All victim-less crimes should be decriminalized.

Thanks Con, Before I begin, readers should take note that Con has dropped the “Moral Values” argument from R4. Something utilitarianism requires. -Moving Goal Posts.- It seems Con has either not understood my explanation on the purpose of this debate, or she is intentionally trying to move the goal posts. The United States status quo already permits numerous things that can harm oneself. I gave examples of these “legalized harms” in my R2 to show this. This alone is proof that the government allows people to harm themselves, even if that mean losing 480,000 citizens every year from tobacco use [1]. I made this point to demonstrate that the United States already has already become closer to adopting a form a government that utilizes “moral nihilism” and the “harm principle”. My argument on “moral values” explains that same-sex marriage legalization is proof that the government doesn’t create laws based on morality, which is an action of “moral nihilism”. Con wishes for us to believe otherwise though. She asserts that I don’t take “generic human ethic values” into consideration. Her critical flaw though is that every human has their own “values” (self-interest). She can’t even begin to argue which laws should, or shouldn’t be erected, because she has no starting point to make her utilitarian claims from. Utilitarian governments discard individual self-interest so that it can optimize the public’s overall welfare. Con seems to think this is what the United States does though, because (some) drugs and (some) assisted suicides are currently illegal. I find this hardly to be indicative of a utilitarian system though since not only has marijuana been legalized in several state but so has assisted suicide in Oregon, Washington, and Vermont. ----Rebuttals---- Con was essentially supposed to demonstrate that the harms of all these victimless crimes infringe on another persons autonomy in some shape or form. Con hasn’t even really made an attempt to do this, she simply speculates and asserts that the government is utilitarian and ought to strive for an optimal society. Again, this is the United States were talking about. A lot of her time is spent being confused about what a victim-less crime even is. For that, I will try to provide a better explaination. --Victimless Crimes-- I will start by restating my definition of a victimless crime since Con hasn’t separated them from regular crimes. “Victim-less crime: A legal offense to which all parties consented too.” Con needs to understand victimless crimes are just crimes that occur while all parties involved are consenting. Every single law of society has been prematurely agreed to by the individual (social contract theory). I theorized (or rather, John Mill) that governments can’t erect laws that infringe on one autonomy unless their self-interests infringe on another person’s. I brought up very specific crimes that I found didn’t meet the criteria of “infringing on another’s autonomy” such as drug use. She has not explained how her neighbor using heroin infringes on her freedom. The neighbor example can be applied to all my "victimless crime" contentions. --Drug use-- Con has finally decided to put up an assertion with a source. She states that “50% of heroin addicts die”. I honestly thought “everybody dies” when I read this. Her source actually goes on to explain that “The stud(y) followed 581 male heroin addicts for 33 years – from 1964 to 1997. In 1997, nearly half of the men had died. The most common causes of death were drug overdose (21.6 percent), followed by homicide, suicide and accidents (19 percent), liver disease (15.2 percent) and cardiovascular disease and cancer (both at 11.7 percent).”[2]. However, she fails to explain why dying from any of these things somehow infringes on another's self-interests. I gave the death count from tobacco to show how many people can die from a substance and still not have anyones self-interests be infringed on. --Suicide & Assisted Suicide-- Con goes back to her utilitarian argument here and just asserts that life is more valuable than freedom, and that “What's the point of freedom if you sacrifice both life and happiness for it?” Somehow at this point, Con still doesn’t understand that one’s freedom is their happiness. What she’s really asking me here is “what’s the point of freedom if you sacrifice your life”. To respond to this question, all I can say is that people do want the freedom to die sometimes, or eventually. Me, you, and the government, cannot understand on an emotional level why some people want to die or feel they deserve to die. That’s why there’s virtually no laws on suicide [3]. Assisted suicide is also offered in Washington, Oregon, and Vermont [4]. Freedom of one’s self-interests includes the freedom to take it away, whatever reason they have for that self-interest. (Maybe they were a serial child rapist and thought they deserved to die. Maybe they don’t want to live with being old. Maybe they just think living amounts to nothing, and that it’s all pointless in the end.) There’s no reason to force them to suffer when. --Regular Crimes-- -Drunk Driving- Con states, “there aren't always other drivers on the road”…” Kozu is basically claiming that since people on the road don't want drunk drivers in their midst, then all drunk driving isn't a victim-less crime.” With this response, it become very clear that Con has missed my point. It’s not about drivers on the road that don’t want drunk drivers in their midst. It’s about the fact that everyone who gets their license in the first place has already agreed that they will not drive drunk per federal law [5]. The agreements between existing parties have already been made. The moment that agreement is broken, it becomes a “regular crime”. It’s no different than murder laws, those tied to societies rules prematurely agree to them. -Child Prostitution- I will quote Con’s beliefs stated in R3. “ Consent is consent no matter in what state of mind it comes from. “ I used the drugged 8yo example to demonstrate Con’s beliefs. In R4, she steps back from this statement and decides that an undrugged 8yo girls can consent to sex just like any adult. She does give a glimmer of light though here as to why she believe prostitution isn’t a victimless crime. She states that “with normal prostitution where adults can be forced without consent into prostitution too. “ This is however an assumed risk on the prostitutes part. I went in great detail in my R2 about the risks of assumptions just like in boxing or other sports. It doesn’t matter what those risks are as long as the individual accepts them. That’s why Grand Prix racing isn’t illegal despite it resulting in 1 in 100 people dying from it. It is nearly the most dangerous activity in the world [6]. -Tax Evasion- As I explained earlier, the tax code is a law we all prematurely agree to follow via social contract theory. If people were to break this agreement, it would infringe on the governments self-interest of receiving tax revenue. Conclusion:Con has thus far been unable to demostrate how any of the victimless crimes i'v stated, have infringed on anyones elses autonomy. This reasoning alone is enough for the government to recognize these actions as "victimless crimes". She asks me "when does consent end", but i answer this in R2 with the harm principle. Con was supposed to demonstrate these victimless crimes effect people besides the parties consenting, she has not done this.Inspite of the misunderstandings I did enjoy this debate very much! I thank Con for participationg and for advocating her position. [1]http://www.cdc.gov... [2]http://luxury.rehabs.com... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]http://time.com... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://www.besthealthdegrees.com...