What do you think?
Rate this book
Los vicios no son crímenes
Este texto probablemente sea uno de los ensayos políticos más importantes de cara a comprender la vastedad del movimiento libertario de los Estados Unidos. Ya polémico en su tiempo, Los vicios no son crímenes es una de las obras capitales de Lysander Spooner (1808-1887), jurista y pensador, acérrimo enemigo del sistema esclavista y férreamente opuesto a toda clase de injerencia gubernamental.
Imbuido de un espíritu humanista innegable, el ensayo Los vicios no son crímenes supone una defensa ciertamente razonada de la soberanía individual. En ese sentido, el texto plantea la necesidad de articular un modelo de sociedad donde, por un lado, se respete la libertad inalienable de cada persona y, por otro, se persiga sin denuedo cualquier conducta criminal que, por tanto, atente contra la vida, el bienestar o la seguridad de un tercero.
Imbuido de un espíritu humanista innegable, el ensayo Los vicios no son crímenes supone una defensa ciertamente razonada de la soberanía individual. En ese sentido, el texto plantea la necesidad de articular un modelo de sociedad donde, por un lado, se respete la libertad inalienable de cada persona y, por otro, se persiga sin denuedo cualquier conducta criminal que, por tanto, atente contra la vida, el bienestar o la seguridad de un tercero.
66 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1875
23 people are currently reading
441 people want to read
About the author
Lysander Spooner
137 books167 followersLysander Spooner was an American individualist anarchist, entrepreneur, political philosopher, abolitionist, supporter of the labor movement, and legal theorist of the nineteenth century. He is also known for competing with the U.S. Post Office with his American Letter Mail Company, which was forced out of business by the United States government. He has been identified by some contemporary writers as an anarcho-capitalist,while at least one writer is convinced that his advocacy of self-employment over working for an employer for wages qualifies him as an anti-capitalist or a socialist, notwithstanding his support for private ownership of the means of production and a free-market economy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
January 22, 2015
It's too bad Daniel Kahneman didn't read this before publishing the last chapter in Thinking, Fast and Slow. He rather foolishly declared libertarians are against government nudging us because libertarians believe people don't make mistakes.
Um, no. We are all too well aware of the imperfection of human knowledge. We're against other, equally fallible people forcing us to make mistakes of their choosing.
This was a good little read, especially for someone unfamiliar with what libertarians actually believe rather than the rather ridiculous media portrayal. Easily applicable to a number of social issues today (taxation, gay marriage, pot legalization, suicide, mandatory insurance purchases, etc.). Spooner wrote well and keeps the reader's attention.
Um, no. We are all too well aware of the imperfection of human knowledge. We're against other, equally fallible people forcing us to make mistakes of their choosing.
This was a good little read, especially for someone unfamiliar with what libertarians actually believe rather than the rather ridiculous media portrayal. Easily applicable to a number of social issues today (taxation, gay marriage, pot legalization, suicide, mandatory insurance purchases, etc.). Spooner wrote well and keeps the reader's attention.
December 9, 2013
Interesting Quotes:
"A government that shall punish all vices impartially is so obviously an impossibility, that nobody was ever found, or ever will be found, foolish enough to propose it. The most that any one proposes is, that government shall punish...at most a few of what he esteems the grossest of them. But this discrimination an utterly absurd, illogical, and tyrannical one. What right has any body of men to say, 'The vices of other men we will punish; but our own vices nobody shall punish?'...
"Nobody but knaves or blockheads ever thinks of making such absurd assumptions as these. And yet, evidently, it is only upon such assumptions that anybody can claim the right to punish the vices of others, and at the same time claim exemption from punishment for his own."
-Lysander Spooner, Vices Are Not Crimes
This reminded me of Matthew 7: 3-4;
"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye?"
"A government that shall punish all vices impartially is so obviously an impossibility, that nobody was ever found, or ever will be found, foolish enough to propose it. The most that any one proposes is, that government shall punish...at most a few of what he esteems the grossest of them. But this discrimination an utterly absurd, illogical, and tyrannical one. What right has any body of men to say, 'The vices of other men we will punish; but our own vices nobody shall punish?'...
