Perfect example of a mindset with no idea of the difference between a law based property (our system involving crime) or one of "we just don't like it." So ****ing typical.
...except that you apparently didn't read the part where I pointed out that the basis of our law is in human rights, balance of powers etc. Not property.
This also has nothing to do with what I do or do not like. E.g. I disagree with prohibitionist policies in regards to certain drugs, but that does not change either the power of the federal government to regulate those drugs, and it certainly does not change the fundamental structure of American jurisprudence.
Example: murder has a victim, as does theft which also involves damage or theft of property. Has little to do with the moral implications.
That is complete nonsense.
There should be no question that we view murder as immoral, and has nothing to do with property rights. Murder is not wrong because we are depriving the victim of the property of their body, but because we view it as wrong to destroy human life.
Or, to put it in your terms: Simply saying "there is a victim" does not in any way suggest that morality is not involved. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Laws like prostitution have no victim and no property damage etc. This is a law based on nothing but moral principal and should not be illegal. The same goes for an stupid sugar tax. Now do you get it? Or do I need to explain basic principles of property, morals and law again?
I don't see much indication that you understand those principles, so maybe you should pass on that.
Let's consider another example -- trespassing. Joe finds a house where the owner did not lock the doors, and enters. He doesn't have the owner's permission, but enters anyway. He snoops around, examines the contents of the home, dances around naked, but does no actual damage. He neither intends to nor actually removes any property from the premises. Has he violated the owner's property rights? Yes. Has he done any
damage to the property? No. Has he acted immorally? I think most people would say yes, but that's not the exclusive -- or, I would argue, primary -- reason to have laws against trespassing. The primary reason is to protect the integrity of ownership, and uphold the kind of boundaries we associate with property rights.
What about traffic laws? Those have nothing to do with property rights, as they control access to public infrastructure (roads, streets, highways etc). Their purpose is to organize the flow of traffic, in order to minimize injuries. The moral concerns are the same as with murder -- valuing human life, maintaining social order, and so on.
What about civil rights laws? There should be no question those laws are legitimate under US law, as they have survived challenge after challenge. Yet clearly they are not based in property rights, but in the requirement that all citizens be treated equally under the law, that the owner of a business cannot decide who is and who is not a member of the public, and protecting oppressed groups from harm. It comes out of a fundamental legal principle (all citizens should be treated with the same respect)
and protecting victims of discrimination
and the moral values which push us to value these rights and protections.
As to a sugar tax, that is grounded in the same principle as laws against murder. It holds that the state has a legitimate interest in the health and welfare of citizens, and on that basis is empowered to influence behaviors, within certain parameters.
What about food safety laws? Environmental regulations? Labor laws? Power regulations? The list goes on.
And again: If citizens don't want the government to regulate their behavior, they can tell their elected representatives to repeal those laws, or actually prove in a court that a law infringes on a critical right. We've done that in a variety of situations, including anti-sodomy laws,
I can say the same for you as far as repeating nonsense. As for "Kant" don't know who he is nor do I care. I will go with Locke’s assertion that “every man has a Property in his own Person.” Much simpler and straight to the point.
Yeah, that's not a good way to boost your case.
Immanuel Kant is one of, if not the, most influential philosophers in Western history. His writings on contractualism are critical to an understanding of modern ethics. He's a profound influence on more recent political thinkers like John Rawls.
As to Locke, all you're doing is making an appeal to authority -- because merely saying "Locke said it!" does not in any way respond to the points I raised. Nor is it clear whether you understand the context in which Locke was writing.
