Thank you for your response, this is very helpful! Is there a way the law can be fair without using a one-size fits all aproach?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Thank you for your response, this is very helpful! Is there a way the law can be fair without using a one-size fits all aproach?
I am of the mind. No victim, no crime. Then it boils down to what constitutes harm. That can be subjective. That is the problem... laws generally are one size fits all.
If I had my way I'd have a society that followed the Non-Aggression Principle, with a Free Market.
Basically you could do what you want as long as it did not involve forcing others to do things against their will or with their property.
Really the only tricky LAW I think really believe would be needed would be defining what constituted property, and how one acquired it.
There can be a lot of options there. Yet with NAP, Free Market Contracts, and some kind of Property Law I think that's about all that would really be needed.
Note... NAP, the Non-Aggression Principle Does not mean will not defend themselves or others. It simply means they will not initiate force. It will only come in response to force initiated against them.
So... law... pretty simple. No Victim, No Crime.
To add to what I said... where the NAP is confusing is how it applies to children. At what age do they become a person that a parent should not be able to force them to do things. I can only say when they have shown they are capable of supporting themselves and surviving on their own.
I agree