So I seek to turn their minds to practical matters, such as the law, and say this: To solve a problem there are two ways; the lawful way and the violent way.
The law is to settle disputes between individuals, and settle them on the basis of justice, not mere force as is the way of of the sword, and justice requires that the rules by which it shall be determined be known and knowable to all concerned, so let them be proclaimed.
Leave my stuff alone, I'll leave your stuff alone. We will abjure the violent way. It is better if we live side by side in peace. There will be some, we know, who will follow the ways of Cain, and they must be dealt with justly, and differences between us will arise. The lawful way is by definition the way of truth, justice and reason, shot through the prism of property rights. This will be The Social Contract.
What acts now considered crimes would not be so considered, if the law was reduced to only protecting property rights?
Incest between two consenting adults; libel; slander; supplying drugs; crimes of incitement; crimes of hate: non-coercive vice and obscenity; blasphemy; mere possession of weapons;
The question: Was there consent? If there was not, then you must ask; was there harm to another's property? If so, was there agency? Was there intent? Was there malice?Must there be recompense?
But if the answer is; yes there was consent, then you must be sure it was informed.