system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I believe that crimes that have no victim besides "society" or "increased risk of harming" are inherently wrong and are part of an oppressive society in which freedom is permissive, instead of assumptively permitted in the absence of an obvious victim CMV

Dui, reckless driving, intent to commit murder, intent to transport, drug trafficking, prostitution, statutory rape (where the victem is simply underage, or can't "legally" give consent but otherwise hasn't indicated they did not give consent) etc

If a person... directly... has not been personally victimized, then I do not believe a legitimate crime has occurred.

If you are able to do these things without hurting other people, I find the statistics that you "may" or are "more likely" to hurt someone irrelevant.

They are simply limitations of personal freedom.

EDIT : Clarification. The intended title was "are inherently wrong (to be considered crimes)  MY MISTAKE!
gpt
Just a point of clarification:  Why shouldn't reckless endangerment be a crime?

If someone is running around shooting a loaded gun at random, why shouldn't we be able to stop them before someone gets shot?  Should the police just follow him around until someone gets hit, then arrest them?