"Nobody but knaves or blockheads ever thinks of making such absurd assumptions as these. And yet, evidently, it is only upon such assumptions that anybody can claim the right to punish the vices of others, and at the same time claim exemption from punishment for his own."
-Lysander Spooner, Vices Are Not Crimes
This reminded me of Matthew 7: 3-4;
"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye?"
April 26, 2015
Pequeno livro, publicado em 1875, em que o autor se opõe à crescente intervenção do governo americano sobre as liberdades individuais, como no consumo de álcool, na prática de lutas (como o boxe), no jogo e na prostituição.
Spooner defende de maneira inflexível que vícios, estando seus efeitos circunscritos ao próprio indivíduo, não configuram crimes, que por sua vez são atos que implicam danos a outros.
Alguns leitores terão a impressão de que o autor por vezes exagera nas simplificações ou faz uso de algumas falácias lógicas mas a linha geral do texto convence e impressiona pela sua modernidade.
Spooner defende de maneira inflexível que vícios, estando seus efeitos circunscritos ao próprio indivíduo, não configuram crimes, que por sua vez são atos que implicam danos a outros.
Alguns leitores terão a impressão de que o autor por vezes exagera nas simplificações ou faz uso de algumas falácias lógicas mas a linha geral do texto convence e impressiona pela sua modernidade.
September 28, 2020
You can (and should!) read this public domain pamphlet in its entirety at http://lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNo...
May 7, 2022
Lo recomiendo. aunque:
Algunas de sus ideas son un tanto extremistas, pero las trata de cerrar llegando a conclusiones un poco mas eclécticas. Sugiero ir haciendo detenimientos cada tanto, pensar sobre lo que el autor nos dice e ir buscando nuestra opinión al respecto. Que sea extremo en algunos puntos no los torna inútiles, sino que, por ser extremos, nos muestra de alguna manera, el sendero por el cual podríamos correr de eje la mirada actual que se tiene sobre estos temas (que son tenidos como tabúes a veces en la sociedad o en el ámbito familiar) y darle una solución mas practica que la que tenemos actualmente que consiste solamente en prohibir más que en prevenir.
Por otra parte, creo que si bien es cierto que hay que diferenciar claramente entre lo que es un vicio y lo que es un delito, no hay que dejar de lado que las consecuencias en las que devienen los primeros pueden ser muy nocivas, no solo para la persona que recurre a los mismos, sino especialmente para los familiares del vicioso. Por ende, por mas que él intente fundamentar que esta en el libre albedrío de la persona recurrir a los vicios o no, y que por lo tanto, no es deber de nadie prohibirle viciarse si el quiere hacerlo, debería de buscarse un punto medio. Esto es, no que el vicioso haga lo que se le plazca y luego intentar reparar recién cuando se encuentre con problemas de salud, sino, encarar estas cuestiones desde un plano preventivo más que reparatorio.
ALERTA DE SPOILER SOBRE LA PARTE FINAL DEL LIBRO
Por ultimo, termina cerrando haciendo una "deducción lógica" entre el consumo de alcohol con la pobreza. Dice que es falso el prejuicio de que el consumo de alcohol lleva a la pobreza. Que en realidad, la pobreza lleva al consumo de alcohol como un medio de escape que tenia la sociedad inglesa de aquel momento. Punto sobre el cual no discrepo pero tampoco adhiero por desconocer el contexto histórico social en el cual escribe el autor y por no tener un conocimiento científico acerca de cuales son las razones por las cuales la gente consume alcohol.
Si bien toma en cuenta solo al factor alcohol y pobreza en la ultima parte (y como dijimos, esto esta escrito en un contexto histórico social en el cual probablemente no habían otros tipos de drogas o las causas por las cuales la gente recurría a las mismas eran menos diversas), estaría bueno hacer un estudio en la actualidad, agregando otros factores que puedan servir para ampliar el estudio de estas cuestiones bajo las mismas premisas de las cuales parte el autor, para así poder arribar a conclusiones útiles, pero con una visión mas moderada a la actualidad
Algunas de sus ideas son un tanto extremistas, pero las trata de cerrar llegando a conclusiones un poco mas eclécticas. Sugiero ir haciendo detenimientos cada tanto, pensar sobre lo que el autor nos dice e ir buscando nuestra opinión al respecto. Que sea extremo en algunos puntos no los torna inútiles, sino que, por ser extremos, nos muestra de alguna manera, el sendero por el cual podríamos correr de eje la mirada actual que se tiene sobre estos temas (que son tenidos como tabúes a veces en la sociedad o en el ámbito familiar) y darle una solución mas practica que la que tenemos actualmente que consiste solamente en prohibir más que en prevenir.
