Victimless crimes are not crimes at all.

Your first argument is very flawed. The law does exist to protect an individual"s safety, but when it infringes upon his autonomy unnecessarily then it ceases to be just. Actions like murder, rape and thievery all interfere with the victim's autonomy to live, not be raped, and to maintain their honestly acquired possessions. The law protects us from each other. However, prostitution is not rape and suicide is not murder. The bottom line is that if every involved party gives full consent, then the law has no place in interfering. You are correct that restrictions currently exist regulating the purchase of alcohol, tobacco, and weapons, and governing the legal age to drive and vote. Obviously there is no fixed moral scale for these as they vary drastically as you broaden your view to an international scale, but I digress. I am against any such laws as they do unnecessarily restrict an individual's freedom. The main reason that those laws are even in place is because of the government"s definition of when an individual becomes an adult ("person"), capable of making educated choices so that they will not inadvertently cause self-harm. As to the 30 arguments: 1.Autonomy is freedom, and must be guaranteed equally. 2.Discrimination is not a victimless crime, so said laws may exist in either of our proposed systems. 3.As stated above, murder infringes on another's right to choose life and as such should remain illegal. There is a clear victim. However, current laws prohibit an individual from forfeiting their right to life by choosing suicide, and that is what must change. 4.Not to be redundant, but slavery is only justifiable if someone willingly enters into it. (Individual autonomy) 5.As previously reasoned, no torture is just unless consensual. BDSM shouldn"t be criminalized, should it? In fact, as I read the rest of this list, I see a very rational and thorough list of basic human rights, all of which I basically agree with. However, in your introduction you claimed that each of these points proved victimless crimes should remain criminal. Neither of us disputes the importance of equality and that is all that any of these points seem to represent. I simply argue that the law has no place in governing an individual's choices in matters that concern only the individual. If drug use causes me to make poor choices, then I am responsible for them. If I contract a sexually transmitted disease from having consensual sex with a prostitute, it is not different then contracting one from any sexual partner. They also both bear the equal responsibility to inform me of their condition before we can enter into truly consensual sex. I am shocked that you would argue that the Bible states sodomy is a sin and that the "wages of sin is death". I did not intend to bring religion into this, but by asserting that your religious doctrine is any just tool to use in making laws for me (an atheist) you have already violated your own value of equality. You can believe anything that you choose to morally, just as I can, but we must be given the chance to without the interference of the law as long as we do not directly interfere with each other"s lives in a nonconsensual way. In the interest of furthering true freedom and equality wherever possible, you must agree that victimless crimes should be legalized and vote pro today. It has been a pleasure debating, con.