There are two kinds of laws: “malum prohibitum” and “malum in se”.
“Malum in se” means it’s wrong of itself, something that any reasonable person would recognise as wrong or evil, without legislation needing to make it prohibited. Things that are unlawful under common law, that a court might punish even absent of legislation, crimes that have a victim - things like murder and assault are “mala in se”.
“Malum prohibitum” means “wrong because we say so”, “bad because it's banned” - something that is outlawed because of a legal declaration or statute. Things like the enforcement of patents, or a ban on the possession of weapons are “mala prohibita”.
Now remember, “mala in se” crimes must have a victim. “Mala prohibita” crimes do not need to have a victim. You might say that drink driving is a “malum in se” crime, because the drunk driver could potentially cause an accident and injure somebody. You might say that selling marijuana, or another drug, is a “malum in se” crime, because it might hurt the community. But “malum in se” doesn’t include potential victims, only actual victims. Drink driving (not including reckless driving) and possession of drugs are illegal by statute, not by common law. If they were obviously wrong, a statute wouldn’t be required to make it illegal.
Now you might believe that “mala prohibita” laws are fine, just and necessary for a society to function. Alright, a lot of people believe that. I do not. But be vigilant with your thoughts - do not delude yourself. When you call for “mala prohibita” laws, you are calling for punishment, under threat of violence, of somebody who has injured nobody, stolen from nobody, hurt nobody, done harm to nobody. Do you really want to advocate violence, or the threat of violence, against somebody who has injured no-one?
About me
My name is Kurt Robinson. I grew up in Australia, but now I live in Guadalajara, Jalisco. I write interesting things about voluntaryism, futurism, science fiction, travelling Latin America, and psychedelics. Remember to press follow so you can stay up to date with all the cool shit I post, and follow our podcast where we talk about crazy ideas for open-minded people, here: @paradise-paradox, like The Paradise Paradox on Facebook here, and subscribe to The Paradise Paradox on YouTube, and on iTunes
The key point here, I think, is that we impose violence upon others when we support “Malum prohibitum” law. So we, participators in the system, are at war with one another. Sadly, it doesn't matter to most until this hits home.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Hi @churdtzu
I disagree with you, would you like your child's school-bus driver to be motherless drunk, or would you fly with a pilot that is completely drunk ?(Remember you will not know if he is drunk, you will only find out after the crash, if you live to tell the tale) It is just wrong, perhaps they will not crash, but they endanger other people's lives. This is just my opinion
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Like I mentioned, reckless driving would be outlawed regardless of written law. It creates the appearance of imminent harm, similar to assault. It's really irrelevant whether the driver is drunk - the pertinent fact is that the driving is reckless.
Similarly, with a pilot, if he's flying recklessly and endangering lives, that's unlawful regardless of written law.
Then, it's also a case for contract law. If you owned a bus company or airline, would you want your drivers or pilots to be drunk? What do you think would happen to them if they were found out?
The last question is, if driving drunk is so dangerous, then why is making it illegal going to stop anybody? If they're really so dangerous, they're putting their own lives on the line. So what is a $200 fine going to do to stop them?
On the other hand, if someone has had one or two beers, still perfectly capable of driving, and is going slowly through backstreets to compensate, why should they be punished? What does anyone gain from punishing that person?
Thanks for your comment.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Wrong because we say so is almost like an incitation to me.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You mean as in, the government is daring people to do those things? Or do you mean that the government is threatening us?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I mean I don't react well to impositions, I tend to take them as a challenge.
If I can't find a reason why something is wrong, then the likelihood is I will try to find out for myself.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes, I think you're right. They say drug use is much lower in the Netherlands because the government has left it alone and people see it as normal or ordinary. Jeffrey Tucker says that once upon a time, smoking weed was seen as tacky, but governments pushed so hard against it that it's seen as cool, rebellious, counterculture.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Enjoyed the post, food for the brain. Thanks
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
My pleasure 👌
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit