[Zon]

You make a good communitarian. Hoodwinked and champion. Sacrifice the individual in whole or in part for the supposed greater good of the group. The ends' justify the means, right? Enlist government agents to act on your behalf to initiate force/harm against persons that are minding there own business without initiating force against anyone. Legislating morality wherein the supposed morality includes initiating harm/force against persons and their property. Private contracts be damned! Social engineering and micro management has delivered this...

Virtually everyone is already a criminal and for sure all CEOs and business owners are. An average 3,000 new federal laws and regulations each year ensures it. Yet better than 95% of the populace doesn't initiate force, threat of force or fraud against any person or their property.

Objective law. When a person thinks they have been harmed they can take the suspect to court and do their best to convince an impartial jury that they have been harmed and to what extent so that you may gain restitution for your loss.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Zon - apparently you've never read John Locke, have you? Do you have any idea what commonwealth ideology even is?

On a lighter note, I do love how libertarians assume that if a person isn't a stark raving anarchist, then they must be a communist. It must be great to not actually have to think about the implications of libertarian ideology.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Oh, and by the way Zon, you're apparently not very good at reading for comprehension, either.

Enlist government agents to act on your behalf to initiate force/harm against persons that are minding there own business without initiating force against anyone.

If you will remember, the example I used, and the whole basis of my argument, was that of the commonwealth acting as a check on the excesses of individuals when their actions harm other members of the commonwealth. Hence, your whole argument here is completely moot. By definition, I'nm discussing instances where the offender in question most certainly is not "minding their own business".

Objective law. When a person thinks they have been harmed they can take the suspect to court and do their best to convince an impartial jury that they have been harmed and to what extent so that you may gain restitution for your loss.

Oddly enough, that makes my point exactly. If my neighbour is acting oppressively - doing something to harm my person, property, etc. - then I can take them to court to gain restitution and/or injunction against their behaviour. But guess what? That means *drum roll please* government, now doesn't it? That means the commonwealth as a whole, through the delegated power of the court and the jury, acting to restrain my neighbour from an objectionable behaviour that is harming me and my property. I don't have to shoot him, or start a tit-for-tat feud, all I have to do is enlist the power of the commonwealth to which we are both citizens, and utilise its power to protect my person and property. Get it?

As for the rest of what you wrote, it's just bilious grandstanding that has nothing to do with my original proposition. Merely a straw man argument.