One thing with the 100% enforcement principle is that the majority of the laws being overturned today are those that never should have existed in the first place, because they were legislating morals where behavior never hurt anyone else besides their "beliefs". Any behavior that doesn't cause harm to another human being (which can ethically be argued to include oneself or not, but the former makes things much more complicated) should not be illegal. Behaviors proven to cause harm to other human beings (like the drunk driving you suggest), even if unintentional, have the effect of high likelihood of harm to others, and are also valid. Criminalize and legislate away things that harm others. And you need the ability to scientifically verify direct harm or exceedingly high correlations between behavior and harm to outlaw or regulate some behavior.
That means public nudity is legal, nothing about same sex should exist, you can smoke whatever you want (unless it kills you, or permanently maims you, which is why I think self-harm being legal is acceptable, and you should only criminalize the acts of harming others) but not be mentally compromised in public, you can grow whatever you want, you can bear firearms but not take them in public (unless unloaded), you would set speed limits to the first standard deviation of the average speed of a road (ie, the bounds of safety) rather than some arbitrary unrealistic number that causes everyone to speed, etc.
I mean, hell, you could make this very simple in what is criminal:
* Do not directly endanger others excessively through reckless behavior or use of dangerous tools.
* Do not actively hurt another through physical or excessive emotional violence (the latter would have to be extended mental trauma, not just calling someone a name).
And there you go. The first needs a jury to decide if it is a true endangerment in certain conduct, the latter is pretty straightforward, and it only gets murky if you consider ones ability to self-harm being outlawed, which makes a lot of behavior illegal.
Trying to extend them to animals gets complicated, but I figure the distinction is the act of causing pain and suffering vs killing for function. IE, don't endanger or harm other animals unless for the purposes of harvesting resources from them, and only do so causing as little suffering as possible, and that you can't "harvest" an animal owned by someone else (ie, don't murder your neighbors dog saying you wanted to eat dog steaks).
You can argue "harm" about anything. Especially if you include risk of harm. Under that model it would be valid to prohibit driving at any speed, owning a steak knife, etc., because there is some risk that activity poses to others.
The fundamental problem is proportionality. And the reason it's a problem is that perfect enforcement is impossible. The actual harm posed by driving down a residential street at 60MPH is not proportional to the existing penalties (i.e. reckless driving, jail time, suspension of license). You could do it a hundred times and likely nothing bad would happen. The problem is that a) if you do it 50,000 times then likely someone will be injured, and b) you can do it a hundred times and likely not be caught by law enforcement.
So here comes the trouble. If you set the penalty equal to the risk-adjusted harm (i.e. penalty for 60MPH in a residential zone is a $25 fine) then it serves as no deterrent because you'll only be caught less than 1% of the time which makes the risk-adjusted penalty 100 times less than the risk-adjusted harm. However, if you adjust the penalty to account for the low risk of getting caught, you now have a penalty which when imposed is disproportionate to the offense by a factor of 100 or more. Which is problematic when the effectiveness of enforcement increases without adjusting the penalties. And extremely problematic when the reason for enforcement ineffectiveness is that enforcement is expensive or unpopular, meaning that someone targeted for investigation (e.g. for political reasons) could be found violating many such laws in a way that wouldn't be financially or politically viable to investigate every member of the general public, and then be subject to 100X the proportional penalties for the offense(s) because the penalties were set under a set of assumptions about the effectiveness of investigation and enforcement that are invalidated when the investment of investigative resources is politically motivated.
Well yes, you are destroying their property. You harm others by destroying their things, both physically (it consumes time to replace them, it inconveniences them if the target of vandalism, theft, or other defamation becomes unusable, etc).
It is why I brought up pets as property, to cover animal cruelty. If someone else recognizably owns something in the legal system (via valid transaction recognized as voluntary exchange on the part of both parties) than someone else misusing that possession in any ways is grounds to cause harm to the owning party, given that the violence against property was not agreed upon (ie, the owner didn't say demolish my house in a contract).
You would need to do a long run study on the subject to verify it is the case, but from my intuition and the number of gun misfire cases I hear about, it would probably mathematically prove to have a recognizable increase in the rate of injury due to the firearm in public if it is loaded.
That means public nudity is legal, nothing about same sex should exist, you can smoke whatever you want (unless it kills you, or permanently maims you, which is why I think self-harm being legal is acceptable, and you should only criminalize the acts of harming others) but not be mentally compromised in public, you can grow whatever you want, you can bear firearms but not take them in public (unless unloaded), you would set speed limits to the first standard deviation of the average speed of a road (ie, the bounds of safety) rather than some arbitrary unrealistic number that causes everyone to speed, etc.
I mean, hell, you could make this very simple in what is criminal:
* Do not directly endanger others excessively through reckless behavior or use of dangerous tools.
* Do not actively hurt another through physical or excessive emotional violence (the latter would have to be extended mental trauma, not just calling someone a name).
And there you go. The first needs a jury to decide if it is a true endangerment in certain conduct, the latter is pretty straightforward, and it only gets murky if you consider ones ability to self-harm being outlawed, which makes a lot of behavior illegal.
Trying to extend them to animals gets complicated, but I figure the distinction is the act of causing pain and suffering vs killing for function. IE, don't endanger or harm other animals unless for the purposes of harvesting resources from them, and only do so causing as little suffering as possible, and that you can't "harvest" an animal owned by someone else (ie, don't murder your neighbors dog saying you wanted to eat dog steaks).