Enlist government agents to act on your behalf to initiate force/harm against persons that are minding there own business without initiating force against anyone.
If you will remember, the example I used, and the whole basis of my argument, was that of the commonwealth acting as a check on the excesses of individuals when their actions harm other members of the commonwealth. Hence, your whole argument here is completely moot. By definition, I'nm discussing instances where the offender in question most certainly is not "minding their own business".
Objective law. When a person thinks they have been harmed they can take the suspect to court and do their best to convince an impartial jury that they have been harmed and to what extent so that you may gain restitution for your loss.
Oddly enough, that makes my point exactly. If my neighbour is acting oppressively - doing something to harm my person, property, etc. - then I can take them to court to gain restitution and/or injunction against their behaviour. But guess what? That means *drum roll please* government, now doesn't it? That means the commonwealth as a whole, through the delegated power of the court and the jury, acting to restrain my neighbour from an objectionable behaviour that is harming me and my property. I don't have to shoot him, or start a tit-for-tat feud, all I have to do is enlist the power of the commonwealth to which we are both citizens, and utilise its power to protect my person and property. Get it?
As for the rest of what you wrote, it's just bilious grandstanding that has nothing to do with my original proposition. Merely a straw man argument.
But guess what? That means *drum roll please* government, now doesn't it?
As obvious as the nose on your face. You're so ignorant you thought I was unaware that when I said "take the suspect to court" that you thought of some alien court or court I have no idea that exists outside of government. So Apparently you coated a really juvenile straw man for the sole reason of kicking the stuffing out of it. Very lame.
That means the commonwealth as a whole, through the delegated power of the court and the jury, acting to restrain my neighbour from an objectionable behaviour that is harming me and my property.
It means a civil court deciding if you suffered a loss and what amount of restitution you are due. Criminal court is a different issue -- I bring it up only to acknowledge it. The zoning laws your neighbor broke are what was supposed to restrain him. But as we see it didn't work for you or him. But most people don't violate another person's property so you two are the exception rather than the rule. As it should be.
I don't have to shoot him, or start a tit-for-tat feud, all I have to do is enlist the power of the commonwealth to which we are both citizens, and utilise its power to protect my person and property. Get it?
You've got that all wrapped up nice and neat in your communitarian cloak. The persons that make up a community, as they are, better than 95% of them anyways, doesn't initiate force, threat of force or fraud against persons or their property.
As for the rest of what you wrote, it's just bilious grandstanding that has nothing to do with my original proposition. Merely a straw man argument.
You might as well just say no comment, or that you don't understand. Ignorance isn't your best suit. Curiously what acts by a person do you want to enlist government agents to act on your behalf to initiate force against persons that commit said acts?