so i think we are on the same page for regulations that outlaw cookies and ice cream (personal health risk), but your concern was that part of the effect of jaywalking was harm to others (risk of causing car crash).

When risk to others becomes subjectively high, I would not complain if somebody took action to stop the person who creates the risk. Example: guy drives drunk at very high speed past a school when lots of kids are in the area. I would not interfere with somebody taking action to fix that problem.

At some point, I can understand somebody who wants to support government to have a forcible tax to pay cops who enforce only extreme violations, like the drunk guy speeding past a school. I would not vote for such a tax, but if I could negotiate with statists and chop down the mountain of bogus laws and leave only the laws against the most egregious things, I would probably accept that as a compromise.

As for supporting a law that outlaws all jaywalking.... NO! I would oppose that. I know how to cross a street, and there is no evidence that a politician is morally superior to me and has some special authority to control my peaceful behavior of walking across the street when it is clear.

Note that if the pedestrian causes and accident or blocks traffic, I would not complain if somebody took action to correct the problem. Any pedestrian who gets hit in the street would be liable in any negotiation of a settlement. I might put "crossing a highway" in the egregious crime bucket if the speed limit is high and the road crowded.

As for me shitting in a public street, obviously I don't do that (too often). I commented on your other reply about the book Defending the Undefendable. Walter Block argued in that book that there shouldn't be any public land or public streets, so he applauds people who litter because they are heroically taking a jab at the state for having state land. I don't applaud litterbugs.

If I had to ponder about the distant future, I might say that tiny side streets could be owned by homeowners associations and arterial roads maintained by a voluntary union of businesses and residents. Businesses that don't chip in would be on the shit list posted in public. That voluntary nonprofit organizations would "own" the main streets and could legitimately take action against people littering on the street. Again, I would not predict that this will happen in the USA without an apocalypse.

Somebody replied to your other post about 'peaceful people.' I am referring to people who do not initiate violence against others. Think of a grandmother being arrested for walking across a crosswalk and not keeping to the right side of the crosswalk (this is actually a law where I live).

Depending on your view of jaywalking, we might be closer to agreement. After this I'd like to address social welfare programs and positive obligations (I have no evidence to suggest that any positive obligations exist in the real world, but you could have guessed that).