Ok but defining victimless definitions would be a nightmare and ripe for abuse, violence is easy to define.
Drugs are only violent if they are illegal, rape is violence, gambling is sometimes legal-- noone should ever be locked up for gambling -- it is not violent. Morals should not be used, civil rights and not affecting others rights should be the metric. You start involving morals, a bunch of religions have different ideas of that. Violence and invading others personal rights is easy to define. The reason why we have a black market problem is defining things on 'morals'.
I could make the same argument about violence by talking about mental abuse. And as I said, morals are already involved, these crimes exist because of morals, not because they hurt people.
The fact is, victimless is as easy to define as violence is or easy enough to have a pretty clear line.
Consuming drugs hurts no one but the consumer. Having 5 wives hurts no one as long as they all consented. Gambling your own money should be your choice.
While there may be the occasional things on the margin, most are quite clearly victimless.
I agree with you but I feel like playing devils advocate.
>drugs hurt no one else
what about the family of the abuser? should a child grow up in the home of a heroin addict? doesn't society have the responsibility to protect children?
>gambling
humans are just dumb monkeys. we have psychological weaknesses to stuff like gambling. how many fathers will gamble away their grocery money?
>5 wives
is it really consent if a girl is too poor and uneducated to get a job and is forced into a polygamist marriage for subsistence?
If you allow widespread polygamy, degenerate gamblers and addicts won't tend to attract many wives, and will generally have far fewer children.. Boom, fewer children stuck with problematic non-providing parents. Thanks, market forces!
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think much of that type of thinking is what led to the black markets we have even though you use a smart way of defining victim. It can be interpreted all sorts of ways though. Civil rights and violence is much easier to define. Also as time goes on and systems change, the definition of victim might change i.e. in war, terrorism etc. If it is based solely on violence and civil rights then there is a clear line. But good discussion, sometimes in discussions people have different points of view and that is ok.
Yes, we can agree to disagree. Violence is also murky to define, I feel you're glossing over that a bit. All kinds of abuse exists that don't involve physical violence that are quite easily argued as violence.
We disagree on the detail and metric used to define it but I agree we are locking up way to many people and the punishment is cruel and unusual if it goes beyond the crime i.e. non-violent crime resulting in being locked up with criminals who are violent to me is cruel and unusual punishment and a rights violation.
Drugs are only violent if they are illegal, rape is violence, gambling is sometimes legal-- noone should ever be locked up for gambling -- it is not violent. Morals should not be used, civil rights and not affecting others rights should be the metric. You start involving morals, a bunch of religions have different ideas of that. Violence and invading others personal rights is easy to define. The reason why we have a black market problem is defining things on 'morals'.