Many acts are victimless yet a crime. Well the trueness of that statement depend on what you mean by victimless.

Obviously if it's truly victimless, few will want to make it a crime right?

So let's call the acts consensual first. When two smart humans make consensually mutual agreement, the agreement is usually mutually beneficial. Hence, it's arguably victimless.

For simplicity sake of argument. Say you make a really delicious cake. Say you sell it at cheap price to customers. Say many customers want it. Say you sell to even more customers. Is there a victim? No? Think again...

Competitors

Is there somebody whose interest you hurt? Of course there is. It's the other cake's producer. Your competitors. Good productive business hurt inferior competitors. So the competitors are the victims.

Wait a minute. You don't interfere with their right. You produce better cakes. The customers are benefited and they consent to buy from you. It's not victim. You disagree? Me too...

But nevertheless they do have some similarity with victims. Their interests are hurt. They prefer you not to offer your cakes to many. And then sometimes their cause become the laws giving them a legal "right" for their interest.

The true victims of victimless crimes are usually competitors. It's the case for those who hire immigrants. It's the case for industry protected by tariff and trades. So it's natural that that's the "real" problem here too.

Pretext justification

So, what do other competitors say. Will they say we want your shop to be closed because the cakes are too delicious?

No, doing so will admit that your cock, ugh I mean your cake, is more delicious than theirs. Also, most people won't be persuaded to close your shops simply because you're better.

So what would your competitors say?

They'll say that to protect customers' interests, your shops need to limit customers' intact to improve customer to cake makers' "quality time." Cake selling should be based on vague noun such as "love" that's supposedly cannot be shared to too many customers.

Also, customers want love above all anyway and these restrictions of offers made to potential customers should somehow serve customers' interest. It wouldn't make sense. They'll simply told you not to worry. If you don't understand. You will once you're an adult, once it's late.

Those who consensually choose your cakes commit a crime against their own body. Customers who like more delicious cakes and flaunt their cakes eating "assets" are cake whores that demean customers' "dignity" and hence should be prohibited.

Also cock sucking, no no... I mean cake eating is a sacred sanctimonious relationship that can only be consumed after a life long one to one commitment to stay together for a whole life.

Now, what do superior more attractive cocks or cakes providers do when they found out they can get more customers? Remember they're already trapped into that one to one sanctimonious sacred holy whatever legally binding sanctity?

They'd either divorce his wife losing a lot of money or kill his wife. Some females interest ha?

I know that doesn't happen.

Of course, in case of cakes, competitors that don't compete well can simply produce bread instead.

However humans instincts are build for gene pool survival. For 99.99% of the case, the only way to survive in the gene pool is to attract females and produce kids.

The only way to survive for those who cannot give superior offers to females are then to bring down competitors. Now, ever wonder why all these victimless acts are about sex?

For comment, link exchange request from related website, please email comment@CocksoftheAlphaMales.Com. In particular I need more sources to strengthen or reconsider my points.

Get plenty of tips to survive in the gene pool from http://GenePoolSurvivalGuide.com. Primitive affiliate programs are available. From the same author that brought you http://HowtoLearnMath.com.