So I can come to your house every day and break in and steal you shit?

And if YOU shoot me then you will go to jail for violence.

Killing somebody for stealing your iPhone isn't morally enlightened. Parole can handle thieves. If they are lunatic repeat offenders you can put a tracker on them.

Breaking something is violence

What about insurance fraud or anything financial? They must be kept out of circulation or they'll just keep ripping people off.

Banning them from upstanding professions will hurt them worse. From investment banker to city dog catcher, they'll find the error of their ways or resist and slit their wrists.

This doesn't make sense at all. You don't want to imprison someone for a non violent offense but you're okay with destroying any chance of earning a living they may have or them even committing suicide? In that case why aren't you advocating for a state sponsored execution?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXZhYJcXh2I

I agree with the premise - commit financial fraud, using your position to achieve it? Banned from the profession. Kind of like losing your ability to practice law if you perjure yourself.

I disagree. There are plenty of non-violent crimes that can ruin other people's lives. I think what you mean is "victimless" crimes. Crimes like doing a certain illegal drug. These are crimes that lack a victim other than the self. I think if you commit a criminal act and the only victim is yourself, then you have already paid the punishment.

The three major violent crimes are murder, rape, and kidnapping/enslavement/imprisonment. I want us to get out of the third crime. Yes it has drawbacks, just like freedom of speech leads to hate speech being legal, it is still better to have freedom of speech. It would be better to prevent prison for non-violent offenses. It won't be perfect, just better.

Turns out imprisoning people for being drug addicts eats away at society. Just like how alcohol prohibition created the mafia, drug prohibition created the cartels. Every finger points towards the fact that making a substance illegal is a crime in itself, because that action creates more victims than drugs do on their own. It's like saying people bad so we have to regulate them. Well, turns out the only people that benefits in the end is TPTB

We already have this right, we lost it during the progressive era. The war on drugs is just the modern manifestation of those prohibition laws passed back then. No one alive today remembers a time before drug prohibition. Drug prohibition today survives off of a few factors: the ignorance of the public around the different between addiction/substance abuse due to propaganda campaigns run throughout the 20th century, the MIC uses black market operations to fund clandestine operations, big money from corporations who's livelihood depends on the continuation of war the on drugs.

So we should just let auto thieves and home burglars back out on the streets?

Bank robbers?

Tax evaders?

Identity thieves?

You put someone in jail they come out more unsatisfied with life then they already were. I wouldn't know from experience it's just a thought.

I think this idea is bullshit. People who bribe government officials, government officials who accept bribes, corporate raiders who take over a company just to eliminate jobs, people who crash the economy, people who buy and bury patents that would help the world etc, etc all need worse than rehabilitation.

Basically, anyone who is an enemy of the working class either needs death or life in a work camp.

If any of the criminals you described ever went to jail I'd agree with you. Since they don't now and likely never will, let's at least let the regular people out of their cages.

Clearly not wording for an amendment, but "no victim, no crime" is used regularly in minarchist and anarchist circles. In this case, particularly in anarcho-capitalist thought, the definition of "victim" is extended to include private property.

Of course they extend victim to private property. They care about lowering taxes more than ending war and prison. It is a crude facade of morality.

I think dealing methamphetamines is a violent crime.

Housewives were prescribed meth in the 50's to address depression. Don't blame the drug. The wretched of society are ugly to look at, but it isn't meth that did it.