A consensual crime is a crime with no victim. That, in itself, is a contradiction. How can you have a crime if there is no victim? I am sick and tired of the American government trying to play baby sitter. They have systematically imposed on almost every right the Bill of Rights has given us. Take the first amendment for example: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. If smoking marijuana is part of your religion and it s something you believe in, for whatever reason you might have, why should you not be allowed to do that?
Would the Catholics like it if the government told them they couldn t take the Eucharist anymore? The government has no purpose in telling religious groups they can t smoke weed. They have no business telling anyone they can t smoke weed, let alone the people that do it as a part of their religion. If I think smoking weed is morally okay, and I don t endanger non-consenting others while I m high, or getting high, why shouldn t I be allowed to do that? Or how about the second amendment, the right to bear arms, they re working to take that one away now too.
If the government makes guns illegal, they only take them away from the people who are law-abiding citizens; the criminals can still get guns, but nobody else will have one to defend themselves. If I feel that it is necessary for my protection and the protection of my family to have a gun, or if I only shoot it for fun, what right does the government have to tell me I can t have one. As long as I m properly trained and educated on the use of firearms I should be allowed to have them. But if I am trained, the penalties should be doubled, even tripled, for the illegal use of a gun.
The second amendment is not outdated, it s just under-regulated, and people are not punished enough for the illegal use of hand-guns. In fact, a person selling marijuana gets a minimum life sentence, without parole, unless they work out a deal with the police. A murderer can get just as long, even longer, but, they can get out on parole, and they do, sometimes after two or three years in prison. They re going about things the completely wrong way. We should make the penalties for real crimes higher to the point where people will be scared of committing them.
What about the fourteenth amendment? “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, shall not be denied equal protection of the law”. Don’t tell me that Affirmative Action hasn’t stepped all over that. The privileges of the majority are being limited because the minorities want special privileges. I have no problem with a law against racism or sexism, I think we need one, but when it starts infringing on the rights of others, that’s when it’s going to far.
First of all, I believe that if I am better qualified for a job, then say, somebody of African American descent, then I should get the job, but we all know that’s not how it is. Second of all, I believe it should be left up to the business owner as to who he should employ. If the employer could prove, in court, that a white applicant is better qualified for the job than a Mexican-American applicant, than the white applicant should be hired, and the other way around. Affirmative Action had its purpose, but it has outlived it by now.
I think the government forgot that we can repeal laws as well as pass them. My point is that the government has no business telling us what we can or can t do as long as we are not harming anyone who does not consent. Quoted by George Washington, The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. Well, it s not supposed to be, but it sure looks like it is. Compare the Ten Commandments with the American justice system, and you ll notice they re amazingly similar. It s not the government s place to judge sin; we should leave that up to God.
If we do not eliminate consensual crimes, that allows the masses to decide what is right and wrong for the whole of society. It is not up to one man to judge what is right or wrong for another, and that is what we re doing right now. Eliminating consensual crimes altogether would give us two hundred billion dollars a year to spend on anything we want. We could quadruple the amount of money spent on education, we could pay off the national debt in twenty years, in fact, we could even send each man, woman and child in the U. S. a check for eight hundred dollars every year.
I, myself, support using the money for educational purposes. Then we could teach people about what they do, before they are at the age of consent, which, of coarse, would be eighteen. Before people reach that age, I think they don t have enough education or experience to make a decision that will effect the rest of their lives. However, when you do turn eighteen, I think people should have complete freedom to do what they want as long as it doesn t infringe on the rights of others, instead of the regulated freedoms we have now.
Eliminating consensual crimes could also relieve some of the tensions between families by allowing people to relax in whatever way they feel is the best for them, thus lowering the amount of household violence throughout the country. From what I have learned in school, and from what my teachers have told me, the American legal system was developed to protect the minority from the majority, but, from what I see that s not happening.
If anything, it s the other way around; the government is trying to protect the majority from the minorities like they re going to infect society. It s ridiculous. People are not free to exercise their right to practice their moral beliefs. And that infringes on their right to practice religion as well. The United States is currently ranked thirteenth on the United Nations Human Freedom Index. The way I have been taught, I always thought that we were number one, but I guess not.