Senator Bedfellow: After all, he didn't forcibly or fraudulently deprive you or anyone else of life, liberty, or property - he just offered your third grader a big fat rock. So as a practical matter, under such a scheme, neither you nor the state have any legal justification for depriving him of his property, or his liberty. 604
You argued that the victim/child's parents have no right to sue in the first place. Thus invalidates your premise that a jury would be present to give a verdict one way or another.
Basically, you shot yourself in the foot. ...Sophistry bites back at you.
I have argued no such thing. Read for content, instead of just inventing points and then "refuting" them.
The argument stands. You have no legal or moral justification under your own scheme for enforcing any judgement, because the crack dealer has perpetrated neither force nor fraud by offering crack to the kiddies.