If one will browse through the code of law of any state, one will find many of the laws which I have already discussed, namely, torts, theft, murder, and rebellion. However, there are still three areas of law which I have failed to discuss. These are, contract and commercial law, victimless crimes, and positive law or decrees. While we have justified under shaleim the previous areas of law, these however remain justified. And as stated in Seven Duties of a State, the privileges of a state extends only as far as the duty requires. Thus as the duty of Justice is in service of shaleim, a failure to demonstrate shaleim in each of these areas would mean that the issuance of said laws is a breach of privileges and renders a thief in these areas of authority and thus any man who can discharge the duties may seize the crown in the gutter.
On the other hand, these conclusions will rankle the astute reader. For every state has passed laws in these three areas, and yet if we follow the reasoning to its end every state would be illegitimate. This is an absurdity. As such we shall commence the discussion of victimless crimes. The astute reader will notice that in the listed order, commercial codes came first. I will be deferring the discussion of these areas of law until Stability as a duty where I believe that it belongs to better. Likewise, positive law or decrees merits its own discussion in Justice IV.
Previously we have rooted every law into the principle of wholeness of the individual. Theft, damages, and murder all are clearly a violation of an individual’s shaleim. Some rebellion also, though it flirted with societal shaleim, is rooted in the principle of the pursuer where a man is pursuing another with intent to violate or murder him. However, the astute reader no doubt recognized that the individual is not the only abode of shaleim. Thus in order to prove the fallacy of victimless crimes we must digress and demonstrate that entities besides the individual exist and thus may possess their own independent shaleim.
Let us imagine Simon and Miriam. They are married quite happily. Simon does what Miriam desires and Miriam does what Simon desires. The house is clean, the yard is immaculate, the children are happy, and the table is stocked with food. Anyone who enters this house will no doubt be charmed by its state. This household is in a state of shaleim.
If Levi was to enter and make a disparaging remark concerning Miriam and the way she keeps her house, Simon would no doubt defend her, however, he may fail to put the insult from his mind. It will therefore grow and fester. A lens appears upon his eyes and filters every deed of Miriam though its insidious twisting. Suddenly every error of Miriam is brought into sharp focus and becomes the object of scorn and derision. The peace begins to crack. Miriam fails to deal with this properly by gently removing the lens from her husband’s eye. Rather, she in speaking with a friend is informed that Simon is just being a judgmental old crank. A lens appears on her eyes and suddenly the least error or frown from Simon reinforces her filter. These lenses thicken as they fight. The laws decay. The house grows messy. The children quarrel. The table is suddenly lacking of its previous bounty. If one enters the house now only six months later, Levi’s thoughtless remark has destroyed the shaleim.
In other environments, Miriam and Simon retain their previous whole disposition. Simon labors at his work with as much diligence as before and Miriam works equally has hard in her own labors outside of the house. In a sense their innate shaleim has been preserved. Instead, we may better characterize these events as the destruction of the household shaleim. We may therefore draw the conclusion of existence of other shaleim than the individual’s.
In the area of victimless crimes we may largely categorize them in the following categories, relational shaleim like the above example, societal shaleim, and self shaleim. In actuality, relational and societal shaleim are the same just applied on different scales. It is clear that the thoughtless action of Levi has destroyed the relational shaleim of Simon and Miriam. However, there is another entity that is damaged, the household’s—which is the actualization of the relationship between Simon, Miriam, and their children. If we are to then take this formal entity and expand it upwards we will gain ever growing and complicated webs of relationships until we reach the societal formal entity. A society is made of these building blocks, with their specific composition depending upon the society. Some are individualistic where the building block is that of the individual, while others—such as western European societies—utilize the nuclear family, and still others—such as China—utilize the extended family model. The number of ways society organizes itself is far beyond the scope of this essay, however, this will provide us with enough information to reason upon society.
