Hmm,

On the surface of it, most of the rules you cite do seem a bit too restrictive. Certainly those not directly associated with a specific action, such as who your friends are, ought not pertain to a democratic society such as ours, and fortunately they don't. I have no problem with whom you associate, so long as the method of association does not interfere with the welfare of others, and even if I did, the law does not give me anything more than a public voice to object to your association, which seemly means I am entitled to my opinion and to express it, and nothing more.

However, most of the rules that pertain to such things as drinking at home, shooting at home and gambling in a legal facility are contextual. I can tolerate those activities of others so long as they don't exacerbate into a social problem, such as drinking at home leading to public drunkeness. It is not the action perse, but the outcome of taking the action to excess, which is where the line should be, and usually is, drawn.

Other rules, such as transporting dairy or produce, or slaughtering animals out in the back yard, ought to be done in a prescribed, proven method to reduce the inherent health risks associated with such activity. Perhaps you exercise all the hygenic effort necessary to prevent the spread of disease, contamination, or pests. However, rules such as these are in effect because at some point, some bozo decided to slaughter his chickens in the back yard, and he was not too careful about how he went about it, and maybe some kid or woman saw him doing it and took offense, or the blood and guts entered the public domain or some such and now you've got a public nuisance issue, and possibly a health concern, and so those activities have to be regulated somehow. I used to think there were a lot of ridiculous rules like this when I was younger, but after doing a couple tours in local govt., I've come to realize that each stupid sounding rule and regulation was created because some idiot or sleezebag or just plain ignorant fool didn't take the proper precautions and the situation got out of control and someone that shouldn't have been got their own rights violated as a result. Usually such events are handled in civil trial, but when it is a persistent and more widespread problem, then the regulations get made so that such activities can be controlled and approved methods used by those who so choose.

We had a guy in our neighborhood that didn't quite understand property rights decide to dig a pit in his backyard so he could put in some additional storage. He went and got a little backhoe and proceeded merrily along, right up till he hit the buried fiberoptic line that ran under his property (what is an easement???) That took out all the comms traffic in and out of the southern half of the Hanford Nuclear reservation and got our crew out doing a 90 line splice round the clock. While he was so busy arguing with the utility manager about his property line, the feds were there writing up the bill for the repairs, and the county inspector was there issuing him a notice of violation for not using the utilitiy locates service and for digging a hole more than 3 feet deep on his property.

For most of your list, I can say that the rule or law you violated is there because at some point there was indeed a victim at some point in time, even if not in your case. For the rest, thankfully, there are no such rules or laws in this country, yet, at least not where I live.

More to the point, I think we are still in agreement because I don't see as any of the rules you cite that would apply to a truly democratic society would in the proper context generate a victim. I bet no one's ever come to your home to check and see if you are in fact sitting inside the house drinking beer, unless someone saw you do it and for some reason took offense and called the authorities. Likely if you are prudent about your actions, that would not be possible. It is the careless that get popped for this sort of thing.