Sort:  

There are only two kinds of "laws": the unnecessary and the harmful.

Laws against aggression and property violations are unnecessary. You already know these things are wrong. You need no "law" to allow you to defend yourself from these violations. Does murder or armed robbery have to be illegal for you to know it's wrong? If it does you have an ethical problem.

Laws against- or compelling- anything else are harmful. These "laws" are counterfeit. They whittle away at the foundations of civilization.

"Laws" are for losers.

Rules are sometimes a different matter, if you can opt out or agree to them explicitly before getting into something.

People who have gotten justice throught court systems would slightly disagree with you.

Justice

Interesting, because I've never once seen justice come from a government court except by accident. It was always punishment/revenge, financed by theft, and carried out by theft-paid bullies and thugs.

Never/Always

I don't live in such an absolute universe , there is a whole lot of grey area in my lived experience.

"I don't live in such an absolute universe"

Actually, you do. You just may not want to face it.

Yes, there are lots and lots of gray areas, but some things are not gray at all. You don't have the right to violate others, not even if you call your violation "law enforcement" or some such superstition. Governing is no more a "gray area" than rape.

If a rule goes from being ineffectual to being counterproductive it becomes worse than having no rule.
I'm not talking about the ethics here at all, just the logistics. If you're sitting in the driver's seat and put the stick in 'R' (for really fast) and floor it; that won't end like you think it's going to.
Likewise, if you try and impose medical procedures by law (ultimately at gunpoint), it won't end like you think it's going to.