Por otra parte, creo que si bien es cierto que hay que diferenciar claramente entre lo que es un vicio y lo que es un delito, no hay que dejar de lado que las consecuencias en las que devienen los primeros pueden ser muy nocivas, no solo para la persona que recurre a los mismos, sino especialmente para los familiares del vicioso. Por ende, por mas que él intente fundamentar que esta en el libre albedrío de la persona recurrir a los vicios o no, y que por lo tanto, no es deber de nadie prohibirle viciarse si el quiere hacerlo, debería de buscarse un punto medio. Esto es, no que el vicioso haga lo que se le plazca y luego intentar reparar recién cuando se encuentre con problemas de salud, sino, encarar estas cuestiones desde un plano preventivo más que reparatorio.
ALERTA DE SPOILER SOBRE LA PARTE FINAL DEL LIBRO
Por ultimo, termina cerrando haciendo una "deducción lógica" entre el consumo de alcohol con la pobreza. Dice que es falso el prejuicio de que el consumo de alcohol lleva a la pobreza. Que en realidad, la pobreza lleva al consumo de alcohol como un medio de escape que tenia la sociedad inglesa de aquel momento. Punto sobre el cual no discrepo pero tampoco adhiero por desconocer el contexto histórico social en el cual escribe el autor y por no tener un conocimiento científico acerca de cuales son las razones por las cuales la gente consume alcohol.
Si bien toma en cuenta solo al factor alcohol y pobreza en la ultima parte (y como dijimos, esto esta escrito en un contexto histórico social en el cual probablemente no habían otros tipos de drogas o las causas por las cuales la gente recurría a las mismas eran menos diversas), estaría bueno hacer un estudio en la actualidad, agregando otros factores que puedan servir para ampliar el estudio de estas cuestiones bajo las mismas premisas de las cuales parte el autor, para así poder arribar a conclusiones útiles, pero con una visión mas moderada a la actualidad
November 2, 2023
Largely assent, but the thesis cannot wholly be sustained in a modern context. In 19th century America this could've worked out. It is at the point now where those who hold the position that vice should not be criminalized are not saying such a thing. They don't believe only that vices shouldn't be crimes, but that they should be promoted and encouraged. They don't believe them to be vices at all. With the advent and proliferation of social media and the content therein pushing such ideas of engagement with what have been considered vices to very young audiences, it cannot be said that these people are fully in control of themselves. With our knowledge of neurochemistry and addiction, we acknowledge that vices like these aren't something that can be walked away from by using simple judgment or experiencing some harm. So in a banal quest of individual freedom, this view would enslave people to lifelong addictions and misery to the vice itself. This is somehow supposed to be celebrated because their subjugation was personally pursued, yet in reality, they've lost the freedom of choice long ago. The idea that the government cannot make verdicts because they have not acquired the totality of knowledge, yet the individual is to gain the knowledge himself through a trial-and-error approach is ridiculous. How could the individual gain more knowledge in this method than a government which is self-admitted by him to be comprised of many individuals, making their collective knowledge far superior? Not only that, but a government and its laws tend to be cross-generational, meaning it would possess knowledge from across time. The individual process would actually write off all previously known knowledge and experience. He brings about the analogy of fire, but the reason why we don't have to figure out how to MAKE a fire from scratch is because this knowledge and experience has been had and subsequentially passed down. You don't have to poke the bear to know it's bad, you don't have to eat poisonous berries to know it's bad, you don't have to take fentanyl to know of its ill effects. These things have been imparted to us. Spooner remarks that poverty is the cause of alcoholism and not the other way around; this will not be contended. But what happens when that alcoholic is cared for, given money, a job, and shelter? Will he stop drinking? Probably not. In fact, it's more likely he'd use the newfound money for alcohol than anything else. He is already in the purview of addiction. Should prohibition be restarted? Probably not. The important part is about setting a moral standard through law. The things we allow ourselves to decriminalize brings this standard into question. It is noted by Spooner that ten-year-old girls are capable of consenting to sexual acts per the statute book of Massachusetts. This is not something he disagrees with; rather, the opportunity is used in a footnote to point out the hypocrisy that the same ten-year-old cannot purchase alcohol. The "freedom" of the child to make his or her own choices, even over the parents, is strongly defended. The consequences of this, and the things that would be decriminalized from this sentiment, are not things that can be supported. Very typical, almost stereotypical, of a Libertarian.
