Section 4 of your law relates to "UPA", Unprovoked Physical Agressions of "BoCs", Breaches of Contract leading to a loss of rights. Where is the agression or contract in any of these scenarios? I presume the rights lost refer to section 2 - right to defend and control one's life and property.
Yes section 2 refers to ones right to life and property.
Does someone have to own the sea as well? And all the ocean? Do you have to enter into a contract with people on the other side of the ocean in the event your pollution should cause damage there? Suppose you want to build a nuclear power-plant. First of all, you'll have to be sure not to impinge on others' property rights by emitting radioactive waste. But then wait, what if there's a meltdown and you end up accidentally destroying the country for 100 miles around?
If you don't own it, and I don't own it, and nobody owns it, then who cares. I know your answer. You do care; so go homestead it, occupy it and claim it for your own, and then complain at me when I provably pollute it (equivalent to trespass).
Section 7.1 says force can be resolved to resolve a rights violation. I presume here you mean to say that a drunk driver can legitimately be beaten up, or have property confiscated, or maybe assassinated, if he kills someone. An eye for an eye, eh? We're really moving civilisation forward here, aren't we? ...I freely admit that current legislation does not bring people back from the dead, but I can't see how libertarianism will improve road safety, or food safety, nuclear safety, etc.
You were the one wanting to create laws that force a particular type of rule of law. How else do we restore loss or provide restitution to the victims - just say I'm sorry...? How does anything change that might improve safety etc. People do this; government is a fancy name for people with big scary sticks. You make legislation sound like it magically solves problems by mere proclamation.
What if it's a controvertible diminishment in one's Rights? Suppose I feel that your action diminshes my rights, and yet you think otherwise? Either in the absence of a contract, or where the perceived diminishment has not been foreseen by the contract and hence, the appropriate compensation has not been specified. Resolve this conflict please.
You'd have to objectify your feelings by identifying and relating them to things that exist in reality. Don't reify.