Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [wwbc] victimless crime

Expand Messages
  • George Resto
    As Mattias already alluded to, there are no victimless crimes. Everything we do always effects someone else. It s one of the first laws of social dynamics.
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 1 7:13 AM
      As Mattias already alluded to, there are no victimless crimes. Everything
      we do always effects someone else. It's one of the first laws of social
      dynamics. As civil people we choose to live under the tyranny of empathy.
      According to the golden rule, we can negotiate with our social equals, but
      unless you have the gold, you cannot make up the rules about what harms are
      mutually exclusive and what harms we shall be held accountable for.

      Or, you could:

      a.) Take your chances in a chaotic semi-society, untouched by the rule of
      law, like one of those war torn places around the world.

      b.) Live completely alone; man against nature.

      c.) As already mentioned, you could acquire the reigns of power (whether
      it's celebrity, religious or political influence, money, or military might,
      depending on the society) and make up your own rules.

      d.) Live a constantly duplicitous life, telling yourself and others you are
      a civilized member of society, while all the time betraying their trust in
      your complicity, until you can no longer live with yourself, or until you
      get caught.

      This last one is what we always refer to as a victimless crime. We think
      that, as long as the people who care don't find out, nobody's getting hurt.
      Well, isn't that the whole justification for so-called little white lies?

      "I'm not laughing at you, I'm laughing with you."

      What about white collar crime? What about political corruption? What about
      drug dealers? Where do you draw the line?

      Does the victim have to be able to stand up and accuse his offenders, before
      you can call it a crime?

      Might it not be that there is actually a higher law? Is it not so that we
      all agree to pay back the benefits (the protections, the prosperity, the
      fealty and camaraderie) we enjoy as members of the civil society we live in,
      by complying with the laws, rules, ethics, morals and customs of that
      society?

      There are no victimless crimes . . .

      G.R.


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Mattias Johansson <truelight55@...>
      To: wwbc@egroups.com <wwbc@egroups.com>
      Date: Monday, July 31, 2000 1:45 AM
      Subject: RE: [wwbc] victimless crime


      >You might get super smart like Hannibal Lecter, and make a deep
      >self-analysis of your mind and become a logic monster and eat people.
      >Cause and effect. Use of mind-altering substances may pose a threat to the
      >environment, directly or indirectly. For example: I almost spilled coffee
      on
      >my cat once.
      >
      >Also, if you hypothetically could take the drug in a closed environment,
      >where nobody gets hurt, except yourself - I can guarantee that a person who
      >cares about you would effectively be hurt if you got hurt.
      >
      >Just my $.02...
      >
      >Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. MONEY makus surfus;
      >AllAdvantage.
      >/Mattias Johansson
      >
      >-----Original Message-----
      >From: Neil Phillips [mailto:snowyphillips@...]
      >Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2000 9:53 PM
      >To: wwbc@egroups.com
      >Subject: [wwbc] victimless crime
      >
      >having enjoyed the various responses to the question
      >of forgiveness i propose a new debate victimless crime
      >should something be illegal if no body gets hurt by
      >the said actions that take place as an example
      >ingestation of mind altering substances, should an
      >exterior agency have the right to tell you what you
      >can or cannot do with your own body if you are aware
      >of the actions and consequences that you take.
      >cat and pigeon time
      >answers please
      >neil
      >
      >__________________________________________________
      >Do You Yahoo!?
      >Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
      >http://invites.yahoo.com/
      >
      >
      >
      >Get paid to surf the Internet. For just displaying a small advert on your
      PC
      >screen you are paid $0.50 for every hour of surfing. Not only that, as well
      >as each and every friend you recommend getting $0.50 ph, you get an
      >additional $0.10 for each hour of their surfing. It soon adds up. Register
      >now at http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=BTT-973
      >
      >
      >__________________________________________________
      >Do You Yahoo!?
      >Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
      >http://im.yahoo.com
      >
      >
      >
      >Get paid to surf the Internet. For just displaying a small advert on your
      PC screen you are paid $0.50 for every hour of surfing. Not only that, as
      well as each and every friend you recommend getting $0.50 ph, you get an
      additional $0.10 for each hour of their surfing. It soon adds up. Register
      now at http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=BTT-973
      >
      >
    • Mattias Johansson
      Ah, I must congratulate you for that post, George - It was a most rewarding read. Have you considered writing articles for magazines?Quid quid latine dictum
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 1 10:15 AM
        Ah, I must congratulate you for that post, George - It was a most rewarding
        read. Have you considered writing articles for magazines?

        Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. MONEY makus surfus;
        http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=BUL293
        /Mattias Johansson

        -----Original Message-----
        From: George Resto [mailto:georesto@...]
        Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 4:14 PM
        To: wwbc@egroups.com
        Subject: Re: [wwbc] victimless crime

        As Mattias already alluded to, there are no victimless crimes. Everything
        we do always effects someone else. It's one of the first laws of social
        dynamics. As civil people we choose to live under the tyranny of empathy.
        According to the golden rule, we can negotiate with our social equals, but
        unless you have the gold, you cannot make up the rules about what harms are
        mutually exclusive and what harms we shall be held accountable for.

        Or, you could:

        a.) Take your chances in a chaotic semi-society, untouched by the rule of
        law, like one of those war torn places around the world.

        b.) Live completely alone; man against nature.

        c.) As already mentioned, you could acquire the reigns of power (whether
        it's celebrity, religious or political influence, money, or military might,
        depending on the society) and make up your own rules.

        d.) Live a constantly duplicitous life, telling yourself and others you are
        a civilized member of society, while all the time betraying their trust in
        your complicity, until you can no longer live with yourself, or until you
        get caught.

        This last one is what we always refer to as a victimless crime. We think
        that, as long as the people who care don't find out, nobody's getting hurt.
        Well, isn't that the whole justification for so-called little white lies?

        "I'm not laughing at you, I'm laughing with you."

        What about white collar crime? What about political corruption? What about
        drug dealers? Where do you draw the line?

        Does the victim have to be able to stand up and accuse his offenders, before
        you can call it a crime?

        Might it not be that there is actually a higher law? Is it not so that we
        all agree to pay back the benefits (the protections, the prosperity, the
        fealty and camaraderie) we enjoy as members of the civil society we live in,
        by complying with the laws, rules, ethics, morals and customs of that
        society?

        There are no victimless crimes . . .

        G.R.


        -----Original Message-----
        From: Mattias Johansson <truelight55@...>
        To: wwbc@egroups.com <wwbc@egroups.com>
        Date: Monday, July 31, 2000 1:45 AM
        Subject: RE: [wwbc] victimless crime


        >You might get super smart like Hannibal Lecter, and make a deep
        >self-analysis of your mind and become a logic monster and eat people.
        >Cause and effect. Use of mind-altering substances may pose a threat to the
        >environment, directly or indirectly. For example: I almost spilled coffee
        on
        >my cat once.
        >
        >Also, if you hypothetically could take the drug in a closed environment,
        >where nobody gets hurt, except yourself - I can guarantee that a person who
        >cares about you would effectively be hurt if you got hurt.
        >
        >Just my $.02...
        >
        >Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. MONEY makus surfus;
        >AllAdvantage.
        >/Mattias Johansson
        >
        >-----Original Message-----
        >From: Neil Phillips [mailto:snowyphillips@...]
        >Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2000 9:53 PM
        >To: wwbc@egroups.com
        >Subject: [wwbc] victimless crime
        >
        >having enjoyed the various responses to the question
        >of forgiveness i propose a new debate victimless crime
        >should something be illegal if no body gets hurt by
        >the said actions that take place as an example
        >ingestation of mind altering substances, should an
        >exterior agency have the right to tell you what you
        >can or cannot do with your own body if you are aware
        >of the actions and consequences that you take.
        >cat and pigeon time
        >answers please
        >neil
        >
        >__________________________________________________
        >Do You Yahoo!?
        >Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
        >http://invites.yahoo.com/
        >
        >
        >
        >Get paid to surf the Internet. For just displaying a small advert on your
        PC
        >screen you are paid $0.50 for every hour of surfing. Not only that, as well
        >as each and every friend you recommend getting $0.50 ph, you get an
        >additional $0.10 for each hour of their surfing. It soon adds up. Register
        >now at http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=BTT-973
        >
        >
        >__________________________________________________
        >Do You Yahoo!?
        >Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
        >http://im.yahoo.com
        >
        >
        >
        >Get paid to surf the Internet. For just displaying a small advert on your
        PC screen you are paid $0.50 for every hour of surfing. Not only that, as
        well as each and every friend you recommend getting $0.50 ph, you get an
        additional $0.10 for each hour of their surfing. It soon adds up. Register
        now at http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=BTT-973
        >
        >






