Quote from: FredericBasshat
Do a little brush-up on physics
Earlier I might have suggested you do a brush-up on condescension but it looks like you took care of that already. 
Quote
and try and work your way backwards to formulate a "reasonable" set of Laws for Man. Which is to say, measure every action another man makes with regards to his property and person and map that physically to how it affects another person's property (which it inevitably will intersect to some extent). If that force is measurable (tangible not ethereal) and unacceptable (not consensual) to that other person then he has reason to retaliate in a similar manner.
So are you asserting that Person A who applies a measurable force against Person B's property creates the right for Person B to apply a force equal in magnitude, duration and modality to the property of person A and no more?
Quote
Anybody could be a bigot or a racist and physically harm no one if he merely thinks the thought. If however he physically acts on his thoughts, and harms another because of those thoughts, then we have physical violence. Punish the criminal act not the criminal thought. Physics deals in objective measures. Attitudes or emotions about specific actions or persons are subjective.
I don't know what you mean by "physical violence" but if you mean "aggression" as defined in NAP. Then no. You can take action to oppress a community and no aggression (in the strict NAP sense has occured).
Quote
. If your entire case regarding the 'complexity' of law rests/hinges on making predictions about physical threats, I will concede that point. However, I question the prudence of anybody writing laws which would likely include preemptive force to prohibit actions not yet committed. There are one too many variables to consider, and each situation is unique, so why even try?
My case against what appears to be your argument about "complex laws are bad" is that its simply begging the question. If the purpose of law is to approximate "true justice" then Laws are only necessarily simple if "true justice" is necessarily simple. If true justice is complex then laws are needfully complex.
Quote from: jgraham
Then provides a kind of half-definition "Laws prevent injury, enslavement, and plunder" so implying that restricting the kinds of weapons one can carry can't prevent injury. However no argument is made as to why this might be true. No response is given when this is highlighted.
In response to the above statement: "restricting weapons cannot prevent injury." On the contrary, the very fact you're restricting them causes injury.
At best ignoratio elenchi. Even if we accept the somewhat tenuous idea that restricting the kinds of weapons which can be carried has the potential to cause (or perhaps "contribute in some way" is better) injury. This does not actually negate the potential to prevent injury.
Which was the point.