The only regulation (law, principle, etc) worth a damn is...

Mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself (or else).

Anything else is overkill and nitpicky (which is the sphere of the buttinsky).

Now, do we have new ground to cover here, or are we just goin' round and round?

If it's the former then let's have it; if it's the latter, then I'm done.

There are many private regulations. My workplace just went through ISO 27001 certification, which proves that we enforce a standard of practices for information security. It's a harder process than, say, food safety processes that restaurants go by for their system of government inspection.

Often, there is a call for government regulation when private regulations have failed... and vice versa.

When I say 'my business', in context, I'm talkin' about my life, my affairs, not strictly my 'profit-makin' enterprise'.

As for 'my profit-makin' enterprise', I already covered that with you, tw: you were wrong then and you're wrong now.

Which explains why you need flame-throwers. How dare they make laws that restrict that right to bear arms. Henry quirk has the right to do anything he wants.

"Henry quirk has the right to do anything he wants."
 

Pretty much, yeah (just like you and him and her).

You're the one who looped back. If you don't want to cover new ground, don't try to put it on me.


How you define your business and how others define their business will conflict, whether in the scope of profit-making enterprises or not. There is no platonic ideal of "my business". Regulation provides the common framework for resolving those conflicts. If you don't like the regulation, you can work to change it.

The flame-thrower reference was to your post about burning people to death to sterilize the ground they walked on. Minding your own business and keeping your hands to yourself?

"How you define your business and how others define their business will conflict"
 

Yeah, and that's been wrung dry across several threads too.

As for me loopin' back: cuz we ain't coverin' new ground...not me, you, tw, or anyone.

"Well, if you don't wanna [insert verb] then why are you here?"

Damned good question.

#

"The flame-thrower reference was to your post about burning people to death to sterilize the ground they walked on."

Well, at least you're not a creep.

You've never actually answered it, unless you're referring to Golgotha, where the answer was to rustle up a posse.
I mean, the root of the "joke" was that immigrants are so disgusting and diseased that merely shooting them isn't sufficient; the ground they touched needs to be cleansed , right? I didn't miss the "humor"; I don't recognize it as such. Especially in this thread, in the context of asserting your right to do as you please.

"You've never actually answered it"

Yes, I did. Several times.

As I say: I support the 'night watchman' model, meaning sensible, minimal, courts, law enforcement, and military.

#

"I didn't miss the "humor"; I don't recognize it as such."

Okay. Humor is subjective.

That answers nothing. Sensible and minimal mean different things to everyone. Law enforcement and the courts are the mechanisms by which laws and regulations are enforced.


But 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)."

"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?

What if there's no contract, and two entities still disagree about what is "their business"?

gimme a concrete example
 

.

Can you not conceive of a situation where two people could claim to be minding their own business, and still come into conflict? Whether one or both of them are making the claim honestly? Or do you just want to find some flaw with whatever example I come up with, and dismiss the general concept?



But anyway, here: Your uphill neighbor dumping toxic waste on his side of your property line.