Halachic autonomy in debt to the latter

When a person performs an action that affects others, he cannot make decisions alone and rely on his own methods. This is what I have often called territorial considerations here. You make decisions in your own territory and not those of others, even if your decisions are justified, certainly when they are justified only in your eyes, but even if they are completely justified. For example, Rashi's error that a person does not save himself with his friend's money, then the decision is justified by all accounts, since theft is rejected before the Law and the friend must invest his money to save me. And yet Rashi writes that there is no permission to do so. And I explained that his understanding is that although the decision is justified, you do not have permission to make decisions about my money, even if the decisions are justified. I gave many more examples of this. By the way, this is probably the main problem with Yigal Amir's actions. Even if he was convinced that Rabin is a persecutor, and that he supposedly has an obligation to save us all from him, because there were differences of opinion on this, you cannot act according to your own system when it comes to others. By the way, I once explained that admitting to a debt and assuming that a debt owed to others is the same principle. Not according to the accepted understanding that there is no loyalty to the admission, but because when it concerns others, it is impossible to act based on your subjective considerations.