Victimless Crimes & The Economy

[kyjds]

Enforcing victimless crime laws puts a strain on the U.S. and local economies. I have the solution to fix all of that, and I hope it will help small communities such as mine and many other communities thrive! It's a political ideology that I developed called Vicentralism.

Vicentralism is focused on Three Central Principles, consisting of:

- Ending laws against victimless crimes.

Examples:

Ending the War on Drugs, which Vicentralists consider as a civil war.

Ending laws against two or more adults engaging in consensual sex or sexual acts.

Repealing laws and ordinances against public displays of nudity.

Overturning mandatory seatbelt laws.

Doing away with laws where there is no other victim than just the person who committed the act, even suicide.

-Doing away with already intrusive government institutions.

Examples:

Permanent shutdown of abusive administrative offices, such as the DEA, ONDCP, FCC, DHS, etc.

Cutting wasteful spending that have no immediate or apparent benefits to the public.

Having strong oversight of otherwise helpful departments or offices, such as the Department of Education(such as doing away with mandatory schooling).

- Hand financial institutions/banks over to the public for community-ownership, and creating a publically owned currency.

Examples:

Abolish the Federal Reserve and prevent any further central banks from opening.

Decentralize the currency and let the public banks handle all distribution of our money.

Give control of credit lines to the public banks.


Would this form of government and political ideology work in practice?

 

[BSM1]

Some of your points have merit. The mandatory seat belt law is a particular pet peeve of mine. It takes a total idiot not to wear a seat belt (I wouldn't pull out of my driveway with buckling mine), but for the government to tell grown adults that they have to wear the belt is the height of Nannystatism. This is a blatant government money making scheme made to look like a legitimate law.

 

[sun rise]

This reads like a far right get rid of government idea so I'm against it. Many federal agencies protect the consumer from big business and this wholesale dismantling of agencies would expose us to the "profit is our god" practices of gigantic corporations.

 

[Father Heathen]

I'm all for the legalization, regulation, and taxation of cannabis, prostitution, gambling, etc.

But far as safety, environmental, and education standards go, I think those are fairly important.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This reads like a far right get rid of government idea so I'm against it. Many federal agencies protect the consumer from big business and this wholesale dismantling of agencies would expose us to the "profit is our god" practices of gigantic corporations.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Father Heathen]

This reads like a far right get rid of government idea so I'm against it. Many federal agencies protect the consumer from big business and this wholesale dismantling of agencies would expose us to the "profit is our god" practices of gigantic corporations.

huh. I didn't know personal freedom was a far right idea.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Some of your points have merit. The mandatory seat belt law is a particular pet peeve of mine. It takes a total idiot not to wear a seat belt (I wouldn't pull out of my driveway with buckling mine), but for the government to tell grown adults that they have to wear the belt is the height of Nannystatism. This is a blatant government money making scheme made to look like a legitimate law.

I agree with you that some of the rules make sense and some don't.
I wouldn't pick this particular one as a good example of that though.

I'm being lazy here, so you can call me on it, but there is a lot of evidence here (Australia) to show that the change to laws in terms of making seatbelt wearing mandatory has had a major impact on the percentage of people wearing seatbelts.
Further, people not wearing seatbelts cost society money, due to increased injury rates, combined with public health care.

So whilst I am not a fan of nanny state-ism (and we have plenty of examples of it here) I think it would be possible to justify this one on a pure ROI basis.

Anyways, no biggie. I agree some of the points in the OP have merit. Goes too far on others. These sort of discussions are pretty useful though. In Australia it does feel like we're disappearing into wanting the government to take action on everything. That's not a great path.

 

[LukeS]

I think you'd have to try the policies one by one, and test results. Rather than a sudden overhaul based on "sound principles". Like some libetarians and anti-statists have nice sounding rhetoric, but I am not quite sure you ought to suddenly revolutionise fairly proficient societies on the basis of sweet sounding philosophy. If there's to be change, make it gradual, over the years. And test on animals first if possible.

 

[Stevicus]

Enforcing victimless crime laws puts a strain on the U.S. and local economies. I have the solution to fix all of that, and I hope it will help small communities such as mine and many other communities thrive! It's a political ideology that I developed called Vicentralism.

Vicentralism is focused on Three Central Principles, consisting of:

- Ending laws against victimless crimes.

Examples:

Ending the War on Drugs, which Vicentralists consider as a civil war.

Ending laws against two or more adults engaging in consensual sex or sexual acts.

Repealing laws and ordinances against public displays of nudity.

Overturning mandatory seatbelt laws.

Doing away with laws where there is no other victim than just the person who committed the act, even suicide.

-Doing away with already intrusive government institutions.

Examples:

Permanent shutdown of abusive administrative offices, such as the DEA, ONDCP, FCC, DHS, etc.

Cutting wasteful spending that have no immediate or apparent benefits to the public.

Having strong oversight of otherwise helpful departments or offices, such as the Department of Education(such as doing away with mandatory schooling).

- Hand financial institutions/banks over to the public for community-ownership, and creating a publically owned currency.

Examples:

Abolish the Federal Reserve and prevent any further central banks from opening.

Decentralize the currency and let the public banks handle all distribution of our money.

Give control of credit lines to the public banks.


Would this form of government and political ideology work in practice?

I agree with a lot of what you say here, at least in regards to individual freedom and victimless crimes.
There might be another approach one might consider. That is, individual freedom and liberty should be considered sacrosanct, while freedom for private organizations, collectives, corporations, etc. should be more limited depending on how large it is.

