You seem to be making the argument that "the lower the number of laws to be made the more you prefer it". This is seems pretty weak.
i) Why is low number of laws the key element? By the same token one could argue that if we only consider assault to a person (rather than property) then that result is simpler still! Better yet, lets only consider assault to peoples left arms!
ii) Can you actually prove that there is no infinite set of laws that could potentially be made (given an infinite amount of time) concerning the assault of person and property?
iii) Your secondary clause is actually a slippery slope fallacy. Many societies already consider various forms mental abuse to be a crime and yet we still see limitations on laws regarding offensive things in those places.
So by "legal crimes" you meant "physical assault to a person and I'll assume by extension to ones property" then?. That's interesting since it doesn't cover "threat of violence" with is considered "aggression" under NAP. Which means that blackmail in your world is not a crime. Also to you an dependent elder, child, spouse can be in an raised in an environment with constant psychological abuse (including say making someone fear for their life) and believe that no crime is being committed there. Right?
Law is complicated because life is, in part because life today is complicated.
I actually do prefer fewer laws. There's less to mess with. There is a reason for the preference. I think when you have many laws you introduce the possibility of loopholes.
So fewer laws do not create loopholes or create less loopholes? So if I have a law who's intent is to stop the use of dangerous weapons which only restricts weapons made of steel and a set of laws that provides specific requirements for each material based on various characteristics. Are you saying the first law allows for less dangerous weapons than the second?
Not to mention this kind of highlights that the term "number of laws" is at least poorly defined. What's the difference between my set of laws - strung together as a single sentence and classified as a single "law" and treating them as a group of laws? Perhaps we need to use terms more like "simple" or "complex". I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here - just trying to think things through.
However on that note this makes me think of the problems involved in approximation. Bare with me here...if we assume that there is some kind of "true" justice then it seems reasonable that such a concept could be defined as a function (of sorts) where each possible situation is the input and the output maps to some set of results - leaving aside for the moment the difficulty in defining "true justice" and some of the other terms - we will call this function T. A law then could be defined as a function attempting to approximate this function - which we'll call L. It's inputs do not necessarily take into account every situation and it's outputs do not necessarily match T for any and all cases. Given all that, what features would L require to approximate T best?
In general, blackmail, slander, and other forms of questionable communication are not physical abuse as would be defined in the usual physical sense of the word, and so, would not fall into the category of punishable offenses. Notwithstanding, children, who by nature have limited ability to decide for themselves that they would leave such a negative environment if available, warrants some investigation.
Yes and under your system apparently these child abusers are not criminals and are also not punished correct?
Everybody else is free to leave an abusive environment (assuming it isn't their own private property they're occupying, in which case the other person has to leave).
Depends on what you mean by "free". Do you mean significantly unencumbered?
Threats of force still involve the element of force
Technically that's equivocation. Before you used the term 'force' to align with the term used by physicists. Threats of violence are orthogonal to physical force. Now you appear to be using the term to mean something else.
