Originally Posted by issodhos
I disagree with both you and your brother, NWP.
Wow, Iss, that makes you pretty disagreeable... wink

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."

If two applicants are after the same job and one applicant arrives a half hour earlier than he and the other is supposed to arrive and, as a result, gets the job, he has interfered with the interests of the other applicant. How does the government have any role in such an action?
It doesn't, but... what if one applicant is black or a woman and is the one who gets there early? What if the other was late because the other blocked the entrance to the parking garage forcing the other to drive an extra 6 blocks to find a parking space? What if one of the applicants' girlfriend "accidentally" scheduled the other applicant's appointment 20 minutes later without telling the interviewer?

Two people are at an auction and are bidding on the same item for separate clients. One out-bids the other, directly interfering with the business interests of the other. How does the government have any role in such an action?
What if one of the clients has those funds for money-laundering? What if the bids are based upon false claims of available credit? What if the auction house doesn't have permission to sell the item?

Two women are competing with each other to win the affections and eventual marriage of an eligible man. One of the women bests the other woman and, in so doing, interferes with the other�s interests. How does the government have any role in such an action?
What if she "bested" her by stealing her identity? What if she trashed the other woman's car? What if she engaged in a pattern of character assassination by spreading lies about her?

I�m going to have to stick to the idea that the primary role of the government is securing and protecting the rights of the individual � not delving about and intruding upon his �interests".
Then you are going to miss out on most of the protections of the Constitution and our legal system, my friend - like the ability to participate in this forum.

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich