I am not an utopist. States and nationwide governments are needed. They cannot just be abolished. (please note: the term “state” is used in its international meaning, referring to the ruling structure of a country; not in its US meaning, referring to a federal state of the US).

The principal function of states is to keep the peace between the members of a society, and to make a society as safe as possible for all who live in it. Furthermore, states have the obligation of defending a society against outside aggression. Beyond that, states should involve themselves as little as possible in the lives of the people.

Even states led by Marxist-Leninist governments have come to realize that a Communist economy, entirely managed by the state, just doesn't work as well as one based on private initiative.

Just as with respect to economic activities, some basic adjustments should also made to the way, crimes and settlements are handled. It may not be obvious but until now, the legal systems of modern states are based on the archaic idea that punishment primarily serves a god, or an abstract entity, whose social order was violated, and not the injured party.

There is no other explanation for the fact that even in cases where the perpetrator of a crime and the victim of a crime were to find a settlement, the state still insists on meting out a punishment.

In contrast to current legal practice, I hold that when the victim and the perpetrator of a crime can agree on a compensation (usually a payment, but both parties should be free to agree on other measures), then the state should give up a claim to punish a perpetrator.

When there is no agreement, the state would impose a punishment in accordance with pre-set ceilings, jus as in current legal systems.

If the maximum sentence for car theft is set as 5 years imprisonment, a victim may ask a court to have this punishment implemented. The court would decide whether there are circumstances that warrant a lower punishment.

But if the victim were satisfied with a compensation payment that is 10 times the value of the car (or anything the two parties agree on, then this punishment would be valid. In such a case, the state may, however, impose a charge on the perpetrator to recover investigation costs.

A society in which punishments would be victim-oriented, different standards would evolve in different strata of this society, and in the interest of personal freedom, I would welcome this.

The essence is that while the state would set limits of maximal punishments, everything below that would depend on what is considered appropriate in different strata of a society, or by victims in different strata of society.

In cases where the victim and the perpetrator of a crime can agree on a settlement, the function of a court should end with having established the guilt of the perpetrator.

In practice, would the proposed alternative legal theory mean that rich people would just pay up and walk free, and poor people can't? Would such a system favor the wealthy? Not necessarily. In many cases, it would mean that rich perpetrators would pay much more compensation than poorer perpetrators. This would even be more consistent with principles of social justice than the current practice, which typically imposes the same punishment on the rich and the poor.

Would the proposed system mean leaner punishments? Not necessarily either. If an injured party feels that only imprisonment will settle the score, then it shall be imprisonment, with the length of a prison term decided by a judge, Justas is current practice).

I do want to point out that my idea is quite different from the Islamic concept of blood money to settle murder cases. In murder cases, no redress is available in favor of the victim, so that in murder cases, the state should always impose a strict punishment.

Current legal theory forces its standards uniformly on all members of a society. This means that even the consensual activities of a group of people may be prosecuted because it violates state standards. A blatant example is the execution of consenting homosexuals in Iran. Another the prosecution of those who engage in consensual oral or anal sex ("against the order of nature") in Malaysia, Singapore, and Myanmar.

Western countries are not free of laws that punish consensual interactions between their citizens. They are not even free of laws that regulate what a person does alone, with his own body. If a person grows marihuana or poppy in a flower pot and smokes it himself, he may be severely punished in the US, even though there is no victim in the legal sense.

People within a society should be entitled to choose their own consensual lifestyle, without being restricted by the state. Then, different groups of people within one country would live very different lives. This is the essence of freedom.

I am aware of the fact that current political systems are unlikely to put such a new legal theory into practice, and to be able to then to fine-tune it so that it will indeed guarantee for a country’s population a new dimension of personal freedom. The political force that most likely could handle the task would be a elitist single state party, strongly guided by a sound ideology in accordance to which granting optimal personal freedom to a country’s citizens would be the primary goal of political rule (in addition to providing safety).

Many men and women withdraw from public affairs and pursue an individual, often even secret, agenda of as much sexual satisfaction they can get because it appears to them that public affairs are utterly anti-sexual.

And because they see that all current schools of morality are in one way or another contrary to their sexual desires (the validity of which they do not want to deny), they consider themselves nihilists.

They are nihilists only “sort-off”. But actually, they do have a value system: optimal sexual satisfaction for themselves. They withdraw from public affairs only because no political movement represents them and would be conducive to their agenda. And anyway, they do not consider their private pro-sexual views capable of finding majority backing.

That they are not represented by any political movement is a pity, because their number is large enough to be a force to be reckoned with, if only they were organized.

And whether in the current world, radical pro-sexual policies would find majority backing is largely academic. Most people in any country are intellectually indifferent; they can be educated to adopt any ruling ideology, whether the ruling ideology is lunatic Christianity, faulty Communism, or the pro-sexual ideology that many of my articles are about.

Thus, worries about whether a pro-sexual ideology finds majority backing in the current world should not be a deterrent to activism. A dedicated intellectual elite, best organized along the principles of a Leninist party, could assume political power by other means than being democratically elected (though winning an election would be convenient). It then could initiate policies that liberate people sexually. Once liberated, and allowed to pursue sexual satisfaction, the people would, after being educated appropriately, support policies of sexual liberation.

My own activism consists almost entirely of writing articles and formulating an appropriate ideology. Organizing a political movement will have to be handled by others, independent from me. However, I will happily use my substantial web presence to report about such a movement. And I will encourage pro-sexual men and women to join it.

Who is against drugs (those that are currently classified as illicit)? Parents and governments.

Parents are against illicit drugs because they want their children to continue their (the parents') procreative strategy. This means, make their parents proud, and have children who then make their parents (and grandparents) proud.

Children who achieve nothing in life, and who themselves have no children, are a loss for parents. After all the efforts and costs it has taken to raise them: nothing.

From the perspective of a young adult, it may make perfect sense to choose a path of life that ends after a short career in extremely satisfying morphine and heroin with a gentle, painless death.

From the perspective of his parents, it's a waste. Parents gain nothing from a child that chooses this kind of destiny.

Sons may die as heroes in wars, defending their country or democracy. They may die as martyrs or suicide bombers for their religion, or in protest against foreign occupation. Great for the ego of their parents, and no waste at all. Or sons may be nothing special, but good procreators. As long as they have offspring, the more the better, they have fulfilled their most important purpose, which is: to give grandchildren to their parents.

This is why most people are vehemently against their children becoming addicted to hard drugs, but don't mind if their parents do.

Which, once more, proves that parents have children for mostly egoistic motives.

Governments are always against the kind of drugs, which, for precisely this reason have become illicit.

Drugs that are a viable option for young adults to lead an unproductive life followed by an early, painless death, are totally against the interest of governments.

As children, all members of society are a cost factor. They also bind part of the productivity of their parents who typically are in their productive prime. Once children are young adults, it's payback time. They are expected to work, earn money for themselves, and pay heavily into social security systems, be they formal or informal.

When young adults opt for hard drugs, they don't pay back. Not their parents, not society as a whole. In the contrary, they continue to be a cost factor. And a public order risk.

Governments are not against opiates and other drugs they have made illicit because these drugs would be bad for their users. These drugs have been outlawed because they are bad for the governments.

Look at the type of busybodies who typically make up the top of the executive and legislative branches of modern states.

These are people of a mindset easily unveiled. Theirs typically is an ideology that derives justification for their own lives from outside their own lives. They may understand themselves as agents of a specific religion, or as working for the social good, or another irrational entity. They work for social progress. At least that is what they claim (and even actually believe of their motives). Of course it is a lie.

These busybodies on all levels of government primarily derive satisfaction from interfering in common affairs. Because they assume they are of value to their social units, they feel able to attach a value to their own lives, which these lives per se do not have.

It's a particular brand of escapism that lands people in government positions (unless they are after opportunities for gains through corruption). They attempt to overcome their own fear of death by claiming (in their own minds) to be important parts of social structures that ideally persist eternally.

These busybodies typically cannot accept that other, more rational contemporaries prefer to just opt out. They cannot accept that young adults do not care about the social good, don't intend to have families, are not bent towards a successful professional live, but just want to take drugs, and die early.