Also, plenty of people are in jail/prison for victimless crimes, like drugs, prostitution, traffic violations, minor drunk driving, etc. Not only would it be the right thing to do let these people out, but it would save us billions of dollars a year.

Unfortunately, we have all kinds of legislative bullshit like 'mandatory sentencing', 'three strikes, you're out' and 'no tolerance' policies that take power and discretion out the hands of the judges and forces people into jail. The system is truly fucked, and no politician will touch it for fear of being labeled 'soft on crime'. It's infuriating.

Human government expands and needs income and resources to continue to expand. This leads to wars abroad to spread hegemony and police the takeover of land with desirable resources. This leads to wars domestically to create criminals out of victimless offenses and create a fear-based system of need for industrial complexes.

Simply put: the government requires income generation to continue its expansion. This is an absolute system that corrupts absolutely. And thankfully for that, my new catch phrase "haha, way to go statist idiots" has gained wings.

Hey its not happening! IT never will! You are all conspiracy theorists!

There are many aspects of this video that are happening, and are still happening. Have been happening.

Police State, victimless crime, taxes and its all going down the drain.

Start with the FED and then dismantle the Military Industrial Complex.

Yay for incarceration for victimless crimes!

Minarchist? lol - Never heard of that term before.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I'm a minarchist. I believe in a government, albeit small. Anarchist tend to believe in an abolition of State.

From wiki:
In civics, minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism,[1] small government, or limited-government libertarianism[2]) refers to a political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression.[2][3] Minarchists defend the existence of the state as a necessary evil,[1][4] but assert that it may only act to protect the life, liberty, and property of each individual.



In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
PS: Are you anarcho-capitalist? You tell me....

from wiki:
"Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist anarchist[1] political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services are provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through compulsory taxation, and money is privately produced in an open market. Because personal and economic activities are regulated by the natural laws of the market through private law rather than through politics, victimless crimes, and crimes against the state are rendered moot."

I'm a minarchist. I believe in a government, albeit small. Anarchist tend to believe in an abolition of State.

From wiki:
In civics, minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism,[1] small government, or limited-government libertarianism[2]) refers to a political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression.[2][3] Minarchists defend the existence of the state as a necessary evil,[1][4] but assert that it may only act to protect the life, liberty, and property of each individual.



In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
PS: Are you anarcho-capitalist? You tell me....

from wiki:
"Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist anarchist[1] political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services are provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through compulsory taxation, and money is privately produced in an open market. Because personal and economic activities are regulated by the natural laws of the market through private law rather than through politics, victimless crimes, and crimes against the state are rendered moot."

PS: Are you anarcho-capitalist? You tell me....

from wiki:
"Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist anarchist[1] political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services are provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through compulsory taxation, and money is privately produced in an open market. Because personal and economic activities are regulated by the natural laws of the market through private law rather than through politics, victimless crimes, and crimes against the state are rendered moot."

>> ^honkeytonk73:
"Blasphemy is a victimless crime."... I love that quote, and I will surely repeat it MANY times going forward.


I've used this quote several times and people don't get it. "No, people would be profoundly offended, so there is always a victim." And for the few who do get it, it's just preaching to the choir. I guess that's life in general, though.

"Blasphemy is a victimless crime."... I love that quote, and I will surely repeat it MANY times going forward.

I wanted to see if I could find the real court finding, to see on what basis they decided in his favor.

I had some trouble with that. It would be an understatement to say that this man has spent a lot of time in court over the last decade. Here's a decent summary from Mother Jones; it's Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan.

So, I found the opinions of him being laughed out of court for claiming that his property taxes are unconstitutional pretty much every year for as far back as the court has records. He's tried to get cases up to the SCOTUS on illegal passage of the 16th amendment (that's the one that permits income taxes), he's trying to make a case that Barack Obama's birth certificate is fake. He also tried to sue that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were illegal because they were undeclared.

All that said, I haven't found any record of him winning a court case about a "right to drive" except this Youtube video, and it's accompanying article on the local TV station (which is basically a transcript of this video), and a blog entry by Donald Sullivan telling a story about how his son got arrested for refusing to answer an officer's questions when pulled over. He did this because the officer first read him his Miranda rights and then asked for license and proof of insurance (at which point the son exercised his right to remain silent).

Regardless, I think all rights have limits. You are free to speak, but you may not incite people to violence. You are free to "bear arms" but I'm pretty sure land mines are not permissible. You are guaranteed the right to a trial, but you do not have the right to infinite appeal.

