[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
She was guilty. In most other communities she would have faced similar punishment. I know someone that worked during the day and had to go to jail at night and weekends for over a month for the same thing, a drunk driving followed by multiple driving without a license.
Just because California and LA in particular lets criminals walk the street does not make her crime victimless or make her a victim of anything other than her own stupidity.
Some people get more severe punishment than average because of skin color. She got more severe punishment than average because of media attention.
She was guilty of the crime and the punishment was within the legal limits. What is the problem?
From a hardcore libertarian point of view the problem is that she did not harm anyone but only disobeyed governments orders which are BS to begin with.
No malum in se only a malum prohibitum.
Would a hardcore libertarian drive on government supplied roads? [/quote]
Never, ever, because government should not supply them in the first place but even if they do we still paid and pay for it, so what?
IÂ´d rather argue that to physically endanger people for no good reason is a malum in se, even if the risk does not manifest itself in reality.
It is the argument that your freedom to swing your fist does not stop before you hit other peoples noses but before it becomes increasingly likely that you hit someones nose.
I am talking about acute, immanent danger here though…