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.
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.
Do have legal and moral justification. It should be illegal to sell alcohol and drugs to minors. Even if it weren't, parents have the right if not obligation to protect their child from their immaturity that renders them unable to make informed choices. An impartial jury could decide if the dealers act of attempting to make a sale threatened harm to the child and what restitution is due.
If it were an adult (potential customer) the dealer was attempting to make a sale to the potential customer could take the dealer to court and try to convince an impartial jury that he was harmed by the drug dealers attempt to sell him drugs. Most likely, if the judge didn't dismiss the case the impartial jury would find that no harm was done to the plaintiff.
Adults have full right of free association. So long as two adult's agree to associate neither is being defrauded. A child can be defrauded when an adult convinces the child to associate.