People should indeed be able to move about without restriction. This does not mean I may use a 3000 lbs. device to convey myself without limits on how that device is used and operated.

Personally, I think if you want to take a "right to free movement" to some sort of extreme, the real meaning would be that trespassing shouldn't be a crime, and things like locks and fences should be illegal since they restrict people's freedom of movement.

After all, if you cause no damage to the person's property, it's a victimless crime...

What say you of this court case? Is Mr. Barskey wrong because he should be following the law because, well, it's the law?

He broke the law. Whether the law is just or unjust is immaterial to his case.

Is his decorum reprehensible therefore he's deserving of punishment?

I observed no 'extra' punishment for Mr. Barskey appearing sloppy and adversarial. I award him points for sounding like Ed Norton.

Or, are speeding laws ridiculous because it's a victimless crime?

Speeding tickets are not preemptive, they are a reaction to the unlawful act of speeding. Speeding is not a victimless crime, it creates unnecessarily higher risks of injury or death and destruction of property from an already inherently dangerous activity. It's entirely possible that certain speed limits and their excessive fines are designed mainly for revenue enhancement (like those "unlawful" ticket quotas) but that's not Mr. Barskey's battle.

Is a $200 fine appropriate for speeding?

There are no universal guidelines, but 20 MPH over the limit is usually bad, and even the most forgiving cops can't work around that.

Do you think it's fair courts can add a penalty to a penalty?

Yes, because time equals money.

As Obi-wan Kenobi said, "You can't win, but there are alternatives to fighting." Mr. Barskey could have asked for a lesser fine based on any number of variables. He could also have requested a payment plan if the $200 fine would be too much to pay all at once. While well within his rights, he's giving the "liberty movement" a bad name with these head-butting antics.

The State is a Beast, no doubt, and a necessary evil. Because the fksticks in my state's government--like all governments at all levels--spent more money than they had, one of their "solutions" was to double all license and tag registration fees. ALL the people are being punished during a recession for politicians' spending addiction (aka "biz as usual"). Life remains unfair.

So:
1) he was speeding
2) he got caught
3) he refuses to pay the fine with no extenuating circumstances other than he doesn't want to?

Is that correct?

A "crime" like speeding is not a victimless crime, because the reason speed limits exist is to minimize traffic accidents, which quite often lead to death or at least injury. They are indeed public roads, so the rest of us has the right to not be hit by his car, if it spins out of control. If it was a repeated offense, I also think they should just take his license. He can drive as fast as he wants on his own roads, but public roads are not just his.

I think the $200 sounds reasonable. Though, I'm not sure what the original ticket was? The fact that the people in the courtroom has to be there for his trial in itself, means that of course there should be an added penalty, because by protesting this wrongly, he has cost the state those peoples salary for that amount of time.

^Yeah I heard how the people came in droves to help him out. Not the government... the people. Free willed people.

And don't confuse Democrats with liberals. The name "liberal" implies a love of liberty, and anyone who supports a system that aggresses against his neighbor for a victimless crime is not someone who delights in the liberty of others.

>> ^imstellar28:
would have a hard time finding victims here. girls who like sex being paid to have sex with guys who want to have sex.
still..start the argument in the right place. people should be free to have sex with whomever they want under whatever conditions they want. taxes regulations, etc. are all unnecessary and unjust. you don't need a federal law to mandate condom usage or dick checks...businesses and individuals can and should choose to engage in those same safe practices without government regulation.
you probably use condoms and at least make a quick check for any giant oozing sores when you have one night stands, no reason you shouldn't do it if you were buying a hooker...


I agree that the government should not be in the business of outlawing victimless "crimes".

However, the government can and should require safety precautions because one person's negligence can increase risks to others despite the others' vigilance.

"^Prostitution is very much a victimless crime. You're equating the extremes of the black market with the act of trading sex for money."

I'm sure the people being taken from their families and sold in to sex slavery understand and appreciate that correction.

"Trafficking would most likely end if prostitution was legalized."

Not necessarily, it would definitely drop dramatically but I don't think it would disappear altogether, slavery still exists for one thing. Also in my original statement I did say it would be best to legalize it. It would definitely help rather than hurt.

I simply can't agree with you separating Prostitution and Human Trafficking for the purpose of Prostitution. Yes two consenting adults exchange sex for money does seem to be victimless. An adult pimping out a small child, or a child trading sex to get enough money just to eat that day is certainly a victim. If we're serious about it we should be looking into how we can help the victims of this sort of thing, rather than claiming there simply aren't any.