This piece advocates drastic changes in American criminal law. If the changes which I offer are adopted, many activities which today are considered criminal will no longer carry the consequence of prosecution and penalization by the government. The activities to which I refer are commonly known as "victimless crimes," which I define simply as acts prohibited by the law that have no victim. Every participant in these illegal activities is willing and consensual, and therefore no participant is a victim of a crime nor a perpetrator of a crime against another. Examples of victimless crimes which will be discussed are prostitution, the use and distribution of illicit drugs, gambling, obscenity and pornography.

These acts have been made criminal based on the belief that they cause a detriment to society. In turn, this belief is based on the premise that the good of society is the ultimate goal, regardless of the wishes or rights of the individuals in society. This is a false premise, and many of the premises which lead to a conclusion that society is more important than the individual are also false. As society is a conceptual entity comprising of individuals, the good of society can never be more important than the good of the individuals who form that society.

This essay will not consist of a series of aimless statements about rights of individuals; every conclusion will be proven by validation of every premise. Also absent will be arguments focusing on the impracticality of legislation against victimless crimes, as the focus of this piece is the immorality of such legislation. The dichotomy which modern culture has constructed between the "moral" and the "practical" is a false dichotomy, and I will demonstrate that a moral philosophy is one that can and should be practiced rather than ignored. Furthermore, it is never the government's role to legislate the private lives of its citizens who consent to such activities. Performing a task as large as changing such a significant portion of the criminal law, however, first requires that the philosophy behind it be changed. Without fully comprehending the reason behind changing the law in the first place, there is no barrier to keep the law from sliding back into its present flawed state.

In her address to the graduating class of the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1974, Ayn Rand explained the role of philosophy in living with an integrated view of existence:

You have no choice about the necessity to integrate your observations, your experiences, your knowledge into abstract ideas, i.e., into principles. Your only choice is whether these principles are true or false, whether they represent your conscious, rational convictions*or a grab-bag of notions snatched at random ...

[T]he principles you accept ... may clash with or contradict one another; they, too, have to be integrated. What integrates them? Philosophy. A philosophic system is an integrated view of existence. As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation -- or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap ... thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind's wings should have grown.

Having studied most of the major philosophies and religions of the world, Objectivism is the only philosophy I have seen that upholds consistency, reason, morality and happiness as goals which attainable by man. This does not mean that Objectivism is the "burning bush" and Ayn Rand is our Moses; however, it is the philosophy which most accurately describes the world in which we live and the reason with which our minds can function. I intend to apply Objectivist principles toward my ultimate goal of proving that legislating against victimless crimes is immoral because such legislation denies the absolutism of the individual.

Upon her death in 1982, Rand designated Leonard Peikoff as her intellectual heir, and his treatise Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand ("OPAR") is the only comprehensive statement of Rand's philosophy. OPAR is based on a lecture series given by Dr. Peikoff given in 1976 which Rand endorsed and at which she also appeared and answered questions.

One crux of the philosophical discussion in this essay is the importance of definitions. The truth or falsehood of any given statement depends on the truth or falsehood of the definitions of its terms. Since definitions describe the essential characteristics of existing concepts, it is of critical importance that what is implied by each word be kept in its proper context. Definitions are properly employed, however, not to describe every detail of a certain concept, but rather only the essential elements of its nature.

Many legal philosophers have dodged the issue of philosophy, believing instead in arbitrary laws, and sometimes even in leaders who follow arbitrary whims. Most of these philosophers, because of those beliefs, are left to conclude that laws are neither good nor bad; they just exist. This is not true, though; laws are man-made, and as man's creation they can be evaluated. What makes a law good or bad? This question begs several questions. What is the purpose of having a legal system? What is good, and what is bad? And to whom or to what?

Laws serve the purpose of allowing men to live in society as rational beings, as opposed to savage cannibals. Man must exercise its rational capabilities because reason is man's distinct means of survival, and man's life is the standard of value. Reason is capable to man because of man's ability to form concepts out of the data which his sensory perception collects. While all men have the capability of using reason, however, such use is volitional. Therefore, reason does not come automatically; each individual is responsible for the employment of this faculty for himself.

This essay will strictly apply reason and logic from only valid premises. The validity of every premise will have a foundation in irreducible primaries and axioms. Once the conclusions are drawn and it is apparent that my conclusions are very different from those who have formed the criminal law, the piece will demonstrate the falsity of the premises on which the present laws lie. No proposition will be offered with the catch that it be accepted solely on faith. Faith amounts to nothing more than a renunciation of reason and logic. Faith demands that, despite what you see in front of you with your own eyes, hear with your own ears, and witness with your own consciousness, you discard all such perceptions in favor of unquestioned beliefs in another's words. Faith will allow an otherwise rational person to accept contradictions in the universe. A true, valid, rational and moral philosophy accepts no contradictions and no compromises, and Objectivism is the only philosophy which meets these criteria. Objectivism begins with the fundamentals, and logically progresses via true and valid premises until the conclusion is drawn. All conclusions, whose premises are both true and valid, are also true and valid.

Essentially, Objectivism holds: see with your own eyes. Think rationally with your own mind. Understand with your own mind. Work on behalf of yourself, and accept the fruits of your work on behalf of yourself. Live your life for yourself; do not let others live your life for you, and do not live others' lives for them. In the words of Galt's credo in Atlas Shrugged: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

** The author took a leave of absence from Rutgers School of Law in the summer of 1996, and resumed his education in 1998 as a visiting student at Suffolk University Law School in Boston, MA.