No shame at all. I'm 100% consistent:
"I'm no liberal in the modern sense at all. I'm a classic liberal or
libertarian. I think drugs should be legal. I think business should have
minimal regulation. I believe in well defined and vigorously
enforced
property rights. I believe in the Constitution.
You are a wacko Neo-Con. All you can comprehend is far right religious
wackoism or the opposite extreme, far left wackoism. If you choose to drive
down the highway of life with your right tires constantly rubbing the curb,
go ahead. You wacko!
Gilligan, who proudly voted Republican by writing in Goldwater."
All the problems you have mentioned exist because of ill defined property
rights.
Pollution, shooting dog = destroying some elses property.
Victim = someone who has had their unalienable rights violated.
Unalienable rights = life, liberty, property (the fruits of your labor)
Victimless crime = a "crime" created by the state where two or more enter
into a non coercive mutual agreement to the benefit of both parties,
including individual action. The state defines the behavior (even of a
single individual) or outcome of the agreement as a crime. Examples:
prostitution, reading certain material, consuming certain substances,
gambling, smoking, displaying the Declaration of Independence in schools,
hanging the ten commandments in a public place, saying things that may be
"offensive", travel to Cuba, etc. No one's unalienable rights are violated
by these actions.
"Capt. NealŪ" wrote in message
...
But, how does one define a 'victim'?
Does a victim have to be a human being? If so, it would
not be a crime to kill endangered species. It would
not be a crime to wantonly pollute the environment.
You could just dump your crap anywhere. And what
about shooting somebody's dog. A dog certainly is not
human.
Until you can define 'victim' it is ludicrous to use
the term 'victimless crime'.
Can the environment be a victim? Can a fetus be a victim?
Can an empty building somebody torches be a victim?
"Victimless crime" - a typical example of liberal doublespeak.
Shame on Gilligan and any others for using the term, let
alone advocating for it.
CN
"Joe" wrote in message
om...
Horvath wrote in message
. ..
On 24 Nov 2004 18:55:21 -0800, (Joe) wrote
this crap:
Horvath wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:16:27 GMT, "Gilligan"
wrote this crap:
I'm no liberal in the modern sense at all. I'm a classic liberal
or
libertarian. I think drugs should be legal.
You've probably never seen one of your good friends whacked out on
coke.
So what? Ive seen thousand wacked out on Jack Daniels and such.
You have no idea what you are talking about. It's completely
different.
BULL****! Ive seen it all from junkies covered with cotton feaver
sores to dead drunks with there faces split in half when they had a
head on wreck with a telephone pole. Once I had the pleasure of
scraping a young girl off a submarine she did a swan dive on from 8
stories up, she was drunk and doing acid. Oh and the guy who choked on
his own vomit while on smack, he drowned.
But face it Horvath aint nothing you can do. If they want it they
will get it and take it.
Ive got better things to do then babysit retards who can not control
thier own actions or handle thier drug of choice. And I think anyone
should be free to do or take what ever he or she choses to do. Be an
adult and be responsiable for your own actions.
BTW I also know many people that smoke weed daily and own multi
million dollars businesses or have high profile careers and have no
problem with it at all. Just like I know some people that know when to
say when while drinking.
It aint the type of drug, it's the type of person using that drug.
Like Gilligan said, all victim less crimes should be abolished. And
the people that do victimise others should pay to the max.
Joe
Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!