|
"you've never answered how your ideal sensible minimal government or lack thereof handles two entities whose views of what is "their business" are in conflict, if the only regulation is "Mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself (or else)."
Yeah, I have (in one way or another), but here's the short form:
Joe gets robbed (robbin' someone is 'bout as basic an example of somebody not minding his own business or keepin' his hands to himself as you can get]).
Joe contacts the cops who investigate. If the cops find sufficient evidence to finger Stan, they arrest him.
The court reviews the evidence and if it concurs with the cops: San is tried.
If convicted, Stan goes to jail; if acquitted Stan goes free.
Really, you needed me to spell this out for you?
Same applies if you're talkin' about rape, murder, trespassin', or any any other circumstance where somebody doesn't mind their own business and keep their hands to themselves.
Now where it might get a little fuzzy (for you) is when it comes to contracts and the like.
For that we got to cover this...
Extrapolated out from 'mind your own biz and keep your mitts to yourself' is:
'Self and property are sacred'.
'Self-defense and common defense are a justification for violence.'
'A contract is a contract.'
The first two are self-explanatory, the third, not so much.
Here goes: contracts can only be arrived at when all parties understand and agree to the terms. If there is a violation of this (lying about terms; failure to hold to terms, successful coercion to accept terms) then, in a real sense, someone has not minded there own business or kept their hands to themselves cuz by way of their lies, failures, or coercion they have monkeyed around with another's property (which is friggin' sacred).
So: cops , courts, trial, etc.
Satisfied?
|