This time by an anonymous commenter to a post:
But in an important way, the commenter is supporting my point when he writes:
Few people would want to live in a society where RW could murder children for walking on his grass..In other words, you don't need a central power to set a "code" of rules of punishment. No one with children is going to live or go near property where children would be killed for walking on grass. Any more than little girls are allowed by their parents to walk alone in San Francisco's Tenderloin in the middle of the night. Or any more than they are allowed to play inside ovens that are on. Do we need a central power to set rules for parents on when they can buy ovens and use them because they have the potential on a theoretical level to result in the death of children?
It is the same for other situations that will develop in a Private Property Society,
No one would shop at Macy's, for example. if the punishment for accidentally breaking a glass in the store was 30 years hard labor.
In a Private Property Society reasonableness would emerge without the necessity for a central power setting a "code" of rules of punishment that must be applied everywhere.
There is no such thing as "objectivity" in punishment that can somehow be deemed from above, or wherever. This is simply a central planning notion. Only an injured person can tell us what is just compensation for being aggressed upon or under what pre-determined rules of punishment he has chosen to live under that will satisfy him.
A Private Property Society can do just fine setting reasonable punishment by simply respecting private property and the non-aggression principle. As anonymous inadvertently makes clear, few people would live in an area where children would be killed for walking on another person's grass. This is the essence of understanding how PPS would work.
Who the hell would want to live in such an are if they have kids? Mission accomplished without a centralized "code of punishment."