Lysander Spooner Said it best:
Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property.And,
“Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.”
I would personally define a “Vice” as, “any innocent action that is done to relieve stress despite the potential of causing detriment to one's own mind, body, goals, or property.” While defining it like that may not render vices as commendable actions, it at least makes a clear distinction between vice and crime.
Vices are victimless
A victim, is a person who has been affected by a crime. A crime, is an action that either violates self-ownership, harms property, or tricks somebody into consenting when they normally wouldn't have. If there is no criminal intent, or victim, then there is no crime. People who choose a vice as a life crutch are not doing it with the intention to deceive or harm anybody, they are doing it for their own personal enjoyment. Vices alone are not responsible for the creation of any victims, they're just used as a means by stressed out and or addicted people to reach their desired end; which is relief.
Often times vices turn into a dependency, or an addiction; but remember that being addicted to something doesn't cause any victims. No people are harmed and no property is damaged when a person decides to surrender to an addiction and or use a vice. When a person decides to do heroin, your self-ownership has not been violated, none of your property has been damaged, and you haven't been tricked into giving your consent when you normally wouldn't have. Therefor using coercion on innocent people for using a vice is to become the aggressor; it makes YOU the criminal, not them.
A list of commonly used vices
- Fingernail biting.
- Swearing
- Shopping
- Sex
- Alcohol and drug use.
- Exercise
- Gambling
- Eating
- Alone time
- Sleep
Questions up for discussion:
Wouldn't it logically be considered a performative contradiction to try to help somebody by explicitly violating their non-consent?
How is harming yourself considered worse than punishing people who harm themselves?!
What line of reasoning did you use to reach the belief that it is morally acceptable to use aggressive force on an innocent person who is only causing harm to themselves?
A man acting as an aggressor for a good cause is still morally wrong. Violating consent is immoral and the belief that in these arbitrary circumstances harming another is acceptable is the foundation of all evil and unjust treatment we see around the world today. The only moral reason to harm another is to defend from harm from another. That's it. The message of the article is an important understanding for how we should treat each other in disagreements. No idea is so good it must be mandatory. If its a good idea convince me its a good idea. Its through peace and honest education will we all prosper. Good read :)
Moral relativism is a serious problem! People seem to think that if you steal from people it is okay as long as you help more people with the proceeds than the amount of people that you screw. UGH!!!
I wrote a short article about moral relativism.
Check it out: https://steemit.com/politics/@stickman/statism-requires-the-root-of-all-evil-moral-relativism