well, I am hoping to stimulate discussion of some of these ideas by the more learned and wise among the ATS partisans. I would like to find a simpler
way of doing things that decriminalizes and repeals foolish and unneeded rules and regulations.