 

[bobhikes]

Enforcing victimless crime laws puts a strain on the U.S. and local economies. I have the solution to fix all of that, and I hope it will help small communities such as mine and many other communities thrive! It's a political ideology that I developed called Vicentralism.

Vicentralism is focused on Three Central Principles, consisting of:

- Ending laws against victimless crimes.

Ending the War on Drugs, which Vicentralists consider as a civil war.
Ending laws against two or more adults engaging in consensual sex or sexual acts.
Repealing laws and ordinances against public displays of nudity.
Overturning mandatory seatbelt laws.
Doing away with laws where there is no other victim than just the person who committed the act, even suicide.
-Doing away with already intrusive government institutions.
Examples:

Permanent shutdown of abusive administrative offices, such as the DEA, ONDCP, FCC, DHS, etc.
Cutting wasteful spending that have no immediate or apparent benefits to the public.
Having strong oversight of otherwise helpful departments or offices, such as the Department of Education(such as doing away with mandatory schooling).
- Hand financial institutions/banks over to the public for community-ownership, and creating a publically owned currency.

Examples:

Abolish the Federal Reserve and prevent any further central banks from opening.
Decentralize the currency and let the public banks handle all distribution of our money.
Give control of credit lines to the public banks.

Would this form of government and political ideology work in practice?

Drugs are a problem and even legalizing them is not going to make the problem go away. The demand for a drug user is infinite and this will always breed crime. The addicted drug user is a victim.
Consensual sexual acts in private should be legalized in public many people(myself included)would consider themselves victims of obscenity.
Same with public nudity, there are many people I(most of the population)do not want to see nude, private nudity is fine.
Do what you want with stupidity laws
Suicide causes problems because it has to be investigated. Just because someone declares they killed themselves for suicide it may be murder or coerced. It also invalidates insurance policies. If the law is going to be involved anyway it might as well be illegal.
What you consider intrusive and what I consider intrusive are probably very different.

I would disagree very much with all of your governmental and financial changes.

 

[BSM1]

This reads like a far right get rid of government idea so I'm against it. Many federal agencies protect the consumer from big business and this wholesale dismantling of agencies would expose us to the "profit is our god" practices of gigantic corporations.

For instance?

 

[Viraja]

Ha ha... already so much automation and use of machines are replacing human capability to work and make money... the OP's law would eliminate many, many more jobs... birth control in order!

 

[sun rise]

For instance?

The list included the FCC which by extension would include all agencies whose purpose is to help consumers.

 

[BSM1]

The list included the FCC which by extension would include all agencies whose purpose is to help consumers.

Uhh...okay...How does the FCC help consumers exactly?

 

[suncowiam]

Some of your points have merit. The mandatory seat belt law is a particular pet peeve of mine. It takes a total idiot not to wear a seat belt (I wouldn't pull out of my driveway with buckling mine), but for the government to tell grown adults that they have to wear the belt is the height of Nannystatism. This is a blatant government money making scheme made to look like a legitimate law.

Shouldn't the government have a responsibility to save lives even in enforcing laws for the ignorant or the hard-headed?

I see that law geared more towards the young and immature. They don't know better than you or I. If this law can save many lives and the ill-effect is someone's bruised ego, then doesn't the good outweigh the bad?

 

[sun rise]

Uhh...okay...How does the FCC help consumers exactly?

And more but this is a start Federal Communications Commission - Wikipedia
Broadband
"All Americans should have affordable access to robust and reliable broadband products and services. Regulatory policies must promote technological neutrality, competition, investment, and innovation to ensure that broadband service providers have sufficient incentives to develop and offer such products and services."
Competition
"Competition in the provision of communication services, both domestically and overseas, supports the Nation's economy. The competitive framework for communications services should foster innovation and offer consumers reliable, meaningful choice in affordable services."

 

[BSM1]

And more but this is a start Federal Communications Commission - Wikipedia
Broadband
"All Americans should have affordable access to robust and reliable broadband products and services. Regulatory policies must promote technological neutrality, competition, investment, and innovation to ensure that broadband service providers have sufficient incentives to develop and offer such products and services."
Competition
"Competition in the provision of communication services, both domestically and overseas, supports the Nation's economy. The competitive framework for communications services should foster innovation and offer consumers reliable, meaningful choice in affordable services."

You think this is helping consumers? This is just a government agency dictating to a private business on how it must/should be ran. This is exactly the thinking that got Trump elected.

 

[sun rise]

You think this is helping consumers? This is just a government agency dictating to a private business on how it must/should be ran. This is exactly the thinking that got Trump elected.

Exactly - it's dictating to private business how it should be run IN THE INTEREST OF CONSUMERS. For 99%, business puts profit above all including the health of people, the freedom of people and so forth. All business in a capitalist economy cares about is profit. And it must be restrained otherwise we wind up with air that can't be breathed, water that is poisoned, no freedom to complain or sue for bad actors etc. If you expect a business to care about anything but profit no matter what the consequences, you are ignoring how capitalism works.

 

[BSM1]

Exactly - it's dictating to private business how it should be run IN THE INTEREST OF CONSUMERS. For 99%, business puts profit above all including the health of people, the freedom of people and so forth. All business in a capitalist economy cares about is profit. And it must be restrained otherwise we wind up with air that can't be breathed, water that is poisoned, no freedom to complain or sue for bad actors etc. If you expect a business to care about anything but profit no matter what the consequences, you are ignoring how capitalism works.

But..but..the FCC does none of this.

 

[sun rise]

But..but..the FCC does none of this.

I already wrote what the FCC does to help consumers so I won't bother repeating my post. The OP was about victimless crimes and managing the communications infrastructure cannot by any stretch be considered in the area of victimless crimes.