I'm a little discombobulated by your second sentence. I'm not sure that suing a robber would accomplish anything -- you're unlikely to collect if a jury awarded you a judgment and even then the robber is unlikely to pay. How, then, is he penalized for robbing you? But I think your suggestion about how to handle restrictions on smoking is insightful and may be the start of a welcome compromise. If I walk down a sidewalk, say, and someone wafts tobacco smoke in my face, I would be at liberty to sue that person and receive judgment, if I convinced a jury. That course probably has a pretty high price tag, but what the hey, it's our personal liberties we're talking about here. If there were 40- or 50-million such lawsuits a year, how would we handle them? But if, say, I went into a restaurant and tobacco smoke wafted to my table, I could sue both the restaurant owner and the smokers nearby. A person could probably get six or eight lawsuits out of one incident. But tell me this? Who's going to be happy with this solution? Besides the lawyers?
I'm not sure that suing a robber would accomplish anything -- you're unlikely to collect if a jury awarded you a judgment and even then the robber is unlikely to pay.
Can't get blood from a rock. Still, the victim is due restitution from the criminal. The criminal must pay off the debt. Perhaps, "you've got a choice, go to jail or go to work here until you pay off your debt. And even if you chose jail you still have to pay off the debt." Objective law has yet to be created and I sure don't have anywhere near all the answers.
How, then, is he penalized for robbing you?
The punishment or realignment with morals that prohibit theft could be dealt with via a set of sentencing codes. Similar to what there is today. The point is to take into account whether the criminal is a threat to society, to what extent and how to rectify that situation.
If there were 40- or 50-million such lawsuits a year, how would we handle them? But if, say, I went into a restaurant and tobacco smoke wafted to my table, I could sue both the restaurant owner and the smokers nearby. A person could probably get six or eight lawsuits out of one incident. But tell me this? Who's going to be happy with this solution? Besides the lawyers?
Good luck trying to prove to an impartial jury that a person/smoker smoking a cigarette in a restaurant that was posted as "smoking permitted" initiated force against the supposed victim. Nobody forced the person to enter the restaurant owner's private property. After the first few lawsuits, if there even was a first few, the supposed victims losing each one would stop the frivolous lawsuits. Especially when the loser pays the court cost and lawyer fees.
That said, the point of my post was to encourage people to stop looking to the supposed "higher authorities" for answers to problems. Which in reality are non-problems. Problems created by parasitical politicians, self-serving bureaucrats and dishonest lawyers -- problems that need not exist in the first place. Those "higher authorities" create the problems. The highest authority is the individual.
For a peaceful and prosperous society to exist the citizens do not need hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations. They need an objective law and an honest court system and arbitration services to ensure that when a person is the victim of initiation of force, threat of force or fraud there is a means for the victim to gain restitution and a way to protect society from the criminal and rehabilitate the criminal. Parents, friends, peers and the free market can work to educate citizens away from harmful habits and self-destructive behaviors. Remove the negatives and the positives take care of themselves.