> On Aug 13, 8:42 pm, Robert Cohen msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> re: illusion of harmless illegalities

>

>> Please keeep in mind: We're discussing "philosophy," not defending (or
>> offending) ideology(ies)

>

>> The n.g. agenda is trying to determine what is truth  or reality

>

>> In this vein: The phenomena of  "crime w/o victim" is ambiguous
>> premise or phrase or at least ill-defined

>

>> Because:

>

>> If everything is relative, then there is no separate action or element
>> unto itself

>

>> The drinker, doper, gambler, has his/her relations to kin and others
>> "victims"

>

>> The community is "harmed" or victimized by irresponsible, imprudent
>> behavior

>
> Actually, assuming all of the above is true, even
> allegedly prudent and responsible behavior will
> have negative side-effects.  If we get into the
> vagueness of potential effects, every action may
> as well be equivalent to another.  For instance,
> a drunk driver may accidently kill a future mass
> murderer.  A butterfly flapping its wings may
> ultimately cause a big wind in Chicago.
>
> In any chaotic system, the outcome of a small
> change is inherently unpredictable.  Therefore,
> every act has potential victims and potential
> beneficiaries.
>

>> If ye smoke chains, then Medicare (national health insurance,
>> taxpayers, social security) may well eventually have to pick-up the
>> tres cher health problrems.

>
> Actually, there have been statistical analyses of the
> cost of smoking to the taxpayer, and may not be
> entirely clear, but it looks to be the case that the
> taxpayer saves money because of the smoker.  Old
> age is one of the most expensive things the taxpayer
> has to fund.  Everyone dies, some die faster than
> others, and get sick for longer.  One in three smokers
> dies of cancer, a relatively quick death.  This save
> Social Security as well as Medicare dollars.
>
> There are those who get chronic diseases from smoking
> too, which somewhat offsets the savings from the quicker
> deaths.
>

>> Though I certainly acknowledge so-called "crime" can also be
>> economically "beneficial" to community commerce through  medical
>> products and services

>
> That is the broken window fallacy, yes.  But even for the most
> deadly vice of all, it appears there is less of a broken window.
> Old age and its chronic diseases are the most expensive broken
> window of all.
>

>> No person is an island unto him/her self, says John Donne
>> Sorry about that libertarian-objectivists, does not exactly say Don
>> Adams

>
> John Stuart Mill already dealt with this objection, anyway.  The
> only effects we can really consider are direct effects.  The indirect
> effects are really unpredictable.  If an act doesn't have a victim as
> a
> direct result, anything else is idle speculation.  After all, Karl
> Marx's
> speech could be considered the "cause" of tens of millions of murders.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -