It isn't personal. You said a crime depends on whose ox is gored, as if it were subjective. A crime is a violation of rights, not whatever government says it is. Legitimate government, including most of what we have for ordinary criminal law, is not a subjective parallel with the mafia, etc.

Most governments around the world are criminal themselves and many are not much different than the mafia; they don't define the concept of 'crime' for us as they try to wipe out the concept and replace its meaning with 'lack of subservience to control'. But this thread was intended to be about the meaning of the valid concept of crime, though the thread's thesis about a requirement for malice was false. We can only think rationally with valid concepts, and letting government define our concepts lets it determine how we think or become incapable of thinking.

Reckless driving endangering others is not just an accident; but is a different crime from deliberately running over someone. A true accident need not be a crime, even though there is still responsibility (normally through insurance). Malicious intent is not the distinguishing factor..

The topic of illegitimate laws is a different subject from the claim that an actual crime requires that there be malicious intent. Of course there is a breakdown in respect for the law when illegitimate laws are imposed, especially when there is generally poor popular understanding of the purpose of laws as the protection of the rights of the individual (and not 'entitlements'). Many people do want laws controlling others. It does not help to claim that violating the rights of the individual require malicious intent to be a crime.

Negligence and reckless behavior are not innocent and do negate a crime. An intentional act is not an accident. Assaulting a girl by dragging her into a bedroom, throwing her on the bed and attempting to remove her clothes is not a "misunderstanding or lack of awareness (and more than reckless behavior).

Anyone can ignore any post whether or not it is configured to be displayed in his own view of the web page. The kinds of responses above, ultimately ), imply that he does not want to ignore it, and likely does not want others to see what he would be ignoring, especially unanswered, so the 'ignore' button doesn't help his goal. The solution is to behave civilly from the beginning and address the content of posts objectively, without personal speculation and misrepresentation.

Sounds good.
My intention was to offer the Ignore button as a method to avoid a person, rather than attacking them.

FYI - I'm the moderator of the board. :)

I jump in every once in a while to try and keep conversations on topic and remind everyone to attack the argument, not the person.

FYI - there is an Ignore button

"... I think you are utterly dishonest." There is no place for ad hominem here EgoPriest. Please refer to the Gulch Code of Conduct.

https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#...

"The state defines". I think your comments about an intention by the state to enslave and control is parallel to what I was trying to get at.

There is a difference between actual malicious, aka criminal, actions and what the state declares to be illegal. Many laws are vague or just plain unjust in and of themselves. Breaking such laws does not make you a "true criminal", in my opinion. Furthermore, to your point, many people who technically break a law are in fact the good people.

A lot of ifs there. I will leave judgement of a particular circumstance up to you and other members of a jury.
The primary point, however, is that a deliberate attempt to cause you harm is quite different from something accidental or non-deliberate.
Later in life, to assume that both people are equally criminal creates injustice, in my opinion. It just isn't true that both people are the same.

Assume I run a red light and broadside another vehicle, killing someone. I did not see the red light, so I didn't intentionally break the law by not stopping. Because committing an illegal act was not my intent, what just happened is nothing more than an accident?

You appear to have a lot of problems with rationalism and floating abstractions.

Your misrepresentations of me and my posts are very explicit, including numerous made-up quotes and reckless, libelous statements about my knowledge and honesty.

No one said "evasion towards" a person. You left out "malice towards another person".

Evasion leading to harm done to someone through negligence or recklessness is not a "cause" of malice. Malice is a conscious intent, not the effect of avoidance. Ignorance may also lead to harm with or without malice, which is not a defense for, e.g., libel.

malice:
1. a desire to inflict harm or suffering on another.
2. harmful intent on the part of a person who commits an unlawful act injurious to another.

I know very well what Objectivism is, including that it does not mean dramatically denouncing, misquoting and smearing people you misrepresent, while wrapping yourself in attempts at Objectivist-sounding rhetoric without regard to the meaning of the subject being discussed. Please read the guidelines for posting on this forum.

Inviting to diner is a completely different subject. The legal system is very deliberately disassociated from morality. Otherwise, jury deliberations would last years. The legal code is not unlike a computer code - it is binary. Either Yes or No. Let's limit our discussion to your original comment, which only dealt with the legal aspect.

Ok, but if someone were of this type of legal culpability you would probably still feel comfortable inviting them over for dinner.
Yet, if someone were of the criminal type that acted with deliberate intent to harm, you probably wouldn't want to invite them over for dinner. Nor take care of your kids, etc. They belong in prison.

It is my primary point that not differentiating between these two, leads to compounded injustice by labeling all as CRIMINAL when only some deserve that label.
Rulebreaker, fool, non omniscient human can serve as a more appropriate label for the non-malicious people.

Criminal culpability means there was no direct intent of malice, yet the person should have known that harm will or may result. It is criminal, as the name suggests, and prosecuted as a crime.

One example of “such nonsense” was forced “re-education” in communist countries, forced “re-distribution”, and even elimination of undesirable classes for the benefit of the society.

A self proclaimed good intention would need to be judged by an independent jury/judge.
I doubt very many people would buy in to such nonsense as you propose. I think most juries would say, "Guilty!" with an explanation point.

Yet, there ARE scenarios that could fit what you are talking about and justify a conclusion of innocence. For example, parents making their children do their homework. :) Short term, I am sure you could get a lot of kids to indicate they are being harmed, yet in the long term they do like it.
Or spouses or other genuinely concerned people dealing with those who have self destructive addictions. These are messy issues. A clear cut answer is not always obvious. A presumption of innocence is wise, in my opinion.

But you said that if there is no criminal intent, then there is no crime. The scenario that I proposed has no maliscious intent; on the contrary, it is for your own good, or at least for the good of the society.

Yes, that is part of what I am observing.
A great many people are losing respect for the legitimate laws because there are too many absurd ones AND with how they are being enforced and prosecuted.
The world of Anthem is drawing in, and many people cheer. That is scary.