We have our concrete example of the household—in this case the nuclear family—to serve as the model of this actualized entity based upon relationships. It is clear that a man and a woman living with each other is not necessarily a household. We may picture an adult son living with his mother. Due to their age, they keep separate meal times, grocery bills, and divide bills evenly. Functionally, they are not a household. Likewise two roommates will often not compromise a household. We may infer thus that it requires a specific relationship beyond cohabitation to produce a household. One may from the above examples argue that it is the familial relationship, this however cannot be true as our example of the mother and son in different households establishes. Likewise, two roommates can indeed be part of the same household depending upon the nature of their relationship. I would posit that a household is not only made up of the type of relationship, for roommates are in no way of a closer relationship than a mother and a son, but also the rules governing the relationship. If roommates are of such a close friendship that their grocery bills merge, their meal times join, and the chore list goes from a source of strife to an implicit agreement, it is clear that they are merging into the household entity. Through these implicit and explicit rules and the character of the relationship, an entity has emerged called the household that has its own character, thoughts, views, and assets. This is often expressed as ‘our’. In my own house, the vacuum is not referred to as my vacuum or my wife’s vacuum, rather it is our vacuum for it belongs to the household as an entity. The individuals through relationships and rules have formed a separate collective entity that is in some ways equally as real as the individuals that form the collective entity.
The real sign of the emergence of the household is the collective will. The household gains the ability to through implicit and explicit negotiation of its members to produce and opinion and carry it forth which are the features of a will. It is clear that anything that can be formed and also dissolved is actualized and real; one cannot create or destroy the imaginary. Some will no doubt object that the household, and indeed any collective, is a mere social construct. I will readily grant the premise without the substance of the assertion. For there are many entities that are very real and yet are societal constructs.
The most obvious example is that of money. If the reader will withdraw a bill from his wallet he will see two entities at once. The first is that of the physical currency itself. In the United States, this is made of a paper cotton blend and colored green. In other—perhaps more sensible—countries it is composed of plastic. The physical substrate of the currency has one it several numbers denoting its value along with its serial number. Usually a person, though the EU has supposed fictional buildings is a proper substitution, is placed upon the front of the bill with other designs upon the rear. This is what physically exists and if every human vanished from the Earth it would continue to exist. On the other hand, everyone will agree that there is a second entity that one is gazing upon, that is the money. The bill, depending upon its size, may be taken and utilized to purchase goods. These goods could also be exchanged for other bills. We call this concept of being able to exchange one item for another value, and bills serve as an objective store of this value. If one was to assert that any and all societal constructs were not real, one would likewise have to assert that value and currency are not real. This is clearly not true, as such we must conclude that societal constructions are very real.
We may also utilize these constructs within justice, for if a man destroyed another’s money, he does not have to repay the physical value of the plastic. If he delivered a load of plastic, ink, and a coupon to rent a printing press for a few hours, there is no justice system existing that would consider the debt discharged, even though the materials and labor has been more than compensated for. This is because justice is likewise a form, that is, a non-physical but very real entity. So its applicability to these same non-physical entities is obvious. For our purposes we will call these entities constructed forms, as opposed to the eternal and timeless higher forms. For though there is the form of the household that is timeless, the instantiation of the household is highly dependent upon many factors such that every household is its own unique entity. If we were to argue that only one or the other exists we would find ourselves in an absurdity. As such there must be a lower nonphysical realm where forms are instantiated in their own form and destroyed without being made material.
As such we may note that the state just as it ought to defend the shaleim of the individual ought to defend the shaleim of the household. For if Levi stole from Simon and Miriam their mop, this is an item of the collective ownership of the household. If they divorced later agreeing to divide the household in twain, Levi would owe half to each. Miriam being the purchaser of the mop is irrelevant. Simon’s money being used to purchase the mop is irrelevant. Miriam using the mop is irrelevant. The household as a constructed form owned the mop and upon its dissolution they agreed to divide the assets in half, as such the state to maintain justice ought to divide the value of the mop between Simon and Miriam in an identical fashion to that of the division of the household. This is presuming that they agree to an equal division. They could also agree that Miriam is payed a certain amount of money, or even that she exits with only that which she enters. The relevant matter is that the household itself owns property.
