That’s straight up motto of the ancap types, so you gotta specify that “most” cuz some people believe selling your own self to slavery would be such a case
slavery wouldn’t ever be voluntary, since any rational person would only decide to sell themself into slavery due to material hardship, so they’d be a victim and the slaveowner would profit from their suffering, thereby indirectly funding the economic conditions that led to slavery. and any irrational person would lack the mental capacity to have signed such a contract. in either case the contract would be unconscionable, rendering it invalid.
I think we would have to define “no victim,” as a lot of things have second or third order victims that need to be considered.
Smoking is, in and of itself, only self-victimizing, but a lot of people (especially children) have been harmed by second hand smoke.
PCP is only self-victimizing, but it does increase your propensity to freak out and kill somebody. Should you be allowed to take PCP with the knowledge you are potentially putting the people around you at an elevated risk of you murdering them in a drug induced delusional rage?
I agreed in broad strokes, but I think we have to consider what it means for something to have “no victims,” as most actions victimize someone to some greater or lesser extent.
Most victimless (or self-victimising) crimes should be legal.
That’s straight up motto of the ancap types, so you gotta specify that “most” cuz some people believe selling your own self to slavery would be such a case
slavery wouldn’t ever be voluntary, since any rational person would only decide to sell themself into slavery due to material hardship, so they’d be a victim and the slaveowner would profit from their suffering, thereby indirectly funding the economic conditions that led to slavery. and any irrational person would lack the mental capacity to have signed such a contract. in either case the contract would be unconscionable, rendering it invalid.
Yes, I know, Im just talking about ancaps who are prominent for not understanding that
Yeah, I was a bit strategically ambiguous, because there are edge cases that could really make it go either way.
If there’s no victim, there’s no crime.
I think we would have to define “no victim,” as a lot of things have second or third order victims that need to be considered.
Smoking is, in and of itself, only self-victimizing, but a lot of people (especially children) have been harmed by second hand smoke.
PCP is only self-victimizing, but it does increase your propensity to freak out and kill somebody. Should you be allowed to take PCP with the knowledge you are potentially putting the people around you at an elevated risk of you murdering them in a drug induced delusional rage?
I agreed in broad strokes, but I think we have to consider what it means for something to have “no victims,” as most actions victimize someone to some greater or lesser extent.