We are talking about the term 'victimless crime' and I fail
to see that is exclusively to do with property rights.

Simply not so! Allow me to give you some examples.
Certain things such the very air we breath cannot be
defined as property rights yet laws have been passed
that make it illegal for people to smoke in enclosed
spaces. This is because smoking is not a victimless
crime. Smokers force others to breathe their smoke.
They take away an unalienable right - to breath air
that is clean and does not smell or harm one's health.

There is property such one's lawn, house, dog etc.
You are correct with respect to that. Where your
argument breaks down is on things such as air,
freedom of movement, freedom to think and say
what one wishes. These have nothing whatsoever
to do with property yet they come under the
term unalienable rights.

Let's take abortion. In spite of what liberal Supreme
Court Judges ruled in Roe v. Wade, a woman's right
to choose is NOT an unalienable right. Rather, it is
a legal right conferred by the Court. Why is it not
a victimless crime? It is not a victimless crime because
there is a victim - the aborted baby. Yet it is legal.

Confused? You should be. It proves that the term
victimless crime is too vague to ever expect consideration
when you argue "all victimless crimes should be legal".

What occurs is a prolonged argument of what comprises
a victimless crime and no progress is ever made toward
the goal of legalizing that which cannot be defined
either by property rights or unalienable rights.

A smart libertarian would argue that all unalienable rights
are protected by the Constitution and that to grow and
smoke ones own herb is protected by the Constitution.
Don't call smoking your own homegrown weed
a victimless crime as it is not a crime of any type
according to the Constitution. You already have
one foot in the jailhouse simply because you
admit it is a crime. Adding the word victimless
to the word crime does not negate the fact that
it's still a crime.

Get it.? In words even a mountain man from the liberal
state of Colorado would understand, don't get down
in the mud and wrestle with the pigs - you will find
they like it.

CN




"Gilligan" wrote in message ink.net...
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. Neal®" 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!

Horvath wrote in message . ..
On 25 Nov 2004 14:10:03 -0800, (Joe) wrote
this crap:

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.


And you think that stuff should be legal?

Is was not legal(except the drinking) and it all happened. You think
laws are going to stop it?

Why in the hell should a tax payer pay 35,000.00 a year to house some
stupid fool that got caught with a bag of weed? I rather give the 35K
to an old person that needs it, or some cancer patient that needs it
ect.ect.ect......

Joe








Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On 25 Nov 2004 14:10:03 -0800, (Joe) wrote
this crap:

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.


And you think that stuff should be legal?




Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Tried making an arguably more dangerous drug illegal, look what happened.
http://www.state.nj.us/health/eoh/rtkweb/0844.pdf
Funny the active ingredient in popular beverages has it's own hazmat sheet.
It amazes me that after spending billions of dollars on the "war on drugs",
the public hasn't woken up yet. The only folks that would really lose if
controlled substances were made legal are a. Law Enforcement b. Illegal
drug wholesalers. Most thoughtful individuals feel that the best method of
approaching the issue of drug abuse is to treat it as a public health issue,
which it is.
John Cairns

Capt. Neal® wrote in message ...
But, how does one define a 'victim'?

Victim: Someone hurt by someones elses actions.


Does a victim have to be a human being? If so, it would
not be a crime to kill endangered species.

yes it would, you would be taking that species away from other people
who enjoy them. Its like stealing.

It would
not be a crime to wantonly pollute the environment.

yes it would. You do not own the enviroment...it owns you.

You could just dump your crap anywhere.

Then others would have to pay to clean it up. The ones who pay are
victims.

And what
about shooting somebody's dog. A dog certainly is not
human.

It is property of another human. And it has a right to be treated
humainly.


Until you can define 'victim' it is ludicrous to use
the term 'victimless crime'.

Can the environment be a victim?

Yes

Can a fetus be a victim?

Yes

Can an empty building somebody torches be a victim?

Yes if it has an owner, or someone has to pay to put it out.

"Victimless crime" - a typical example of liberal doublespeak.

It's not that complicated Neal.

Joe


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!

It is very complicated because the term victimless crime is
a non sequitur.

By definition if there is a crime there is a victim or it would
not be a crime. One can stretch and stretch and always find
a victim.