November 23, 2025
Bireyci anarşist ve aktivist Spooner'ın özgürlük tutkusundan şüphe etmiyorum, çünkü ABD'de köleliğin sona ermesinin en önemli savunucularından biriydi. 1875 gibi erken bir tarihte kaleme aldığı bu kısa ama güçlü metinde çok katıldığım ve hiç katılmadığım birçok nokta var.
Spooner'a göre erdem bizi mutluluğa ulaştıran seçimlerimiz ve davranışlarımızdan, kusur ise mutsuzluğumuza veya felaketimize yol açan tutumlarımızdan oluşuyor. Temel tezi şu: Kendime ne zarar verirsem vereyim, bir başka insana veya onun mülkiyetine zarar vermediğim sürece, suç işlemiş olmam. Suç hukukun alanındadır, ahlakın değil. Devletin ahlakı olmaz ve kişilerin özel yaşamlarına müdahale edemez. Kişisel rıza suç ile kusuru birbirinden ayırmada esastır. Ebeveynler çocuklarıyla ancak kendi deneyimlerini paylaşabilir, zorbalıkla onları kendi yolunda ilerlemek ve düşe kalka öğrenmekten alıkoyamaz. Bunlara büyük ölçüde katılıyorum. (Günümüzün toplumsal tartışmalarında bu fikirlerin izi sürülebilir, bu yüzden kitaba 4 yıldız verdim.)
Ancak ekonomik meselelere geldiğimizde, yüzdüğü sular bulanıklaşıyor. Mesela yoksulluğu engellemek devletin meselesi değildir diyor ama sivil dayanışmadan, komünal paylaşımdan hiç bahsetmiyor. Herkesin emeğiyle servet elde edebileceği gibi naif bir fikir öne sürüyor, ama emeğin iş insanları tarafından satın alınan bir değer olduğunu, serveti elde edenlerin, başkalarının emeğiyle zenginleştiği gerçeğini görmezden geliyor. Yine de kitabın sonunda yoksulluğun kaynağının ne olduğu bulmak en önemli misyondur; çünkü kusurlar yoksulluğu değil yoksulluk kusurları doğurur diyor. Belli ki bu kitabı yazdığı zaman kafası bir parça karışıktı; yani hepimiz gibi, düşünmeye ve araştırmaya devam ediyordu.
Spooner'ın ideolojik belirsizliği, liberal sağ ve anarşist sola eşit ilham vermesine yol açmış. Anarşistler onun çalışmaktan anladığının kendi işini yapmaktan (self-employement) ibaret olduğunu, hayatının sonuna doğru da, kapitali çoğaltanın emeğin sömürüsü olduğunun farkına vardığını söylemişler. Bu kitabın 1977 tarihli önsözünü yazan Murray Rothbard gibi sağcı liberterler (ki bence bu bir oksimorondur) onun fikirlerinde devletsiz özel sektör ütopyasına (ki bence bu bir distopyadır) geçmişten gelen bir dayanak bulmuş.
Son olarak, kitapta yanlış çevrildiğini fark ettiğim, Spooner'ın en vurucu ifadelerinden birinin düzelttiğim çevirisini şuraya iliştireyim:
“Diğer tüm suçluların yasaları çiğneyerek işledikleri suçların toplamı, yasa koyucuların kendi imalatları olan yasalara dayanarak işledikleri soygunlar ve zulümlerle kıyaslandığında, okyanustaki bir damla su misali kalır.”
