Last year Levi Breyfogle submitted two initiated amendments that he’d like to petition on the 2020 ballot. These measures, to outlaw “victimless” crimes and to allow the buying and selling of anything, promise the collapse of state government.
Then-Attorney General and next Governor Marty Jackley issued explanations for the two measures over a year ago:
This March, Breyfogle submitted new versions of his amendments. Breyfogle took an entire year to decide to change two phrases and a date in the victimless-crime amendment and add two words to the property-anarchy amendment (changes marked in yellow):
By adding monetary damage and theft to his victimless-crime amendment and removing from his criteria for prosecution that damage must be physical, Breyfogle tries to address concerns I raised last year about his original language, which would have made it impossible to enforce copyright laws. However, sexual harassment and emotional abuse still appear to be unprosecutable (how do we quantify those harms?). Plus, Breyfogle forgot to extend his revision to Section 31, where he leaves the word “physical” (marked in red) in place and thus appears to require complainants show that alleged perpetrators performed some physical action to harm them.
As for the property-anarchy amendment, the addition of “use” and “destroy” to the verbs we can do to our property without any government interference appears to allow individuals to hit other people with baseball bats, drive their cars off cliffs, and use dynamite to blow up their own homes. That may sound like fun, but when your neighbors come knocking, and when debris from their gleefully detonated cars and cabins comes raining down on your homestead, you’ll think otherwise.
These minor amendments don’t give new Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg much new to say, so he dutifully cribs Jackley’s explanations, with minor changes:
I would assume that Breyfogle’s revisions will also require revisions to the Legislative Research Council’s fiscal statements, which found that the original amendments would cost state and local governments $4.68 billion each year. Breyfogle’s inadequately verbalized intention of keeping certain non-physical harms illegal, in combination with the property amendment’s provision that we be able to freely sell our property, still appears to leave the state unable to collect taxes, meaning both amendments bankrupt the state.
Who the heck is Levi Breyfogle? Is he a standard issue crazy with an ax to grind or is he a billionaire with an ax to grind and unlimited funds to do it with?
Does this make prostitution legal in South Dakota? The very first paragraph under explanation sounds like selling your body is legal for 18 year old people.
My comment refers to second or bottom page listed.
mfi, that’s how I read it, legalized prostitution, and probably a lot of other stuff.
You can do whatever you want, with whatever you want, whenever you want, wherever you want, however you want — as long as you don’t actually injure someone else or mess up their stuff.
Sounds like a toddler law: You’re Not the Boss of Me!
Nick, is this a green light for farmers to grow hemp, as well?
The third paragraph on the first page of this amendment sounds like the state can’t enforce eminent domain on people’s land. Am I reading that wrong?
Nick, I don’t know much about Breyfogle. He got a degree in economics from Mines, but I’m pretty sure he’s not a billionaire.
Mike, I think Nick’s right: Breyfogle would legalize prostitution. Each amendment would allow prostitution: the property bill says you can do whatever you want with your property, and nothing is more your property than your body. (Selling your kidney would be o.k., too.); the crime bill says the state can’t punish you for doing something that doesn’t hurt anyone. On the latter, even if you pay for rough kinky stuff, as long as both consent and no one presses charges, the state can’t intervene in sex trade.
Hemp? Sure. Buy seed in a state where it’s legal, bring it here, and you can plant it, eat it, do whatever you want with it.
See how dangerous these measures and initiated amendments are when they are insaner than most, like the IM #22 was? Maybe this Mr. Breyfogle is just one of the #VNOE people out to prove a point.
Mike, you raise an interesting question about eminent domain. The third paragraph of the property amendment does suggest that the state can’t lift a finger to assist in the violation of my right to possess, use, destroy, or modify my property however I see fit… and eminent domain does intrude on that right. But would the Fifth Amendment supersede any state constitution provision?
An individual could do anything they choose with their own body– any type of body modification, abortion, marriage, suicide, medications/drugs, nudity, . . . . .
Pretty much wild west.
I wonder what Breyfogle wants to do that he feels unable to without this? Hmmmm . . .
You would need to ask a lawyer about that, Cory.
Now, I’m wondering what is to stop over 18 years of age Planned Parenthood or anyone else) from buying a piece of land and offering abortions to all comers. It is their land and they are over 18, right?
These amendments were written to demonstrate the concept that nearly all crimes are only crimes against the state not other people.
According to the LRC the victimless crime bill would actually nullify 93% of crimes. It means only 7% of crimes committed actually have a victim. That doesn’t include the much larger amount of people who are denied earning an income through a small business due to insurance requirements and other compliance costs.
Each year there are more and more laws limiting our freedom. There are NEVER any less. This is the only way we have left to change it.
It was written because I want my property to be my property. I want to be able to plant vegetables in my yard, add an addition onto my house, or sell hamburgers from my grill without over tens or hundreds of thousands in compliance costs. I want to be able to do with my body, my property, and my limited time on earth what I choose.
It all comes down to a choice, would you rather be able to live your life how you want, or would you rather stop other people from living there lives how they want without harming you.
Unfortunately for us as a society I’m afraid the answer could be the latter.
Levi, it’s always good to hear directly from the sponsor of a ballot question. Thank you.
Are you circulating yet?
I appreciate gardening and home improvement. But do we also need to legalize prostitution to support our domestic tranquility?
Are crimes against the state really victimless and thus not crimes? Isn’t it possible to conceive of some crimes against the state that really do damage to all citizens of the state?