- People are primarily-- to the point of near-universality-- motivated by self-preservation: they don't want to get hurt.
- Study after study have found that people drive however they are comfortable on a given stretch of road, regardless of the speed limit, or the presence of a posted limit at all. Sometimes this means they drive over, sometimes under.
- A person who is going to drive one hundred miles per hour down a side street-- to use Vee's extreme example-- are going to do it regardless of the speed limit: they are comfortable going that speed, and don't care about whether there is a law, or not.
- If a vast majority of people are somehow comfortable going one hundred miles per hour on that road, then people who aren't will just not drive on it, and will keep their children away from it. People who are are voluntarily accepting the risk-- by what magical fairy dust authority does Vee have to tell them that he gets to tell them how much risk to take with their own bodies?
- Having victimless "crimes" means that everyone in a society is constantly living in fear: not of the one guy in a million doing one hundred in a thirty, but of the police, since innocent people can be acosted at any moment via hidden speed traps, for not having hurt a fly. The solution is way worse than the problem; Vee is only evaluating one half of the equation.
- If the rule isn't the presence of a victim, then who gets to decide what's "unsafe"? Vee? And why one hundred miles per hour, and not ninety nine, or one hundred and one? Why one arbitrary line and not another another?
I should also point out that Vee is a guy who just made a video not a month ago, making fun of the English police for going after dog walkers and beach goers during "lockdown": no logical consistency.
And why stop there while I'm pointing out silliness: speed limit laws weren't created for public safety anyway; they were made to supposedly conserve energy-- then the control maniacs didn't want the limits to go away, so they ex post facto invented the safety nonsense.
And to put the final nail in the coffin, this whole conversation is a non-sequitor anyway, in two ways: first, breaking a window does have a victim: the property owner. Littering also has a victim, if the litter lands on private property at least.
Second, in diverse Murderapolis there are broken windows all over the place in spite of anti-vandalism laws. While at my "bug out" house where it's ninety-nine percent homogenous, there are zero broken windows. The solution to broken windows isn't Draconian victimless "crime" laws: the solution is for people to recursively secede into communities where they share values.
Heathens who like litter and broken windows can go hang out in their own dumb little country-- maybe "Chaz"?-- and leave the rest of us alone.