NOT: Yayınevleri umarım şu berbat AI kapak resimlerinden vazgeçerler...
Spooner'a göre erdem bizi mutluluğa ulaştıran seçimlerimiz ve davranışlarımızdan, kusur ise mutsuzluğumuza veya felaketimize yol açan tutumlarımızdan oluşuyor. Temel tezi şu: Kendime ne zarar verirsem vereyim, bir başka insana veya onun mülkiyetine zarar vermediğim sürece, suç işlemiş olmam. Suç hukukun alanındadır, ahlakın değil. Devletin ahlakı olmaz ve kişilerin özel yaşamlarına müdahale edemez. Kişisel rıza suç ile kusuru birbirinden ayırmada esastır. Ebeveynler çocuklarıyla ancak kendi deneyimlerini paylaşabilir, zorbalıkla onları kendi yolunda ilerlemek ve düşe kalka öğrenmekten alıkoyamaz. Bunlara büyük ölçüde katılıyorum. (Günümüzün toplumsal tartışmalarında bu fikirlerin izi sürülebilir, bu yüzden kitaba 4 yıldız verdim.)
Ancak ekonomik meselelere geldiğimizde, yüzdüğü sular bulanıklaşıyor. Mesela yoksulluğu engellemek devletin meselesi değildir diyor ama sivil dayanışmadan, komünal paylaşımdan hiç bahsetmiyor. Herkesin emeğiyle servet elde edebileceği gibi naif bir fikir öne sürüyor, ama emeğin iş insanları tarafından satın alınan bir değer olduğunu, serveti elde edenlerin, başkalarının emeğiyle zenginleştiği gerçeğini görmezden geliyor. Yine de kitabın sonunda yoksulluğun kaynağının ne olduğu bulmak en önemli misyondur; çünkü kusurlar yoksulluğu değil yoksulluk kusurları doğurur diyor. Belli ki bu kitabı yazdığı zaman kafası bir parça karışıktı; yani hepimiz gibi, düşünmeye ve araştırmaya devam ediyordu.
Spooner'ın ideolojik belirsizliği, liberal sağ ve anarşist sola eşit ilham vermesine yol açmış. Anarşistler onun çalışmaktan anladığının kendi işini yapmaktan (self-employement) ibaret olduğunu, hayatının sonuna doğru da, kapitali çoğaltanın emeğin sömürüsü olduğunun farkına vardığını söylemişler. Bu kitabın 1977 tarihli önsözünü yazan Murray Rothbard gibi sağcı liberterler (ki bence bu bir oksimorondur) onun fikirlerinde devletsiz özel sektör ütopyasına (ki bence bu bir distopyadır) geçmişten gelen bir dayanak bulmuş.
Son olarak, kitapta yanlış çevrildiğini fark ettiğim, Spooner'ın en vurucu ifadelerinden birinin düzelttiğim çevirisini şuraya iliştireyim:
“Diğer tüm suçluların yasaları çiğneyerek işledikleri suçların toplamı, yasa koyucuların kendi imalatları olan yasalara dayanarak işledikleri soygunlar ve zulümlerle kıyaslandığında, okyanustaki bir damla su misali kalır.”
NOT: Yayınevleri umarım şu berbat AI kapak resimlerinden vazgeçerler...
February 9, 2024
"Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication" is a thought-provoking treatise by Lysander Spooner, a 19th-century American individualist anarchist, abolitionist, and legal theorist. In this concise work, Spooner challenges the conventional wisdom that vices should be treated as crimes by the state. Instead, he argues for individual liberty and the distinction between actions that harm others (crimes) and those that harm only oneself (vices).
At the core of Spooner's argument is the principle of self-ownership, which asserts that individuals have the inherent right to control their own bodies and lives. He contends that as long as an individual's actions do not infringe upon the rights of others, the state has no legitimate authority to intervene. Spooner criticizes laws that criminalize vices such as gambling, drug use, and prostitution, arguing that these laws unjustly restrict personal freedom and perpetuate unnecessary state control.