Therefore, it is the duty and privilege of the state to create laws to maintain the household. To this end, marriages are created as an institution along with other similar legal entities specifically to signal to the state the creation of a household. Scripture supports this as it says, “And they shall become one flesh.” Can it in enter into your head that a man and a woman literally become one flesh? Rather, the man and the woman through marriage create a new man as a joint entity that oversees the household. To destroy the bond between husband and wife is to destroy this joint man and is therefore within the category of murder. If one would argue that this is not murder like the dissolving of a household is not murder, scripture says in response, ‘one flesh’ meaning that the created entity has the same reality as flesh. If one would point to divorce, this is different, for in this case the joint man gained a terminal illness and died.
Marriage does not merely create a partnership between two individuals, or even create the household with subservient purpose to the two individuals, but creates a new, higher formal entity. We shall call this entity the joint man, for it is a man created by the joining of male and female spiritually. Unlike the household or other artificial persons, it serves to subsume the purpose of the husband and the wife into itself as will be elaborated below. It is for this reason that scripture says ‘one flesh’ not as a metaphor, but as a spiritual, metaphysical claim.
We arrive after these many words to the first law I shall explain the reasoning for, adultery. Despite its alleged victimless status, it does indeed have a victim—the joint man itself. It is often the argument of the libertarian that if everyone consents that adultery is permissible, and indeed I have seen articles that argue it is desirable. This is untrue as we have already established from reason and scripture the existence of constructed forms, of which one is the marriage. Adultery is thus the wounding and destruction of the joint man. A woman has nullified herself into her husband, and together they have formed this entity and by her exiting and joining with another, the joint man has been torn asunder and murdered. While it is theoretically possible for him to be resurrected, in a very real man, he has been killed forever. The wholeness of the joint man has been violated. As such the woman, who together with her lover strangled the joint man in the throws of passion and lust, has created the very same debt that Simon created when he murdered Levi. For if Miriam slept with Levi, the Simon-Miriam joint man has been destroyed and murdered. This creates the same debt elaborated in Justice II and thus the capital penalty is just, though even if this is seen as too far by some, the reasoning demands a penalty.
There is however this temporary misshapen joint man that may be created that must be addressed. For the joint man exists for the purpose of the household such that the husband and wife may join into one formal entity while retaining their apparent physical individuality. As such, a joint man that is instantiated for the purposes of pleasure and false intimacy is misshapen. He is like a bucket that was constructed for the purpose of sifting flour. As a bucket it is hopelessly broken. The ultimate terminus is the erotic night of passion where the joint man is dissolved in the morning when the man expels the lady to do the walk of shame home.
As this joint man was created to be destroyed and therefore had a terminal illness. His destruction is not the same clear action of destruction of shaleim that came before, yet it is still an act of destruction, as such justice demands a consequence. As for what consequence we shall turn to this later in the essay.
One might argue that the joint man ought not to be protected legally as it is of the same character of the household. This is not true for the household has a subordinate purpose to the wholeness of the individual. The household has more in common with the artificial person as is recognized by any legal system. These artificial persons all exist purely for the sake of the wholeness of the individual. The join man on the other hand subsumes the purposes of the husband and the wife, joining their souls and wills, and nullifying their purpose below that of the joint man. After all, in a proper healthy marriage, a wife will be pleased by the praise and success heaped upon her husband as much as her own. Her success is in a sense her husband’s. Likewise the husband experiences the successes of the wife as his own. This is not so for other entities, for if two roommates form a household, they might have the collective will, but the successes of one will not be owned by the other. He will be happy for his friend, but will not have the same pleasure as the wife does. In a real sense the joint man owns the success rather than each individual, for they have been nullified into the purpose of the joint man.
We may list other sorts of artificial persons, where an artificially constructed entity may possess its own independent relationships and property which are distinct from its members, such as corporations, partnerships, and municipalities. Indeed, even the state is an entity that falls into this category. As explained above, society is formed of these building blocks of artificial person’s, but at the same time is not identical with them. For in our days we have the UN as the largest artificial person every constituted as it nominally includes most of the world within its leviathan, however, it is clear that the whole world is not one society. Instead, society, while constituting an artificial existence, is created via the shared relationships, culture, and interactions of these building blocks. For it is clear that if two towns speak different languages, have different customs and laws, and have different cultures they are of two societies, while two neighboring towns that share these qualities are of one society.