What if you cut down a tree. The tree is a victim? Is it
a crime to cut down a tree. Or does the tree have to be
owned by a human and the human becomes a victim before
cutting down of the tree becomes a crime?

My point is it is stupid to use liberal double speak to
attempt to help your cause. Calling smoking pot a
victimless crime plays right into the hands of the liberals
who demand pot remain illegal.

When you say smoking pot is a victimless crime they can
say it is a crime and they can go to extreme lengths to
find a victim so, in this manner, they prevail.

If libertarians and any other right thinking people
would stop using liberal double speak like victimless
crime they would have a much better chance of
getting their agenda accepted as reasonable.

Don't use the term victimless crime at all. Stop
playing the liberal PC and double speak game.
They will beat you every time as long as your
attempt to fight them on their own terms.

Is this so hard to understand? Just say smoking
pot is no crime and make the liberals prove it is.
All they will be able to come up with is court
rulings. Conservatives have the Constitution
which gives us unalienable rights among which
are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If smoking pot makes me happy then it is
Constitutionally guaranteed as long as I don't
force it on somebody else.

CN


"Joe" wrote in message om...
Capt. Neal® wrote in message ...
But, how does one define a 'victim'?

Victim: Someone hurt by someones elses actions.


Does a victim have to be a human being? If so, it would
not be a crime to kill endangered species.

yes it would, you would be taking that species away from other people
who enjoy them. Its like stealing.

It would
not be a crime to wantonly pollute the environment.

yes it would. You do not own the enviroment...it owns you.

You could just dump your crap anywhere.

Then others would have to pay to clean it up. The ones who pay are
victims.

And what
about shooting somebody's dog. A dog certainly is not
human.

It is property of another human. And it has a right to be treated
humainly.


Until you can define 'victim' it is ludicrous to use
the term 'victimless crime'.

Can the environment be a victim?

Yes

Can a fetus be a victim?

Yes

Can an empty building somebody torches be a victim?

Yes if it has an owner, or someone has to pay to put it out.

"Victimless crime" - a typical example of liberal doublespeak.

It's not that complicated Neal.

Joe


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!

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:35:14 GMT, "John Cairns"
said:

Most thoughtful individuals feel that the best method of
approaching the issue of drug abuse is to treat it as a public health
issue,
which it is.

Neat little rhetorical trick, John--define anyone who disagrees with you
as
not "thoughtful." The statement then becomes a tautology.



Why thank you! Seriously though, I have to think for most the issue is one
of morality, it is immoral to take drugs, therefore they should be illegal.
If there are any other issues, people using drugs when they shouldn't, we
have the technology and money to enforce those prohibitions. The thing is,
what we're doing now _doesn't_ work, we might consider alternatives.
John Cairns

A well thought out reply. Comments within:

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...
We are talking about the term 'victimless crime' and I fail
to see that is exclusively to do with property rights.

First thing: you life is your exclusive property. From this all other
non-conflicting rights are derived.


Simply not so! Allow me to give you some examples.
Certain things such the very air we breath cannot be
defined as property rights yet laws have been passed
that make it illegal for people to smoke in enclosed
spaces. This is because smoking is not a victimless
crime. Smokers force others to breathe their smoke.
They take away an unalienable right - to breath air
that is clean and does not smell or harm one's health.

Breathing polluted air negatively affects one's life.


There is property such one's lawn, house, dog etc.
You are correct with respect to that. Where your
argument breaks down is on things such as air,
freedom of movement, freedom to think and say
what one wishes. These have nothing whatsoever
to do with property yet they come under the
term unalienable rights.

In order to own your life, you have the unalienable right to sustain it, as
long as you don't violate the same rights as others. If you have no right to
sustain your life, then you have no right to life (this argument can be used
against abortion). You can travel freely, work, grow food, develop land,
whatever.


Let's take abortion. In spite of what liberal Supreme
Court Judges ruled in Roe v. Wade, a woman's right
to choose is NOT an unalienable right. Rather, it is
a legal right conferred by the Court. Why is it not
a victimless crime? It is not a victimless crime because
there is a victim - the aborted baby. Yet it is legal.

