But, to carry on that tradition, I think you missed the point entirely. Not all interference with other interests are "actionable." Again, I am afraid, you have created a strawman with all your "examples." There is a huge body of laws that address the "interference with interests" that does not address criminality - it's called "civil law." It started with the common law of torts, but also addresses contracts, and now a whole body of other issues: nuisance laws, equal protection laws, etc., etc., etc. They have been known for hundreds of years in our legal tradition as "courts of equity."
You are engaging in the fallacy of irrelevance, NWP, by trying to argue a point not presented. I did not write that civil law would not be recognized in a libertarian-oriented system. The claim you made, the one I responded to, was “Where he and I have always agreed is that the primary role of government is to prevent individuals from interfering with the interests of other individuals...” (emphasis added by me). No government that I know of has ever been established to serve that primary role. Almost all governments have been imposed on the weak by the powerful for their own purposes without a moments concern for such a primary role of judiciary beneficence.
However, in an era of enlightenment, and at the time of the American Revolution, it was recognized by some that the only valid government is one that is instituted to secure and protect man’s rights. That was the point being used to contest your claim that “…the primary role of government is to prevent individuals from interfering with the interests of other individuals…”.
And no, my examples were not strawmen. They related directly to your erroneous claim that “…the primary role of government is to prevent individuals from interfering with the interests of other individuals…”. ;-) Yours in patience, Issodhos
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos