- Joined
- Sep 14, 2011
- Messages
- 26,629
- Reaction score
- 6,661
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
A built (installed?) to code electrical sub-panel with associated branch circuit wiring not signed off by a master electrician. Many areas have laws on the books requiring that certain work be done only by licensed "insiders" (e.g. master electrician) and inspectors are prohibited from passing equally good (safe?) work absent that prerequisite.
This is a great example of union BS lol
I have to call BS on that argument. The driver setting out high/drunk has no idea how the journey will turn out.
Sober or drunk, nobody can predict the future, no man knows how the journey will turn out.
I was tempted to add many user fees and "sin" taxes but the crime is usually only in avoiding (evading?) those taxes. For example, since wild game management is good for the environment (thus all of society benefits fom it) then why are game hunters, which aid in that process, charged a fee rather than rewarded for their help (if they abibe by season and posession limits)?
What is a "victimless crime"?
Give examples of what is, and maybe even what is not that you have seen some others say is.
What criteria do you use for your definition?
From your point-of-view, not somebody else's definition.
Because those fees pay for the preservation/maintenance of those lands and law enforcement of those laws.
The point is: Why not use general tax revenue instead of charging those that actually participate in helping to do that?
A built (installed?) to code electrical sub-panel with associated branch circuit wiring not signed off by a master electrician. Many areas have laws on the books requiring that certain work be done only by licensed "insiders" (e.g. master electrician) and inspectors are prohibited from passing equally good (safe?) work absent that prerequisite.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. Good work is good work. Work to code is work to code. Period. This is nothing more than protectionism.
What is a "victimless crime"?
Give examples of what is, and maybe even what is not that you have seen some others say is.
What criteria do you use for your definition?
From your point-of-view, not somebody else's definition.
A victimless crime is one in which the only person who could be realistically harmed in any way by the action is the person who commits it. In a free country, there should be no such thing. Sadly, that is not the case.
What is a "victimless crime"?
Give examples of what is, and maybe even what is not that you have seen some others say is.
What criteria do you use for your definition?
From your point-of-view, not somebody else's definition.
I suppose suicide, because the one who commits it is also the victim. Yes it has repercussions that affect others but they aren't the victims
Drug possession.
To get high.Why would people possess drugs?
Perhaps those things are all true, but that's where personal responsibility comes in.A crime where all persons involved are consenting adults who enter into the situation willingly, supposedly accepting the inherent risks.
Prostitution is the classical example, as is personal drug possession/use.
Another, rarely referenced, would be dueling.
The fundamental problem with the term is it is narrowly focused; many so called "victimless crimes" actually do have victims, just not among the willing participants. The housewife whose whoremongering hubby brings home some nasty STD for one example; the family and children of drug addicts who are harmed by the addicts's actions and behaviors for another. Some also cite the societal costs of such things; as in their impact on social services, family structure, healthcare costs, and general order.
To get high.
Was that a serious question?
Perhaps those things are all true, but that's where personal responsibility comes in.
People are not victimized by the drug use itself, they are victimized by other illegal/unethical behavior by the drug addicts, most of which already falls under the category of being illegal.
I agree to a point... but only to a point. Many of the issues that arise from "victimless crimes" are not in themselves illegal tmk, but harm others anyway.
The prostitution issue with hubby bringing home an STD... well most states have decriminalized adultery, and while some will prosecute for knowingly passing STDs none prosecute for unknowingly, that I know of.
Drug abuse... yes, lots of common druggie issues like theft are already illegal. Being a crappy parent isn't, quite, unless it rises to a level DSS gets involved (which often just makes things worse). Being a ****ty husband isn't. I've seen a lot of this first hand, and I hate it. I've seen good people get hooked and go downhill in astonishing ways.
Even so, I favor legalization for other reasons, reluctantly.
Yeah, that's a tough one for me, maybe 'cause I'm a big fan of beer and always rationalize my past bad behavior, lol. But these days victimless DUI too easily can involve others. Unless you're lucky enough to still live out in wide-open spaces.
Key word is 'when'.Yes it was.
When there are kids involved, it is not victimless.
I think a lot of it just comes down to making good choices, and being more careful of whom you involve yourself with. It's not a legal solution, but I'm afraid it's the only one compatible with a free society such as this one.I agree to a point... but only to a point. Many of the issues that arise from "victimless crimes" are not in themselves illegal tmk, but harm others anyway.
The prostitution issue with hubby bringing home an STD... well most states have decriminalized adultery, and while some will prosecute for knowingly passing STDs none prosecute for unknowingly, that I know of.
Drug abuse... yes, lots of common druggie issues like theft are already illegal. Being a crappy parent isn't, quite, unless it rises to a level DSS gets involved (which often just makes things worse). Being a ****ty husband isn't. I've seen a lot of this first hand, and I hate it. I've seen good people get hooked and go downhill in astonishing ways.
Even so, I favor legalization for other reasons, reluctantly.
I think a lot of it just comes down to making good choices, and being more careful of whom you involve yourself with. It's not a legal solution, but I'm afraid it's the only one compatible with a free society such as this one.
People can be verbally abuse and cruel with their words, but it is not up to the law to decide those matters. One has to resolve those situations themselves, by making the decision to walk away from those people when the warning signs appear, and not look back.
That's just an example.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?