Premise: The opening question that any political philosopher must grapple with: Can the state ever go past legendary King Pausole's one law: “Hurt no man, then do as you will.” If so, when?
On the surface, this is an easy question to answer: If another person isn't getting hurt, the state should back off. But does hurt include emotional hurt? A hurt reputation? Fraud? If not, can the state take steps to prevent plots to hurt someone physically? If a person entertains violent thoughts, he's more likely to act on them. When can the state intervene in thoughts? It can't. So thoughts are off limits. But what about aids to violent thoughts (e.g., pornography and the Octagon)?
It's a question of proximity. I suspect tort common law on the issue of proximate cause could help with this analysis.
