Any law that attempts to regulate or prohibit anything other than actual aggression or theft is a counterfeit "law", and has no ethical foundation upon which to stand. As long as you do not cause harm to innocent people, you are free to live life however you see fit. Notwithstanding the edicts of whichever Rulers think they own you. It really isn't that hard to understand, is it?
The "arguments" against this concept seem to stall at the point of not understanding the "harming others" idea. Invariably the dissenter will say something like "You don't really think 'speed limits' should be ditched, do you?". Yes I do. "Speeding" harms no one by itself. If you exceed the speed at which you can safely operate your vehicle (which has nothing to do with the speed limit) and hurt someone, you are responsible and should be held accountable.
So then the whiner will claim that not everyone is smart enough to drive within their ability or that going fast makes it more likely to wreck and hurt people. So?
Obviously, you should not regulate everyone because of the idiots among us. Punish only the idiots when they cause harm or they will not learn a lesson. You also can't base "laws" upon what might happen. If that were a legitimate action, you should be prohibited from ever giving anyone food. After all, they might choke, or they might have an allergic reaction to some ingredient. Actual harm to someone who is no immediate threat to you is the only basis for a real law.
It makes me believe that the dispute that arises over "as long as you harm no one else" is just because some people cling desperately to the outdated and discredited notion of "government".
______________
