Perhaps, but nobody is saying that the government should not have the power to regulate or ban so-called secondary effects. If you legalize prostitution, that doesn't mean the government can't ban sex in public. Similarly, just because you legalize certain drugs (such as alcohol) doesn't mean you can't ban public drunkenness or drunk driving.
Government should use the least restrictive laws neccesary to deal with violations of rights. That's why we ban drunk driving but let you get as drunk as you want in your living room.
The answer to that is for the surrounding society to not tolerate such behavior -- to condemn it perhaps, and certainly not to subsidize it
Private citizens are free to refuse to tolerate behavior they find immoral. Don't like the swingers next door? Don't associate with them. Don't like people who smoke pot? Don't let them into your house. However, don't demand that government enforce your moral code for you.
What's really missing from all of this is that we cannot talk about "liberty" without acknowledging the necessary counterweight of "responsibility." If you try to exercise liberty without responsibility, you've got chaos.
Agreed, but I think I've laid out a pretty good framework that balances rights with responsibility. The old cliche is true: you have the right to swing your fist only so far as your fist doesn't connect with my nose.
I disagree: there are folks who say precisely that. For example, there are those who say that government has no right to ban abortion. There are folks at right here at FR who have argued that drunk driving should not be illegal.
Government should use the least restrictive laws neccesary to deal with violations of rights.
Agreed.
However, don't demand that government enforce your moral code for you.
That's a pretty silly statement, actually. Laws do embody a moral code -- if not "mine," then certainly that of a majority of the legislative bodies.
Agreed, but I think I've laid out a pretty good framework that balances rights with responsibility.
Yeah, for the most part. I think in most cases we would agree on the spirit of the laws. However, I think you (like the rest of us) have left a lot of loose ends lying around, and that's where the problems come in.
We tend not to understand, much less defend, the underlying moral basis of our laws. As a result we find ourselves tussling with the other side about the proper way to twist the letter of the law, the spirit of the law having long ago been done away with.