How much personal freedom is too much?

[Lycan]

We in America take personal freedom very seriously. Is there such a thing as too much personal freedom? When is the line? Does it not matter what limitations one persons rights have on another's?

[steen]

Since I see you refuse to acknowledge a logical fault with the "intolerance" argument, I guess this will go logically nowhere.

[Dilettante]

Since I see you refuse to acknowledge a logical fault with the "intolerance" argument, I guess this will go logically nowhere.

I must remind you that one-liners are against the rules, as they do not contribute to the debate. Posting just a smiley is equivalent to a one-liner.

[steen]

Since I see you refuse to acknowledge a logical fault with the "intolerance" argument, I guess this will go logically nowhere.

I must remind you that one-liners are against the rules, as they do not contribute to the debate. Posting just a smiley is equivalent to a one-liner.

So if it is a two-liner that doesn't contribute to the debate, like forge posted, then it is OK? Like this:

Would that be OK?

[BeHereNow]

Steen: The point, of course, is that your beliefs should not be imposed on somebody else's personal life.

As a Libertarian, I tend to agree with this, but it seems to let much unanswered. Surely I could name actions which you consider personal, which others would consider public.
It is easy to say “Do what you will, as long as it does not affect me or others”. It is another thing to agree what does not have ripple effects that starts out personal but becomes public.
We might also say that my beliefs should not be imposed on you, but what if my beliefs represent 99% of the population. Do “we” have a right to restrict your personal life (social contracts?). Can we allow the 99% to decide that your personal actions have a negative effect on society and should be banned?

[steen]

Steen: The point, of course, is that your beliefs should not be imposed on somebody else's personal life.

As a Libertarian, I tend to agree with this, but it seems to let much unanswered. Surely I could name actions which you consider personal, which others would consider public.
It is easy to say “Do what you will, as long as it does not affect me or others”. It is another thing to agree what does not have ripple effects that starts out personal but becomes public.
We might also say that my beliefs should not be imposed on you, but what if my beliefs represent 99% of the population. Do “we” have a right to restrict your personal life (social contracts?). Can we allow the 99% to decide that your personal actions have a negative effect on society and should be banned?

That would mean that we start legislating beliefs, f.ex. Should a conservative majority f.ex., be able to outlaw liberal politics?

The tyrrany of the majority, is that what you are looking at here? That is what the US Constitution protects us against. Shoudl homosexual marriage be outlawed? How about interracial marriage? Marriage among non-Christins?

Should abortion be outlawed? Should plastic surgery be outlawed? Should pap-smears be outlawed? If you want to legislate others actuons because they "offend" your personal morality, then there really isn't mush stopping that until the civil war hits. So how intrusively can you legislate your moral beilefs onto others?

[BeHereNow]

BHN: It is another thing to agree what does not have ripple effects that starts out personal but becomes public.
We might also say that my beliefs should not be imposed on you, but what if my beliefs represent 99% of the population. Do “we” have a right to restrict your personal life (social contracts?). Can we allow the 99% to decide that your personal actions have a negative effect on society and should be banned?

steen: That would mean that we start legislating beliefs, f.ex. Should a conservative majority f.ex., be able to outlaw liberal politics?
The tyrrany of the majority, is that what you are looking at here? That is what the US Constitution protects us against. Shoudl homosexual marriage be outlawed? How about interracial marriage? Marriage among non-Christins?
Should abortion be outlawed? Should plastic surgery be outlawed? Should pap-smears be outlawed? If you want to legislate others actuons because they "offend" your personal morality, then there really isn't mush stopping that until the civil war hits. So how intrusively can you legislate your moral beilefs onto others?

We seem to be talking about two different things here.
How do we determine what is personal and what is not?
You seem to have no disagreement with legislation about “non-personal” actions. Actions that clearly negatively affect many or most innocent members of society. I think conservative Christians would agree with you on this point.
Isn’t the problem that what you or I might consider “imposing restrictions in others personal, private lives” is something all together different for others? The problem is not that others want to impose restrictions on our private actions, the problem is what we consider private, they do not. It would do no good to try to convince them to stay out of our private lives. They have to be shown the difference between private lives and the public welfare.
In the end, it is legislature which will and should decide this.
I see mandatory helmet laws for motorcyclists as an imposing restriction on personal lives. Others say this is social issue, and the laws decide who is right. It varies from state to state.
We cannot have too much personal freedom, but someone has to draw the line where personal freedom negatively impacts society, and is no longer just personal freedom.

Who should draw the line and how should they do it?

[steen]

Yes, you are right. But it also essentially makes the boundaries meaningless as the boundary is "what I say it is," depending thus on who "I" is. Are social ramificantions of personal actions valid for legislation? We tried to outlaw alcohol and it gave us Capone. We have tried to outlaw abortions, bogging down the courts and paralysing meaningful politics for decades.

Ultimately, the only guide we have is the US Constitution, and we thus have to base our legislation and level of "intrusion" based on this.

Certainly, most faith-based "morality" that is imposed is running contrary to the US Constitution. And certainly, most claims of discrimination against Christianity is based on said Christianity being a front for conservative ,oralism in violation of the US COnstitution.

So how much we "impose" ourselves into other people's lives really ought to be guided by the US Constitution, not personal morals. Because if one person's morals are good enough to be legislated, so is another person's, against the will and "moral" of the first person. The ultimate outcome of that is civil war, so we have to be careful with what intrusive push we aloow.

[BeHereNow]

I would say that laws should be based on social contracts, not religious precepts, and that social contacts should have no need to restrict personal freedoms.

[steen]

I can probably agree with that, pending what the specifis are.

[BeHereNow]

Yes, we might say the devil is in the details.
Others would disagree with you and me on the details.