One of the key themes of the book is the harmful consequences of vice laws, including the erosion of civil liberties, the expansion of government power, and the perpetuation of social injustices. Spooner highlights the hypocrisy of a legal system that punishes victimless behaviors while often ignoring or condoning more harmful actions committed by the state or powerful individuals.
Moreover, Spooner emphasizes the importance of individual responsibility and self-regulation in a free society. He advocates for a legal system based on voluntary cooperation and mutual respect rather than coercion and punishment.
In conclusion, "Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication" is a timeless and persuasive defense of individual liberty and the limits of state authority. Spooner's arguments remain relevant today as society continues to grapple with questions of personal freedom, morality, and the proper role of government. This book serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of protecting individual rights and resisting the encroachment of state power into the private lives of citizens.
At the core of Spooner's argument is the principle of self-ownership, which asserts that individuals have the inherent right to control their own bodies and lives. He contends that as long as an individual's actions do not infringe upon the rights of others, the state has no legitimate authority to intervene. Spooner criticizes laws that criminalize vices such as gambling, drug use, and prostitution, arguing that these laws unjustly restrict personal freedom and perpetuate unnecessary state control.
One of the key themes of the book is the harmful consequences of vice laws, including the erosion of civil liberties, the expansion of government power, and the perpetuation of social injustices. Spooner highlights the hypocrisy of a legal system that punishes victimless behaviors while often ignoring or condoning more harmful actions committed by the state or powerful individuals.
Moreover, Spooner emphasizes the importance of individual responsibility and self-regulation in a free society. He advocates for a legal system based on voluntary cooperation and mutual respect rather than coercion and punishment.
In conclusion, "Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication" is a timeless and persuasive defense of individual liberty and the limits of state authority. Spooner's arguments remain relevant today as society continues to grapple with questions of personal freedom, morality, and the proper role of government. This book serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of protecting individual rights and resisting the encroachment of state power into the private lives of citizens.
July 19, 2019
Una visión liberal de los vicios en la que de paso se analiza a papa estado y su potestad para actuar en las virtudes/vicios de la sociedad.
A veces de acuerdo, a veces no, pero siempre razonado vía premisas y razonamientos en ocasiones complicados de seguir.
Desde la perspectiva europea y en particular española es complicado entender ciertas afirmaciones del autor.
A veces de acuerdo, a veces no, pero siempre razonado vía premisas y razonamientos en ocasiones complicados de seguir.
Desde la perspectiva europea y en particular española es complicado entender ciertas afirmaciones del autor.
May 14, 2021
Excellent Book
“Except those great crimes, which the few, calling themselves governments, practice upon the many, by means of organized, systematic extortion and tyranny. And it is only the poverty, ignorance, and consequent weakness of the many, that enable the combined and organized few to acquire and maintain such arbitrary power over them” - Lysander Spooner, Vices are not Crimes
“Except those great crimes, which the few, calling themselves governments, practice upon the many, by means of organized, systematic extortion and tyranny. And it is only the poverty, ignorance, and consequent weakness of the many, that enable the combined and organized few to acquire and maintain such arbitrary power over them” - Lysander Spooner, Vices are not Crimes
December 8, 2016
Poverty and ignorance lead to oppressive rulers.
"it is only the poverty, ignorance, and consequent weakness of the many, that enable the combined and organized few to acquire and maintain such arbitrary power over them."
I enjoyed this book.
"it is only the poverty, ignorance, and consequent weakness of the many, that enable the combined and organized few to acquire and maintain such arbitrary power over them."
I enjoyed this book.
September 5, 2018
It was alright, but it seemed like he repeated himself about 30 times.
June 11, 2020
A great read indeed
October 5, 2021
Pretty good philosophical dive into why vices are not crimes and neither men nor governments have a right to punish vices
August 23, 2023
And to think that this started off so promisingly too... The core idea that a vice (that harms oneself) mustn't be subjected to punishment like a crime (that harms others) is, at least initially, very well argued. The notion that what ought to turn a crime into a vice is the consent of all affected parties (contrast e.g. a street fight with a boxing match) is also brought up. But his point starts to disintegrate around chapter XVI, where he starts to discriminate between "sane" and "insane" people, and argues that the latter can't be trusted with control over their own vices and need to be restrained within an asylum or such. He doesn't bother to define what qualifies one as "sane" and clearly didn't predict how this could be later easily abused for political purposes, e.g. "sluggish schizophrenia". The idea that people in general always want the best for themselves and actively seek it out is also, unfortunately, often quite naive, even if this doesn't contradict the main point per se.
