Last Thursday, the Indiana House approved a bill in response to the Indiana Supreme Court ruling against protecting one’s home from unlawfully police entry. It states when the people are legally able to defend themselves against law enforcement.
It stated that if an officer is acting unlawfully, then one has the right to defend oneself; but, if one is committing a crime, they don’t have the right to self protection.
Who gets to define crime? The ‘state’ likes to define almost anything a crime from murder to using the real value of Pi ( and yes, that was Indiana ). In the real world, however, crimes have victims. Crimes have at least one person that suffers as a result of another’s bad intentioned actions. One can have crimes against people, and even against the public good, such as pollution; but, one can’t commit a crime against the ‘state’. The ‘state’ is only a concept held in the minds of people. It can’t sustain injury in the same way that the ideas of truth and justice can’t be made victims.
If a twenty year old is drinking, where is the crime? If he starts his 21st birthday party a little early, then he starts by breaking the law, and at the magical moment, he is legally drinking? He is old enough to vote, and to murder in the ‘name of the state’; but it is a crime to consume alcohol? If his house was invaded by law enforcement, he’d have every right to protect himself. Is there any real difference between this and if he was smoking a joint?
If a farmer chooses to sell raw milk to people who choose to drink it, where is the victim? If people made the healthy choice to consume raw milk, the state loses its role in future health care, not to mention tax monies.
If one is speeding or driving without a seatbelt, where is the crime? Two or more vehicles pulled to the side of a busy highway is more of a hazard than driving five or ten over the limit, and absolutely more dangerous than being arrested for a seatbelt violation. In this case, it is the officer who is jeopardizing the lives of people by creating a potential road hazard in the name of a victimless crime.
If a sixteen year old is dating someone a year older, and they have a great relationship that involves sex, it is legal. However, at the magical moment that one of them turns eighteen, the older becomes a sexual criminal to be blacklisted for life. Where is the crime here? The only crime is that the state decides who can love who when there is only responsible and mutual consent.
If the state didn’t legislate nearly every aspect of our daily lives into criminal behavior, there would be much less crime. The victimless eighty-six percent of the federal prison population would be productive to society instead of living off of the stolen goods received by the state. The state can’t control a land full of innocent people, so they create criminals through law; and with this shell game, it gains more and more wealth and power.