Victimless Crimes: Who Exactly Do They Harm?

In Peter McWilliam's book, Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do, he writes, “As an adult, you should be allowed to do with your person and property whatever you choose, as long as you don’t physically harm the person or property of another.” This view is different than that of the government; when the threat to the morality (or general feelings based on issues of morality) of society is at stake, the government puts its foot down, harming no person besides the civil liberties of the one involved, for the most part. Euthanasia, sex education in schools and ticket scalping can all fit into this category, leaving the "perpetrator" scratching their head as to whom they are "violating".

Euthanasia (doctor assisted suicide) has been a conflict because even though the person is terminally ill and going to pass away anyways, the fact that they would go before they were "intended to go" by "the will of God" seems to guide the refusal of this law. Whose decision is it to whether you live or die? Are we all property of the government?

Sex education should be taught in schools. The morals of the students are not in jeopardy, but just the general knowledge to protect themselves. Just because people are told to abstain from sex doesn't mean they will; it only means they will look for a different source to get their information. Isn't it better to get a proper education on this type of a thing? Lives are at stake. The main focus should be the transmission of S.T.D.s, contraception, the hindrances of having children at a young age, and finally, abstinance. Abstinance should still be stressed at the forefront of this education, but to not properly arm people with this knowledge is foolish;this is what we really need to worry about, not the lack of morals.

America has capitalist views; this laissez -faire ("let-do") government is giving us mixed signals. People make money for themselves, and as long as it's not hurting anyone, it's usually fair game. Ticket scalping is an exception. Why is this? Is this transaction hurting anyone? No. One could argue that the buyer is getting cheated out of their money and maybe being put into a lousy seat, but couldn't we also accuse the school lunch program of doing that? Two dollars (outrageous price) for a slice of generic pizza (lousy seat=only option)? This is wrong in itself, but if we are taught this is ok sometimes, why not all the time? If there's someone who wants to buy a product, it should be "buyers beware" and settled between the two private parties. The government needs to find a better place to focus their time and money.