Most people see intuitively that the definition of harm allows a lot of latitude in the dictum, "Harm no one."
It is perceptive of you to wonder about how "one" should be defined.
I would define it, forgive the word, liberally. One individual, one family, one dog, one nation.
Obviously, it bears a relationship to the Hippocratic Oath, "First do no harm."
But it is more akin to Hippocrates' Cousin's Oath, "Do no harm first."
However one defines "one" the real crux of understanding is in the word "harm."
That I define broadly as well, concentrating on Heinlein's old-fashioned gentleman's standard -- that if what a person needs is a bit of mid-course correction, it isn't necessarily "Harm"ful to apply it.
One has to be careful in applying such lax definitions that they do not spin completely out of control. Therefore, some concrete examples may be instructive:
Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
I believe you have a right to do with your property what you wish. If you happen to have the last living remnants of the once great herds of unicorns on your property, and you decide to harvest them for the powder in their horns, I might try to talk you out of it, but it is your property.
Unfortunately, the Asimovian corollaries also enter the picture: You will be allowed only a little latitude in how hard you beat your wife, and being distinctly harmful to your children is not a neighborly thing to do, in my neighborhood. The species' instinct to survival tends to trump my normal disinterest in what you do.
Nothing in my hard and fast rule keeps me from being somewhat hypocritical occasionally.
Keep in mind -- it's for your own good.
That was nuanced, Bob.
funny... of the various forms of classical and modern Hippocratic Oaths I have read, not one includes the famous line "first, do no harm"
it IS a dictum of Hippocrates' school of medicine, but not a part of the oath.
harm is measurable damage
Thanks.
;-)