We may then ascribe the concept of wholeness to these artificial persons and entities. The difference between them is that society, while it may have collective existence and will, these are not as instantiated. In addition, society does not possess the character of ownership and agreement. One cannot argue that an item belongs to society, for public property belongs to the public which would include folks who have not joined into society even if the community has permitted their entrance. We thus have two different levels, the first being artificial persons and the second being collective entities. They are differentiated based upon their ability to own as well as their instantiation of their collective will.
However, it is clear that both of these possess a collective shaleim. As such theft and destruction against the artificial person may be met with fines. We see this often such as fines levied by the league against players for conduct that is against the rules. This is because the conduct of players which destroys the shaleim of the league requires a restoration of that shaleim which as the damage is unable to be repaired in the same sense as one repairs a broken window, as established in Justice I, we utilize currency to compensate for any unrepairable breaches of shaleim.
On the other hand, we have already established that society that while it has a collective shaleim cannot own anything. The debt exists but it is rather impossible to repay. As such we find ourselves driven into the need for a third category of punishment in order to repay violations of the societal shaleim. This ‘debt to society’ is punished through fines to the state as the proxy of society, prison time, or lashes. The justification of each of these is beyond the scope of this essay, as such I shall due to my own biases as well as simplicity’s sake refer to these punishments that repay the debt to society as blows. Their goal is to inflict pain so as to impress upon the person their lack of shaleim. And likewise to make the loss instantiated publically so that any man will see that his crimes do indeed have a victim. The ideal form of the blows would be to permit the criminal to rejoin society as a brother.
We may thus see that the state has a right and a privilege to maintain the wholeness of society. These laws however ought to be guarded against as the justification is nebulous. The wholeness of the individual must be guarded against in the maintenance of the wholeness of society. But these do exist in the state, for example, the idea of federal holidays. These holidays produce unity within society along with communicating cultural values, and as they do not burden the wholeness of the individual, ought to exist. With this end in mind, the state through force enforces them being available to be celebrated. This is seen as a necessary compromise of the wholeness of the employer in favor of the wholeness of the employee as well as in society. The practical application of this principle is in the domain of the legal philosopher and the lawyer, and as a moral philosopher I have reached the edge of my expertise and do not dare to venture beyond it.
Despite lacking the more practical applications, this framework has clearly justified the existence of alleged victimless crimes. Some actions constitute such a destruction of the societal wholeness, without any corresponding benefit to the individual’s wholeness, they ought to be barred and punished by blows. Rebellion which we previously justified under the law of the pursuer thus has a second justification that sharpens the crime. For as a state is enpersoned via the ownership of the knife. While the state is the lawful owner of the knife, such an individual is guilty of an attempt to destroy the constructed entity of the state as well as to steal its rightful authority. As such, it ought to be punished via blows which are lashes of rebellion. Execution ought to be reserved for the rebellion against authority as a whole or violent resistance. We have thus clarified rebellion from Justice II and brought it fully in line with the universal moral intuitions. Rebellion which is violent or desires to return us to the war against all is a capital crime and thus ought to be killed. On the other hand rebellion as an attempt to steal the knife ought to be punished via blows.
We do however have one last set of examples of victimless crimes that remains. These are crimes such as drugs, suicide, or similar self-destructive actions. It is clear that these ought to be forbidden as every state in the history of the world has banned certain self-destructive actions, on the other hand, we do have the issue of which actions are self-destructive. Likewise, some self-destructive actions are likewise societally destructive.
We shall start with the clearest example. There is a chemical which for ten minutes produces absolute ecstasy in the consumer. He will feel perfect bliss and pleasure in an intense but not overwhelming sense. At the very end of the ten minutes he will awake having been blinded. This is clear example of self-destruction. On the other hand the argument is that the person has in full knowledge of the consequences consented to make this trade. We may then ask the question, may a person knowingly destroy his own shaleim. I would posit that the answer is no, for the Almighty created man with His own matter and labor as such owns the physical body. In addition, being that the purpose of the world is shaleim, actions that necessarily destroy shaleim are forbidden and one cannot protest that one consents to a destructive action therefore it isn’t destructive. Consent will neither restore the man’s sight nor make it nondestructive of his shaleim. While certain actions when unconsented to do indeed constitute a contingent destruction of shaleim, we cannot universalize this principle. As such, this chemical having no benefit of shaleim that in anyway permits its destruction this chemical ought to be banned.
