Using current laws as a gauge, consider the number of murderers per one million people to the number of recreational drug users (excluding caffeine and alcohol) per million people. If coercive laws are a greater deterrent than each person's moral compass the number of people being coerced by law not to commit murder would be the same or near the same as the number of people coerced by law not to use recreational drugs.
The numbers aren't even close. Five percent of the population use recreational drugs whereas less then one-hundredth of one percent of the population have committed murder.
It's a person's moral compass or conscience -- not coercive laws -- that deters them from committing murder.
Each person's moral compass points north. North being the right to their own life and by extension, right to their own property. That's why by comparison there is a much smaller ratio of violent crimes and fraud than crimes of vice.
In other words, murder, rape, assault, theft and fraud are infrequent whereas gambling, prostitution and recreational drug use are abundant. It's a person's north-pointing moral compass that they respect other people's right to life and property.
A person's first priority is to have self-responsibility.
Each act by a person has risk and consequences. Sometimes the consequence is an immediate benefit gained. Other times a person's act creates a problem or was in error. When that happens the benefits to be gained come from correcting the problem or error.
When an individual is not willing to accept responsibility for his or her own actions they have denied themselves from gaining the benefits of their actions. That includes acts of self-defense.
The greatest right is the right to life. The second greatest right is the right to self-defense. With that there's a prerequisite of self-defense from what? What does a person need to defend themselves against? The obvious are violent crimes such as murder, rape, assault and robbery. What's perhaps the best self-defensive that the most people could afford? A hand gun and training in how to use it for self-defense.
To the violent criminal that has a broken moral compass the gun-toting, north-pointing moral-compass citizen becomes the greatest deterrent to the criminal.
Studies have shown that violent criminals in prison said that when they were on the outside they far more feared being confronted by a citizen with a gun than a law enforcement officer with a gun. Again pointing to the moral compass as being a far greater deterrent to crime than coercive laws.
The violent criminal fears for his life when confronted by a north-pointing moral-compass citizen with a gun. ...Yet by comparison feels safe when confronted by law enforcement officers that enforces the laws.
What about self-defense against fraud? What tools are available to defend against fraud? There's investigators, public and private, arbitration services, criminal and civil courts and written contracts.
When a person thinks they've been harmed by another person they can file criminal charges and or file a civil lawsuit claim against the suspect.
There is no need for laws that prohibit acts between consenting adults because if a third person is harmed by the actions of the either or both the consenting adults they can file a civil lawsuit to gain restitution. If one or both consenting adults assault a third person or commits fraud against a third person the third person/victim can file criminal charges. It's the same for a lone individual that acts without engaging any other person or another person's property.
In criminal and civil court trials impartial juries can decide if the charges are valid or if an acquittal is called for. The lack of impartial juries has been the lynch pin to deteriorate moral compasses while creating the illusion of separation of powers that it subverts.
Poppycock. There are fewer violent crimes because they are harder to conceal. Corpses are far more conspicious than bad checks.
To the violent criminal that has a broken moral compass the gun-toting, north-pointing moral-compass citizen becomes the greatest deterrent to the criminal. Studies have shown that violent criminals in prison said that when they were on the outside they far more feared being confronted by a citizen with a gun than a law enforcement officer with a gun. Again pointing to the moral compass as being a far greater deterrent to crime than coercive laws.
Apparently this "moral compass" is mounted in transparent plexiglass in people's foreheads. How else do criminals know if they are being held at gunpoint by a holy man or a mad man.
On the several occasions I've been held at gunpoint, the moral philosophy of the antagonist was THE LAST DAMN THING ON MY MIND.
The violent criminal fears for his life when confronted by a north-pointing moral-compass citizen with a gun. ...Yet by comparison feels safe when confronted by law enforcement officers that enforces the laws.
What color is the sky in your world? Have you ever met the LAPD or the New Orleans police or a Russian militia? Criminals don't feel safe when confronted by these folks.