A lot could also be argued about how informed "informed consent" truly is, even if the actor of the vice really is by all measures judged as mentally competent... to what degree can you make informed decisions regarding a technical subject which you don't understand? Or e.g. I don't want back pain, but I don't want to exert effort to improve my posture either, because I'm lazy - so even if I don't "consent to back pain", there's an implied causal obligation there that simply can't be ignored.
A lot could also be argued about how informed "informed consent" truly is, even if the actor of the vice really is by all measures judged as mentally competent... to what degree can you make informed decisions regarding a technical subject which you don't understand? Or e.g. I don't want back pain, but I don't want to exert effort to improve my posture either, because I'm lazy - so even if I don't "consent to back pain", there's an implied causal obligation there that simply can't be ignored.
March 6, 2021
A spectacularly interesting book. Occasionally spooner would say something I disagreed with, and then he would pull me back in with the next paragraph. A great argument against victimless crimes, freedom of choice and individual liberty. The book leaves a lot open to interpretation, and I imagine it has been used to justify both sides of issues surrounding gun laws, legalising drugs and gay marriage.
Although spooner is slightly more conservative than most authors I read, his anarchist tendencies and refusal to budge from personal freedom, so long as doesn’t infringe on another person, was inspiring. I hesitate giving it 5 stars, as I imagine some people have used this book as justification to support arguments that I thoroughly disagree with, e.g. gun laws, tobacco, low taxes etc. (typical conservative arguments), his theory made me think and it slightly changed my view of the world, which is impressive for such a small book. Maybe one day I will reduce it to a 4 star, but at the moment straight after reading it I can’t give it anything but 5.
Although spooner is slightly more conservative than most authors I read, his anarchist tendencies and refusal to budge from personal freedom, so long as doesn’t infringe on another person, was inspiring. I hesitate giving it 5 stars, as I imagine some people have used this book as justification to support arguments that I thoroughly disagree with, e.g. gun laws, tobacco, low taxes etc. (typical conservative arguments), his theory made me think and it slightly changed my view of the world, which is impressive for such a small book. Maybe one day I will reduce it to a 4 star, but at the moment straight after reading it I can’t give it anything but 5.
September 28, 2014
Amazing read! A pithy book on the distinction between vice and crime, and how to discern which activities ought under natural law to be regulated by the government. In this short work Spooner deals with issues of interest in discussions of legalization of recreational drugs, regulation of liquor, suicide, euthanasia, welfare, prison reform, economics, self-defense, and mental illness. Spooner, based on several statements, believes that man is basically good, an assumption I find hard to vindicate, and would love to see more of his defense of this assumption. ANYONE who cares about natural law or liberty should take an hour or two and read this book which is available in its entirety online. Spooner ought to be taught alongside Emerson and Thoreau.
July 18, 2012
Its all in the title. Though I agreed with most of his conclusions, I found this book too long winded for the basic summations he made. There is definitely food for thought in this book and its worth the short amount of time you will invest in it, but don't expect to be wowed by his literary prowess. Its all very mechanical and verbose.
September 23, 2012
Based on the title, which truely captured my attention, an analysis of any 'vice' amounts to if an individual considers it to be such, therefore prosecutions for vices will be most unfair due to individual perception...
March 16, 2014
This is an interesting and well written short booklet. In this pamphlet Spooner outlines his opinion on the importance of limiting the state's intervention and warning against misidentifying vices as crimes. Clear and often witty it is an easy but worthwhile read.
Read
August 1, 2011Un pamphlet brillant en faveur de la liberté morale et contre toute légitimité des gouvernements d'empêcher les individus de rechercher le bonheur et la connaissance.
August 10, 2016
Good argument!
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews