Is "Victimless Crimes" a legitimate category?

[RamistThomist]

Is there such a thing as a truly victimless crime? For instance, if two gay guys...well, you get the picture. If it is consensual, and no one gets hurt, on what grounds can the government prosecute?

Can one make a cogent objection without specific appeal to a transcendent moral source? Be specific.

 

[VictorBravo]

We discussed something similar a while back, but I don't remember the thread. Another example is speeding on a deserted highway. Truly victimless in the sense that nobody gets hurt.

But the issue is whether there should be a rule at all. The speeding laws anticipate a hypothetical victim. The state seeks to protect the hypothetical victim by making itself the offended party if the rule is broken.

Same could be said for the rule against homosexual activities. The state could say that its interest in social order includes a prohibition against the activity. The state, then, is considered the "victim" in its position as defender of social order.

But the real question is: when can the state actually justify calling itself the victim? Without an objective external standard, it can't. It can only justify itself either upon the whim of one leader, or upon the whim of a group it responds to. If the whims change, so does the justification.