        Get paid to surf the Internet. For just displaying a small advert on your PC
        screen you are paid $0.50 for every hour of surfing. Not only that, as well
        as each and every friend you recommend getting $0.50 ph, you get an
        additional $0.10 for each hour of their surfing. It soon adds up. Register
        now at http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=BTT-973


        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
        http://im.yahoo.com
      • Bruce Grundison
        George, I think your message was excellent and agree with your thought-provoking statements. Civil society depends upon the rule of law and on the
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 2 5:37 PM
          George, I think your message was excellent and agree with your
          thought-provoking statements. Civil society depends upon the rule
          of law and on the participation of the citizenry in governance. But
          it also depends upon the evolution of that law as the society
          negotiates a balance between the responsibilities of the individual
          and those of the group. Not all societies deliver benefits to their
          citizens in proportion to the responsibilities expected from those
          citizens. I think your message acknowledges this.

          However, I also think that the issue here is really the definition
          of "crime" and who defined the crime (as in your option C below).
          What is taboo or shunned in one society might be legal in another.
          By definition, then, a "victimless" crime in one society, such as
          person X's use of a controlled substance or participation in some
          prohibited consensual sexual acts or participation in certain
          political activities, could bring harm to someone else in that
          society who cares about person X. The harm might be social (for
          example, ostracism) or physical punishment (perhaps by association
          with person X). The crime could also bring harm to greater numbers
          of people if there is injury to person X that causes excessive
          demands on the community. This latter aspect is the basis of many
          of the recent government lawsuits against the tobacco industry in
          North America. What may result from those suits eventually is a
          redefinition of what is criminal in terms of tobacco use, which
          might conflict with present social norms.

          I have been working through similar kinds of issues for years and I
          don't think the answer is cultural relativism. I am not sure that
          there is only one answer.

          Maybe one part of the truth is that so-called "victimless" crimes
          are acts or omissions which have been defined as causing harm in a
          particular society even though the resulting consequences might not
          necessarily show obvious or immediate physical or social harm. The
          harm may be real or imagined but the society which defined the
          offence would be the victim if the act or omission were committed.
          Therefore there are no victimless crimes.

          I think it is important to remain open to the possibility, however,
          that our laws may define inappropriate "victimless" crimes which
          should no longer be defined as such. That is one spot where
          creativity meets social responsibility.

          Thanks again for a stimulating and thoughtful message. I have been
          a lurker on this list for many months and must thank those who
          participate regularly for their interesting posts. This is my
          first.

          Bruce Grundison

          --Original Message-----
          From: George Resto [mailto:georesto@...]
          Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 4:14 PM
          To: wwbc@egroups.com
          Subject: Re: [wwbc] victimless crime

          As Mattias already alluded to, there are no victimless crimes.
          Everything
          we do always effects someone else. It's one of the first laws of
          social
          dynamics. As civil people we choose to live under the tyranny of
          empathy.
          According to the golden rule, we can negotiate with our social
          equals, but
          unless you have the gold, you cannot make up the rules about what
          harms are
          mutually exclusive and what harms we shall be held accountable for.

          Or, you could:

          a.) Take your chances in a chaotic semi-society, untouched by the
          rule of
          law, like one of those war torn places around the world.

          b.) Live completely alone; man against nature.

          c.) As already mentioned, you could acquire the reigns of power
          (whether
          it's celebrity, religious or political influence, money, or military
          might,
          depending on the society) and make up your own rules.

          d.) Live a constantly duplicitous life, telling yourself and others
          you are
          a civilized member of society, while all the time betraying their
          trust in
          your complicity, until you can no longer live with yourself, or
          until you
          get caught.

          This last one is what we always refer to as a victimless crime. We
          think
          that, as long as the people who care don't find out, nobody's
          getting hurt.
          Well, isn't that the whole justification for so-called little white
          lies?

          "I'm not laughing at you, I'm laughing with you."

          What about white collar crime? What about political corruption?
          What about
          drug dealers? Where do you draw the line?

          Does the victim have to be able to stand up and accuse his
          offenders, before
          you can call it a crime?

          Might it not be that there is actually a higher law? Is it not so
          that we
          all agree to pay back the benefits (the protections, the prosperity,
          the
          fealty and camaraderie) we enjoy as members of the civil society we
          live in,
          by complying with the laws, rules, ethics, morals and customs of
          that
          society?

          There are no victimless crimes . . .

          G.R.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.