From a different perspective, if shaleim is the purpose of existence, with our journey towards its full expression in the divine as its entire point, then utilizing your wholeness to destroy your wholeness is an absurdity. A bucket which does not contain liquid is a purposeless absurdity, and likewise a human that destroys his own shaleim is in the same category.
In addition, self-destruction assaults the wholeness of society. A man has many who are dependent upon him, such as his family and his community. Even a loner who visits a 7/11 at 3 AM cheers up the cashier with his cheery attitude. No matter how down someone is, they are contributing in some way. Likewise, every man has infinite potential for the good. To destroy oneself is to destroy this incalculable potential that could have benefited society along with all the good he currently adds.
Thus we have created a debt to the self and a debt to society. To pay oneself back for the damages is clearly nonsensical, as such another punishment ought to be inflicted. For as we demonstrated in Justice II, just because a debt cannot be repaid does not erase the debt. Ought does not imply can in any way. Blows are the mechanism by which this debt which does not rise to the infinite but still exists is repaid and therefore blows are mandated as the punishment for this crime.
Beyond mere repayment, it is clear that a flaw within the purpose of an entity, does not necessitate its destruction. After all, the flaw can and ought to be repaired. Otherwise, shall we execute every man that fell ill? This is a clear absurdity. Instead, the blows serve the purpose of being restorative. To return to the metaphor of illness, if a man were forced to vomit until the world swam before his eyes, the naïve onlooker would condemn the doctor for a cruelty. However, the vomiting is essential for the purging of the poison that has infected the man’s innards. Likewise blows serve to purge evil from the person through punishment. They serve the higher purpose of rehabilitating the person so that he is as scripture says, “your brother” again.
With this framework established, we may now return to the misshapen joint man. For a man has created a debt by creating an entity which both cannot discharge its purpose and will necessarily die. The societal shaleim is also damaged as it would normalize this creation in the name of pleasure. The purpose of life is thus reduced from its higher purpose rooted within the divine and individual wholeness into the mere pursuit of naked pleasure. As such, this ought to be corrected. The debt for the creation of the terminal man, the damage to society, and the flaw within the person all need to be repaid and dealt with. As such the punishment for this is blows which serves to repay the unpayable debt and to repair the man so that he may be fitting to discharge his individual as well as communal purpose.
It should be noted as a caveat to all of these listed cases that while we are able to judge the material damages of an action, the spiritual damages are behind our epistemological knowledge and as such we may not add additional laws due to spiritual shaleim. This is called freedom of conscience by some, where the state may not force one to act in mode that he argues damages his soul. This obviously has limits as one may not murder with the spiritual justification of shaleim. However, the principle is clear that the state may not overstep its bounds of its knowledge.
We shall now return to a concept which I alluded to but did not fully examine, that is, laws which exist for the wholeness of the relationship. All allegedly victimless crimes may be placed within this category. Loitering and vagrancy destroys the wholeness of the community, and likewise public obscenity destroys the wholeness of society. The communal square becomes choked with lazy men who attract other lazy men, representing a parasitic influence upon the community. Public obscenity destroys the modesty and therefore the wholeness of a society. Degeneracy and filth are normalized leading to promiscuity and further destruction of wholeness. The cultural infrastructure that permits the birth of upright joint men and the household are diminished until they vanish. These damages might be invisible, but that does not prevent them from being as real as the damage within the household caused by careless words. The state as the guard against the destruction of wholeness therefore ought to act in justice and punish these actions. Victimless crime is never victimless, for no man is an island whose actions do not impact his fellow man.
Published 2026-07-10
Enjoyed this post? Subscribe to get notified when new posts are published.