I wish we would have continued the discussion from my second edit above:
laws that are implemented for your own good (like sugary drinks in New York) infringe on a person's liberty and I'm not in favor of those. Laws that are implemented for the good of others, those I'm in favor of.
So...
I make my decisions about my risk or enjoyment or schedule, not you.
Go ahead. I don't care. But if I run you over it damages my car. Or, I might decide to be nice and swerve to avoid you which may end up physically harming me or others. Yes, this is a hypothetical but a very probable one. Have you ever tried crossing an interstate? You think it's only yourself you're risking?
Do you see the similarity between the cookies and the jaywalking?
Absolutely not. For the reason I explained above.
if i shit on your car, same thing. If I shit on your lawn, same thing.
But what if you shit all over the street in front of my driveway. That's no longer my property so fair play?
Perhaps what you mean is that you want rules in place so that peaceful strangers act the way that you subjectively want them to act.
Not necessarily. I don't care how people act as long as they don't harm others directly or indirectly. Voluntaryist rules seem to only account for direct cause and effect. Meaning, you can't harm me directly but if it's indirectly then it's fair play. Like the street crossing scenario. Your crossing the street is not an action towards me directly. But if I die because of it, well, too bad.
I think this is where we clearly differ.
By the way, you keep saying "peaceful people" as if it's supposed to mean something. What does it mean? What's the difference between a peaceful person and non-peaceful person? Are non-peaceful people treated differently? Do they have different rules and what you're talking about only applies to "peaceful people" specifically?
so i think we are on the same page for regulations that outlaw cookies and ice cream (personal health risk), but your concern was that part of the effect of jaywalking was harm to others (risk of causing car crash).
When risk to others becomes subjectively high, I would not complain if somebody took action to stop the person who creates the risk. Example: guy drives drunk at very high speed past a school when lots of kids are in the area. I would not interfere with somebody taking action to fix that problem.
At some point, I can understand somebody who wants to support government to have a forcible tax to pay cops who enforce only extreme violations, like the drunk guy speeding past a school. I would not vote for such a tax, but if I could negotiate with statists and chop down the mountain of bogus laws and leave only the laws against the most egregious things, I would probably accept that as a compromise.
As for supporting a law that outlaws all jaywalking.... NO! I would oppose that. I know how to cross a street, and there is no evidence that a politician is morally superior to me and has some special authority to control my peaceful behavior of walking across the street when it is clear.
Note that if the pedestrian causes and accident or blocks traffic, I would not complain if somebody took action to correct the problem. Any pedestrian who gets hit in the street would be liable in any negotiation of a settlement. I might put "crossing a highway" in the egregious crime bucket if the speed limit is high and the road crowded.
As for me shitting in a public street, obviously I don't do that (too often). I commented on your other reply about the book Defending the Undefendable. Walter Block argued in that book that there shouldn't be any public land or public streets, so he applauds people who litter because they are heroically taking a jab at the state for having state land. I don't applaud litterbugs.
If I had to ponder about the distant future, I might say that tiny side streets could be owned by homeowners associations and arterial roads maintained by a voluntary union of businesses and residents. Businesses that don't chip in would be on the shit list posted in public. That voluntary nonprofit organizations would "own" the main streets and could legitimately take action against people littering on the street. Again, I would not predict that this will happen in the USA without an apocalypse.
Somebody replied to your other post about 'peaceful people.' I am referring to people who do not initiate violence against others. Think of a grandmother being arrested for walking across a crosswalk and not keeping to the right side of the crosswalk (this is actually a law where I live).
Depending on your view of jaywalking, we might be closer to agreement. After this I'd like to address social welfare programs and positive obligations (I have no evidence to suggest that any positive obligations exist in the real world, but you could have guessed that).
Thanks for your response. I may have more to say but I think we've already hijacked this comment section. So I'll end here and perhaps we can continue on your own blog. I truly find all of this very interesting!