zlacker

no victim means no crime. victimless "crimes" are just 'arbitrary rule' violations (like going 56mph in a 55mph zone) or infractions. the twisting and distortion of language by the state is counterproductive to society.

>>floydn+(OP)
How does that make any sense? So you could never pass a law to reduce risk because in most cases, breaking it won’t create a victim?

Speed limits are done to reduce the risk of you killing someone. Do you really think you should be able to drive however you want and until you actually have an accident, it’s fine?

>>floydn+(OP)
>no victim means no crime

If you feel entitled to redefine the word "crime", that is.

>>echoan+Ok
It's how you do it in Germany in the left lane

>>echoan+Ok
if you cause no harm, how could it be a crime? an infraction, sure. a rule violation, sure. but calling a small rule violation which never causes any harm to anyone the same thing as rape, murder, assault, carjacking, etc, is just pure degeneracy of language.

>>floydn+yS3
The crime is increasing the risk to other people. Why does that not make it a crime in your opinion?

If I try to shoot someone but miss and they never even notice, is that fine because there’s no actual victim?

Edit:

To be more precise, the crime doesn’t even need you to increase the risk to anyone. Just thinking that you’ll increase the risk is already a crime, even if you’re wrong. If you buy a prop gun but think it’s real and try to shoot someone, that would still be attempted murder, even if it couldn’t even have worked. But you’re punished for trying to kill someone, it doesn’t matter wether you’re incompetent at it (well you get a bit less for the attempt compared to the actual successful act but it’s still a crime).

And another edit because coming up with weird hypotheticals is fun:

Imagine planting a bomb with a one hour timer on a marketplace and when it goes off, the marketplace was empty of people by chance.

Does that mean that the worst punishment you should expect should be for property damage because someone needs to clean up the ground? Obviously you committed a crime, even if there’s no specific victim this time.

>>echoan+WW3
an attempted crime is an intent to harm another. even my autocorrect could finish that sentence.

but we have a separate crime category for those already. "attempted murder" etc. those are crimes because they intended to be a crime, but they just failed for incompetence. it's a lot harder to prove in court (rightfully so).

i would say that i agree with you about attempted crimes, if that helps.

>>floydn+hJ7
So what’s the problem? Attempting crimes is a crime too.

Edit:

You initially wrote:

> no victim means no crime. victimless "crimes" are just 'arbitrary rule' violations (like going 56mph in a 55mph zone) or infractions. the twisting and distortion of language by the state is counterproductive to society.

So you think not being allowed to bomb someone while being unsuccessful is ab arbitrary rule and should not be called a crime?