[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rather those who walk among us who are law abiding only because of the consequences of crime are the ones to be considered the most despicable

[/ QUOTE ]
So if on-line poker was illegal punishable by death then those who didn't play only because of the consequences of the crime would be despicable?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely we can make a distinction between violent and victimless crimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting thread.

Came back to this point though... Who do you suppose best determines the valuations for specific crimes? It cannot be the state, and in a liberal, non-centralized society, you would still have to administer the judgments. How would this be resolved then?

Seems slippery, from recent experience, if only because valuations of the relative "victimlessness" of a specific crime differ by society. Especially in a polyglot of diverse legal systems. What is considered a crime in one society may well be a minor trespass in another.

With regards to self-defense, which is a violent crime if carried out against an aggressive action, can this be said to be a victimless crime, or is there an injured party in the case that is due his/her own resolution?

Yes, I can see a case for isolating recidivists, especially ones who are predatory and prone to zero to little empathy towards the parties they offend. You wind up with something like Australia after a few generations.

In practice, I believe, there are also societies in which intellectual, if not practical expression of acts that would be considered inhumane by society are studied and explored in a controlled enviroment. These are certainly not prisons, but it cannot be said that they are completely within general society either.

With regards to the main currents of the argument, yeah, I see the general gist. Food for thought, certainly.