All your examples are seem to have the same core of libertarianism that naively misses the good reasons why we do that.
All crimes must have an injured party
Crimes can have victims that are potential, diluted, or too willing to be victims. Do you want to remove all bans on drunk driving or texting while driving, because that harms nobody (until someone is killed)? Nobody thinks they'll make the mistake. Is it okay to spew pollution into the air and water, such that any injured party can barely even be aware if they were injured? If the class of victim includes "everybody on the continent" how is that any different from And should jews be allowed to molest children as long as they convince them that it feels good so it's okay? If not, how is that different from drugs, where a victim is harmed but you think it shouldn't be a crime because it feels good and they are willing? (And before you say that kids can't consent, tbh, underage kids are probably more able to make intelligent decisions on sex than an addict is able to make on the topic of if they should do more meth.)
You must have actually committed the crime
Failed attempts have to count, or people will be able to attempt doing illegal things until they succeed. Should trying and failing to assassinate someone not be a crime? As long as you don't hit a bystander, you get as many tries until you succeed, since shooting a gun and hitting nothing isn't a crime. What about trying to hire a hitman to kill your spouse? Anytime where a cop catches you, no crime happened so you have to go free. What about scams where 99.9% of your targets don't get scammed, so the only crime you can be charged for is when you succeed, even if you have to call 10,000,000 houses (which is totally legal, since no harm in calling).
You must have mens rea.
If you allow ignorance to be a defense, then people will be incentivized to be ignorant. Is it okay for me to fumigate with lethal chemicals, if I just don't check who is in the building first or I use the wrong chemicals? I didn't know, so it wasn't a crime. What if I start a campfire and don't know how to smother it properly, causing a wildfire that destroys billions in land and kills thousands? It's okay because I'm so retarded, I guess. If I buy a dangerous dog that mauls a todler, is it okay because I saw worldstar videos that say this breed of dog is the best?
These tools in law are needed. It's bad that they've been perverted to bad ends, but the only solution is to replace the corrupt judeocracy with actual good stewards and enforcement of the law.
All your objections are fixed by parenting. If your parents are idiots, it shouldn't be on the rest of society to take a hit to their freedom for your dumb bloodline. This is exactly how we got here. As a corollary, no kids for dumb ass people. You should show the ability to raise children before you have kids.
First time failed attempts should not count. The point behind the laws should be to prevent any such attempts at all. Prevention beats cure. Second attempts with intent, can be considered for some form of punishment, but unless there is an actual crime, even 10,000,000 attempts should result in nothing. Maybe a prize if it's one person with that kind of volume.
Goes back to '2' and '1'. The government is a blunt instrument. Individuals with a personal stake should be tasked with utilizing fine instruments.
All your examples are seem to have the same core of libertarianism that naively misses the good reasons why we do that.
Crimes can have victims that are potential, diluted, or too willing to be victims. Do you want to remove all bans on drunk driving or texting while driving, because that harms nobody (until someone is killed)? Nobody thinks they'll make the mistake. Is it okay to spew pollution into the air and water, such that any injured party can barely even be aware if they were injured? If the class of victim includes "everybody on the continent" how is that any different from And should jews be allowed to molest children as long as they convince them that it feels good so it's okay? If not, how is that different from drugs, where a victim is harmed but you think it shouldn't be a crime because it feels good and they are willing? (And before you say that kids can't consent, tbh, underage kids are probably more able to make intelligent decisions on sex than an addict is able to make on the topic of if they should do more meth.)
Failed attempts have to count, or people will be able to attempt doing illegal things until they succeed. Should trying and failing to assassinate someone not be a crime? As long as you don't hit a bystander, you get as many tries until you succeed, since shooting a gun and hitting nothing isn't a crime. What about trying to hire a hitman to kill your spouse? Anytime where a cop catches you, no crime happened so you have to go free. What about scams where 99.9% of your targets don't get scammed, so the only crime you can be charged for is when you succeed, even if you have to call 10,000,000 houses (which is totally legal, since no harm in calling).
If you allow ignorance to be a defense, then people will be incentivized to be ignorant. Is it okay for me to fumigate with lethal chemicals, if I just don't check who is in the building first or I use the wrong chemicals? I didn't know, so it wasn't a crime. What if I start a campfire and don't know how to smother it properly, causing a wildfire that destroys billions in land and kills thousands? It's okay because I'm so retarded, I guess. If I buy a dangerous dog that mauls a todler, is it okay because I saw worldstar videos that say this breed of dog is the best?
These tools in law are needed. It's bad that they've been perverted to bad ends, but the only solution is to replace the corrupt judeocracy with actual good stewards and enforcement of the law.
All your objections are fixed by parenting. If your parents are idiots, it shouldn't be on the rest of society to take a hit to their freedom for your dumb bloodline. This is exactly how we got here. As a corollary, no kids for dumb ass people. You should show the ability to raise children before you have kids.
First time failed attempts should not count. The point behind the laws should be to prevent any such attempts at all. Prevention beats cure. Second attempts with intent, can be considered for some form of punishment, but unless there is an actual crime, even 10,000,000 attempts should result in nothing. Maybe a prize if it's one person with that kind of volume.
Goes back to '2' and '1'. The government is a blunt instrument. Individuals with a personal stake should be tasked with utilizing fine instruments.