If something is victimless, it should be always legal, change my mind

Lets legalize everything that doesn't have a victim with the crime.  Make America Great Again.

The problem is extremely irresponsible or reckless conduct that puts the lives of others at risk. Drunk driving, throwing bricks out skyscraper windows, etc. The conduct may or may not, based on luck alone, cause actual harm. Luck and justice don’t go well together. It’s not whether or not a brick thrown out a window just so happens to strike an innocent person on the ground; It’s the reckless and conscious disregard for the safety and well-being of others that implicates criminal culpability in my eyes. However, whether or not there is an actual victim, and the extent of the damages, may be mitigating or aggravating factors.

Drunk driving causes victims so we should ban that.  What are the laws on throwing bricks from windows?

The vast majority of drunk driving prosecutions have no victims. So, I'm not clear what your position is. Here is an example of a general criminal code section which likely would cover throwing bricks out windows - https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/120.20

Wrong, because that's by definition impossible. Give me an example of a crime that's victimless. 

Smoking in bed

Only businesses and property owners would pay taxes.

You are the victim, also not illegal, but also the smoke can cause very bad conditions for anyone in the vicinity, so... bad in general

I'm not sure everything needs to be legalized, but rather if there is NO victim then no jail time, that type of system would make more sense to me.   You are expecting people to be personally responsible for their own actions, the nanny state will have no part of that.  Democrats want to remove the law that protects gun manufacturers from lawsuits because SOMEONE ELSE used their product in an illegal way.  Yet you can't apparently sue alcohol manufactures or the state operated liquor stores for addiction, dui, related deaths etc.  While I agree in theory this will never happen.  That is a libertarian view, mostly, but the nanny state would never give up that control.

I guess this sort of depends on on what kinds of laws you have in mind.

Like Death23 pointed out, there are some crimes where you might not have hurt someone, but your actions could have harmed someone and by sheer luck didn't. In that case I would think that would need to be illegal. I would think speeding would be a good example. People speed literally every day and for most people doing it, it doesn't cause a problem, ie it would be victimless. But the more you speed the greater the risk to yourself and others, therefore it needs to be illegal. 

There are also crimes where the victims would not be readily apparent. For example, dumping toxic waste into the ground. It could take a long time for people to start noticing the effects of this. Longer still to tie it back to the company that did it. If dumping toxic waste weren't a crime until it harmed someone, it would make it much easier to get away with. especially if the health effects are relatively mild or difficult to find the source of. 

But I agree that there are victimless crimes that make no sense. The war on drugs for example. arresting a drug addict does not help anyone. You are spending large amounts of money to lock them up, ensuring it will be harder for them to get clean when they get out (as they now have that criminal record), and then tossing them back out onto the street to start taking drugs again. I think decriminalizing possession or taking of drugs would be a good idea, but trafficking still being illegal.