Good questions.
I base this on my _belief_ that people are better off trying to run their
own lives as opposed to having others tell them how to behave. While
most people do not apparently act always in their own self interest as
viewed by an outside observer, they do at least get to choose what is
important to them. Giving the job to someone else usually means the
government chooses what is best for us and i have no confidence that
they can do an objectively better job and total confidence that they
can do a subjectively worse job.
The basic limits would be on a sliding scale of how much your actions
impact others. Examples in ascending order of impacts: Not wearing
seatbelts can affect others only in (perhaps)
increased costs associated with accidents. Smoking can affect others
by direct exposure to (small levels, in my opinion) toxins. Hitting
someone in the face is a direct impact on the other person.
I would draw the line after smoking but before hitting. This does
NOT mean restaurants could not ban smoking; rather it means the
choice would be that of the proprietor (and the people who decide
whether they wish to frequent the resaurant or not) not the government.
How should the limits be determined? I am sure that on this list
we could have very spirited discussions of where they should be, from
those who believe in a great deal of individual freedom to those who
believe that government should carefully regulate our behaviors. To badly
quote an englishman, i think we have to use the worst way (except all
the other ways) to do this - democracy. Therein lies the importance
of spreading memes that are important to the instigator.
ken
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.