Should victimless crimes be free from governmental interference?

Answer 1

Yes, victimless crimes should be free from governmental interference. The answer flows naturally from the answer to the question: "What is the proper role of government?" In the United States, the original role of government was to protect the individual liberty and freedom of the individual. In a victimless crime, no individual is impeding the liberty and freedom of another individual. Thus, the government should have no liberty/freedom interest to protect and should be indifferent to the "crime." Unfortunately, the government has transformed into an opposite role--that of mandating that the individual behave in accordance with the way that government thinks the individual ought to behave. Therefore, enforcement of laws against victimless crimes is a rejection of individual liberty and freedom and an acceptance of fascism/totalitarianism. In a "victimless crime," the government believes the individual has violated the government's ideal behavior. Indeed, when the government punishes an individual for committing a victimless crime, the only true victim is the individual, who has been punished.

Answer 2

Technically - yes. When a law is broken but there is no real identifiable victim such as drug use, public nudity or drunkeness -something like that. I guess that means you only victimized yourself.