borrowing money includes/presumes a promise to pay it back, stealing money is a crime.

Yes, in the case of a “traditional” assault, where the victim rejects or fights the action, I would agree with you. In my comment, I was taking a generic case, where the sex is consensual (so far, sex itself hasn’t been outlawed yet), but the woman “regrets” it later. What category does that fall, for under some laws today, a lawful act can later become unlawful depending on the feelings of a participant at some later time.

Assault is not "willing participation". He was referring to the Ford assault accusation, but misrepresented as an innocent "kiss".

Borrowing money is a crime? Justice requires much more than paying debts.

Violation of rights is broader than theft.

Taking this seriously is sloppy libertarianism with dangerous implications. "Equal freedom" and "damage physical or economic welfare" are undefined, Normal competition and economic failure routinely "damage welfare". "Such damage" and "present danger" ignores threats and long term fraud.

His (incorrect) thesis was about actual crime, not illegitimate laws under which government is the criminal and enforcement is a crime.

Crime is a violation of rights regardless of what "certain persons" subjectively claim is only "business".

The crime of murder does not include self defense and police protection against the criminal Violation of rights is not a subjective matter relative to "who's ox". There is no such thing as "jurisdiction" of a mafia gang.

I don't understand your comment.

The accusation has nothing to do with willing participation by both individuals.

Intent is not an emotion. Neither malicious intent nor an accompanying emotion are relevant to whether a crime was committed.

Reality doesn't "care" about anything, not just "why". The term does not apply at all.

His (incorrect) thesis is about legitimate laws, not "invented laws attempting unreasonable burden".

You didn't say "deliberately do something harmful", you said "malicious intent". Deliberately doing something that is a crime and harmful is a crime regardless of malice.

The distinguish has nothing to do with seriousness of underage drinking. Different crimes have different degrees of seriousness.

There are gradations, of course.
What I was trying to call out is that there is a fundamental difference between those who deliberately do something harmful and those who do not. We have become so literally legalistic that we seem to no longer be able to see the difference. That creates injustice, in my opinion.

Kavanaugh may have drank in his senior year in high school after the drinking age was increased, so he is/was a lawbreaker. But to call him a criminal seems to me to be absurd.

That would be a sound basis for just laws.

If, as a result of your carelessness, with no malice, a person dies, are you saying there should be no criminal charge? Even manslaughter carries a criminal charge.

"Do not attribute to malice that which can easily attributed to stupidity" anon

A "crime" is an action outside the scope of "jurisdiction". By that I mean its not only the legally recognized "criminal-justice" system.

For example if a police officer shoots someone and its found to be within departmental policy, it is deemed to be a "good shoot" even though the shootee is just as dead as if the shooter were an armed thug.

Or how about a religious honor killing or a fatwah decreed by an imam? If it is carried out in an Islamic country under sharia law it may be deemed rightious. The same act committed in the USA is a crime of murder.

Even further afield, suppose a person is a member of a mafia family. Mafioso has its own rules and codes of conduct under jurisdiction of the capos,
which can be delt with harshly as enforced by its own people--this even though considered criminal under government jurisdiction. It depends on who's ox is being gored and where, doesn't it?

Like "hate crimes" and "political crimes". They seek to punish thoughts and not actions, or exonerate rights-violating actions, all obliterating the concept of crime as a violation of rights.

Please do not alter posts after they have been responded to. It only confuses and misleads those reading the responses later. In this case the change may cause confusion but makes no substantive difference since legal facts are always supposed to be established "objectively" and the claim that an "intent" has been does not change the fact that a crime is a crime regardless of intent.

To All. I have edited the original post to include, "as objectively evaluated".
That should clear up many of the issues that were brought up. Crime, of course, should not be excused because the criminal thinks it is good from their subjective viewpoint.
Thank you all for your posts.

To certain persons crime is simply what certain elements call "business"
.When I worked in a drug store on 12th St. in Detroit, street notorious for criminal activity, we were visited by a crime boss named Chinky Ashe.
He got his name because of his almond shaped eyes. Here is one way he made his living. (This was in the 50s) He'd go to banks and but many rolls of quarters. Then he'd cross the Detroit river into Canada and buy a lot of Canadian quarters worth about 18 cents each. Then he'd mix in the quarters with the Canadian quarters and cash the rolls in. He made about $100.00 a week that way. It was one of his income streams.. I once said to him, "Chinky, with all the work it takes to do all that, you could put the money into a legit enterprise that will take less effort. He looked at me quizzically tinged with disgust and replied, "What? And go straight?"
So you can see that they didn't consider their activity to be anything but a certain catagory of business.

By the way, there is a sort of obligation to read a contract before one signs it. Though it appears that some people will sign just anything anybody sticks under their noses, provided it is convenient. But if you do that, you might as well be illiterate and sign your name with an X. But reading contracts is very hard sometimes; it irritates me to have to read those Terms of Services on Internet sites; I get aggravated at the idea of wasting time on something longer than the Encyclopedia Britannica.

I believe that running a red light is considered to be carelessness, which is volitional. (Though it still can happen by accident). Then, there are some who will try to excuse themselves, when a wrong thing they did was intentional, but the intent was supposedly good; i.e. "I'm sorry I beat you when you hadn't done the thing, but I only wanted to teach you discipline, or I only wanted you to get along with your brother,etc". Always something that they "only wanted", under the principle that "the end justifies the means."

Crime means now being politically incorrect, not obeying any law regardless if you knew it at the time, intended to break it, or accidentally viiolated it.

Also, the number of "laws" is so high that I would estimate I break probably at least 10-20 of them each and every day, mostly because I dont know of them, they are victimless and infringe on my freedom for no reason, or they are so stupid that I just cant obey them.

In vegas we have a law that it is illegal to feed a cat that comes to your door and wants food. It is illegal to post signs without a permit (but of course its ok for politicians to do it and not even take them down after the election). So may laws are on the books here, like the illegality of making cell phone calls in your car even if you pull over and stop. How about the one that says if the keys are in your car somewhere and you had too much to drink and dont want to drive so you take a nap IN the car- you get a DUI.


My respect for the laws here in this country has deteriorated drastically as time goes on and more and more laws get past.