This question is hard to answer if you see laws as justice system or anything.

Imagine if someone is a dictator. Say dictators criminalize opposition. Why? There is no way to see this as justice or moral in anyway. The dictator is simply maximizing his interests.

However, selfish interests alone do not seem to explain criminalization of victim less crime.

Imagine if you have the power to choose 2 outcome that mainly affect others.

In outcome A, Bob got $1 million. In outcome B, Bob got nothing.

Which one will you choose?

If you're Bob, the choice is obvious. Pick. A. What about if you are enemies of Bob or not related to Bob?

You are far more likely to pick B.

Why?

    Envy. Relative happiness is what people seek. Not absolute happiness. So, if something helps others far more than you, you would reject. This alone explains all prohibition of porn and prostitution in all the world. Porn and prostitution simply benefit beautiful women far more from the ugly. That alone gives enough incentive for most ugly women to oppose prostitution.
    Capability to bargain. Why should I pick outcome A for free? Shouldn't I negotiate with Bob and ask for $500k first? Why should Microsoft allow people to copy their product for free? Shouldn't they ask for money first?

In general, when all else are the same, people tend to pick the worse for others.

Now let's consider things that are prohibited.

Drugs, prostitution, income.

All those have something in common. They have high economic value.

Under libertarianism, there is only one legitimate way to gain control of something economically valuable. Namely producing it or buying it. However, that's not the case in politic. People are simply able to control others. It's how democracy works.

In other words, the real reason why victimless crime is prohibited is not because it's so bad that many feel the need to protect those from harming themselves.

To the opposite. Most victimless crime is prohibited because it's too good. That under free market acts that are prohibited by victimless crime are acts that will dominate market mechanism replacing government acts.

I will give you an example. Say you hire illegal immigrants or smuggle foreign cars. Who is the victim? Not the illegal immigrant. Not you. We have no trouble pointing the victim. The victim is your fellow citizens that lost their jobs because you don't need them. You have better offers. And they criminalize that so you are more useful to them instead.

The same way, prostitution is far more efficient than marriage. Many sugar babies can get richer guys if women are free to write contracts. Is it good for those young women to pick richer guys? Well, if they can choose they choose.

Most drugs are saver and beneficial for the users. LSD helps people get nobel prizes. XTC can help cure depression. DMT can make people see the gods. Okay, may be not. But shouldn't be worse than delusional religions most people believe in. ISIS warriors fight better under meth. LSD also help programmers write better codes. It's good. It's too good. And that's why it's illegal.

merkelstan wrote on Apr 10^th, 2017 at 12:09pm:

I'm convinced I am a "victim" of my skin color. I'm more or less "white", which makes me a de facto privileged oppressor of everyone else, so everyone else is supposed to automatically hate me for being a privileged oppressor... And many of them do, which makes me more paranoid than I already naturally am, so I buy guns and hunker down, thinking I might have to shoot people who come to kill me...

This obviously destroys my quality of life...

I'm obviously victimized by being white, and I want compensation!

Smuggling takes money out of the tax coffers, so the government has an interest in chasing down smugglers.  Many victimless crimes are just a way to raise revenue.  Speeding tickets, asset forfeiture, etc.

Lots of folks think drugs victimize the user.  Some folks just don't like others having a good time.  None of those folks will admit that enforcing prohibition laws victimizes far more people than the substances and acts that have been prohibited. 

ahhell wrote on Apr 11^th, 2017 at 11:41am:

Yes. Prosecuting victimless crimes steals incredible amounts of wealth from innocent people, and frequently ruins their lives too.

I think it's the idea of America described by the "general Welfare" clause...

Jeff wrote on Apr 11^th, 2017 at 5:01pm:


Maybe for the right price ;^) You got a problem w/ that, Libertarian ?

Maybe Bob's a good customer of mine - and spends more.  Maybe Bob is a decent guy and drops a few extra nickels into the local parks or HS or charity. Maybe he can fund his retirement instead of living on the dole I pay for.  Maybe he hires my deadbeat cousin.

Main point - it doesn't hurt me, so unless Bob is some anti-social psychopath, why shouldn't I wish him well ?

--

Corollary - I'm genuinely glad that places like China and India have pulled so many out of dire poverty (into more tolerable poverty).  I hope/wish that economic miracle could be replicated in Africa.  It doesn't bother me at all that Sweden's per capita GDP is a notch above the U S average (similar to Minnesota, somewhere between Nebraska & Washington.  How does their success harm me ?  Instead it creates new opportunities for everyone to succeed.