A) You gave me a Libertarian philosophical theory which had no connection to reality. B) The definition of harm can be so broad as to include behaviors which are prohibited under today's laws.
"OK, show me a better idea."
I'm quite content with the current one. A representative republic, with legislators limited by both the constitution and the people who elected them to office.
If the people don't want certain laws, they can let their representatives know about it. You would attempt to limit their right to choose how they will live.
Nope. I don't know where you get that.
You don't seem to to like libertarian philosophical theory - what about any other theory?
I note your stated preference for a representative republic, and that laws can change through the process, but what about the merit of the laws themselves?
If enough people succeed in pressuring their representatives to amend the Constitution to legalize all drugs, would you feel that they had limited your right to choose how to live? Can some laws fall short of your ideal, or does that end with "the will of the republic" ?