Nah, it's a Crime without a Victim, as I said. And Malum Prohibitum is not necessarily "religion enacted into law", since it is possible and indeed common to have a Law that is not religiously motivated (e.g. "Practicing Medicine Without A License"). Therefore "Malum Prohibitum" does NOT mean the same thing as "religion enacted into law".
--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Valentine Michael Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's not victimless crime > It's religion enacted into law. > also called malum prohibitum. > > > > Zack Bass wrote: > > > > > > --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com > > <mailto:LibertarianEnterprise%40yahoogroups.com>, Wraith <wraith@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Zack, due to the majoritarian nature of voting, participation is a form > > > of delegated initiation. Thus, it could hardly be termed libertarian. > > > I'm all too painfully aware of those who make different "lessor evils" > > > arguments. But isn't following that approach how we ended up in > > > our current sorry state? > > > > > > > I certainly agree that that is usually the case. > > However, there are times when Voting IS justified. > > > > For example, suppose there is a Referendum on a proposed Law to make > > Blasphemy a Crime, or some other new Victimless Crime. Against whom > > would I be Initiating Force by Voting against that Law? > > > > Similarly, it is never wrong to vote for a real libertarian. He will, > > where he is able, reduce the Initiated Force of Government. > > > > In the case of Ron Paul, I admit this is getting dicey. There are > > several things he will do that are UN_Libertarian (notably Immigration > > Control). But he is so much more libertarian than any of his > > opponents that I don't see how a vote for him could have a bad result > > - that is, the result would not be an increase in Initiation of Force > > compared to not voting for him. > > > > When you vote for a candidate who has NO chance of winning (this might > > apply to Ron Paul, but it has always applied to LP national > > candidates), you are not Initiating Force, even by Proxy or by > > Delegation. The only Result of your Vote is that some people have > > their attention directed toward that candidate, and they just might > > wonder what the fuss is about. No Initiation of Force there. > > > > When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are voting AGAINST the > > more evil candidate. This does not apply to ordinary > > Democratic/Republican choices, since both are Very Evil. But often > > there Is a candidate distinctly less Evil than the Top Two. The > > danger here is that he might win big, and will use your Vote as part > > of what he calls a Mandate; so I agree that that might contribute to > > Initiation of Force. Judgment call. > > > > As of now, I'm still pushing for Ron Paul. > > > > >