It's a crime with a victim if one regards the baby as a human being. There
is also an argument that the fetus is a parasite (up to a certain stage of
development) and hence, the mother has a right to terminate the pregnancy.


Confused? You should be. It proves that the term
victimless crime is too vague to ever expect consideration
when you argue "all victimless crimes should be legal".

I'm not confused, in fact things are simple with a few basic principles and
definitions.


What occurs is a prolonged argument of what comprises
a victimless crime and no progress is ever made toward
the goal of legalizing that which cannot be defined
either by property rights or unalienable rights.

Victimless crime = no injured party.


A smart libertarian would argue that all unalienable rights
are protected by the Constitution and that to grow and
smoke ones own herb is protected by the Constitution.

That is left to the States. The Constitution limits and delegates powers to
the Federal Government. Those powers that aren't are left to The People and
the States respectively.

Don't call smoking your own homegrown weed
a victimless crime as it is not a crime of any type
according to the Constitution. You already have
one foot in the jailhouse simply because you
admit it is a crime. Adding the word victimless
to the word crime does not negate the fact that
it's still a crime.

The government has made it a crime, a crime without an injured party.


Get it.? In words even a mountain man from the liberal
state of Colorado would understand, don't get down
in the mud and wrestle with the pigs - you will find
they like it.

Colorado is the second most economically free state in the nation. For the
most part, the Democrats here are pretty conservative. The liberals are
confined to four areas.


CN




"Gilligan" wrote in message
ink.net...
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. Neal®" 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!

Whose morality?

Many societies use drugs as part of religious ceremonies.

Is being addicted to nicotine immoral? Cigarettes, a drug delivery device,
kills more than all other drugs (except alcohol) combined.

Are taking drugs immoral or the intention behind taking them?

Gilligan


"John Cairns" wrote in message
. com...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:35:14 GMT, "John Cairns"
said:

Most thoughtful individuals feel that the best method of
approaching the issue of drug abuse is to treat it as a public health
issue,
which it is.

Neat little rhetorical trick, John--define anyone who disagrees with you
as
not "thoughtful." The statement then becomes a tautology.



Why thank you! Seriously though, I have to think for most the issue is one
of morality, it is immoral to take drugs, therefore they should be
illegal.
If there are any other issues, people using drugs when they shouldn't, we
have the technology and money to enforce those prohibitions. The thing is,
what we're doing now _doesn't_ work, we might consider alternatives.
John Cairns

"Gilligan" wrote in message
ink.net...
Whose morality?

Many societies use drugs as part of religious ceremonies.

Is being addicted to nicotine immoral? Cigarettes, a drug delivery device,
kills more than all other drugs (except alcohol) combined.

Are taking drugs immoral or the intention behind taking them?

Gilligan

Well I would think that most believe just the taking makes it immoral,
without even bothering to delve into motivation. Not my morality, mind you.
John Cairns



"John Cairns" wrote in message
. com...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:35:14 GMT, "John Cairns"
said:

Most thoughtful individuals feel that the best method of
approaching the issue of drug abuse is to treat it as a public health
issue,
which it is.

Neat little rhetorical trick, John--define anyone who disagrees with
you
as
not "thoughtful." The statement then becomes a tautology.



Why thank you! Seriously though, I have to think for most the issue is
one
of morality, it is immoral to take drugs, therefore they should be
illegal.
If there are any other issues, people using drugs when they shouldn't, we
have the technology and money to enforce those prohibitions. The thing
is,
what we're doing now _doesn't_ work, we might consider alternatives.
John Cairns

That is left to the States. The Constitution limits and delegates powers
to
the Federal Government. Those powers that aren't are left to The People
and
the States respectively.


Where did you ever get such foolishness as the above statement? That has
been gone, finished, zipped, zeroed, nada'd, goose egged for many many
decades. The states can do nothing without permission from and in
compliance with the rules and regulations of the federal government. The
states have no power whatsoever and in point of fact serve no useful
function anymore. They are leftover and for that matter highly inefficient
historical curiousities. What you are refering to is the way things used to
be before the checks and balances system was dismantled. The portion of the
Constitution you refer to was amended about 90 years ago. The word state is
now splled with a small 's'.

Think I'm wrong? HOW then would a state, such as colorado compel the
Federal Government to do anything?