No Victim = No Crime – You Are Being Victimized Twice

Allow me to demonstrate how some simple restructuring of laws to include victims could save us hundreds of billions of dollars a year in police enforcement costs, as well as reducing the rampant looting of the public by pirate police enforcers.

Lets start off with drunk driving:

If you drink and have a BAC of .10 or higher and get into a traffic accident or recklessly put someones life in danger, all normal penalties apply.

– did you see what I did there? It’s not illegal to drink and drive, its illegal to drink/drive and hurt someone.

How about gun laws (which are totally pointless):

If you shoot someone and are not justified in doing so, all normal penalties apply.

How about speeding and blowing red lights:

If you speed or run a red light and injure someone, all normal penalties apply.

– Such a law would alleviate traffic congestion substantially because red lights could be treated as stop signs in the event there is no cross traffic.

How about doing flaming bar tending tricks:

If you blow flames all over the place and hurt someone, all normal penalties apply.

-shocking? I think we would survive in a society just fine with this law.

How about doing drugs:

If you injure someone while doing drugs, such as driving under the influence or instigating a fight, all normal penalties apply.

Now I know such logic is probably disturbing to most of you, who have been raised by the State in publik schools, but trust me when I tell you that more freedom means you get to keep more of your money. (a lot more).

You are loosing a substantial portion of your paycheck to pay for the enforcement of such vicitimless laws. You are getting raped twice for every crime that is prosecuted. YOU PAY for the trial of the criminal. YOU PAY for the incarceration of the criminal. This means that if someone causes harm to you, you are victimized twice under our current system.

It is imperative that we recognize this double victimization and do everything we can to reduce it as much as possible. – This means eliminating ALL victimless crime.

Now I’m sure the totalitarian in you will have some problems with my stance on DUI’s, so let us address this issue:

A study conducted at the University of Florida in Gainesville suggests the threat of jail time does not deter drunk drivers. That stems primarily from the fact that most people who drive after drinking do not think they will be stopped for suspicion of DUI.

Researchers, led by Professor Alexander Wagenaar, looked at changes in DUI laws and jail penalties for drunk driving offenses from a 17 year period and compared them against the number of DUI arrests and alcohol related vehicular deaths. They found that stricter laws and harsher penalties do not deter people from drinking and driving. Nor did they reduce the number of alcohol related accidents.

Wagenaar said, “There are many in the general public who continue to drive after drinking because they don’t really believe that they’re going to be detected, pulled over, caught and go through the process to be convicted before a jail term would come into play.”

The study has been published in the Accident Analysis and Prevention section of

No amount of laws will deter someone from driving drunk if they think they are fine to drive and will not get caught.  (An example would be drinking and then thinking I am at .06 BAC while actually being at .08 BAC, since I think I’m at .06, I’m going to drive.)

Thus we can say DUI laws that punish drivers who have harmed no one are going to be ineffective based on logic AND based on the empirical data.

Shocking?  Not if you understand human nature.

Freedom works – its a lot better than paying the costs of self-imposed slavery.  The marginal benefits of DUI laws are dramatically outweighed by the marginal costs to society.

  • Libertarian Voice

    It is nice to read an article and come to the end of it thinking “There is nothing that I need to add to that”. This is something that I have been saying for years, so why is it so difficult for the majority to understand?