I remember writing a paper in college on a guy named Devlin, on the limits of Governmental powers- I agree that government is supposed to protect our freedoms, not protect us from ourselves.
For instance, I don't believe in a helmet law. I wear a helmet with full gear EVERY time I get on the bike, because I CHOOSE to do so. But if Gary Busey wants to splatter his brains on a Hollywood curb looking cool on his Harley without a helmet, then I think he should have the right to make that choice. Like, why is prostitution illegal in all states but Nevada? The oldest profession in the world, legalize, regulate it, and TAX it- THAT would go towards reducing the deficit, especially in D.C.!!
Quote-
"John Stuart Mill provides the classic answer in the form of the harm principle: "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection. The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign" (Mill 1906, pp. 12-13). While Mill left the notion of harm underdeveloped, he is most frequently taken to mean only physical harms and more extreme forms of psychological harm.
Though Mill's view-or something like it-enjoys currency among the public, it has generated considerable controversy among philosophers of law and political philosophers. Many philosophers believe that Mill understates the limits of legitimate state authority over the individual, claiming that law may be used to enforce morality, to protect the individual from herself, and in some cases to protect individuals from offensive behavior."
