Replies

We should cede to government only that much liberty which is necessary to preserve the remainder.

I couldn't agree more. Where we disagree is on how much that is.

I propose that restrictions may only be imposed when the matter to be ingested poses a serious and almost certain risk of harming others.

Here we agree once again. But where we disagree is on what constitutes a risk great enough to warrant prohibition.

If we accept something other than rights protection as a legitimate role of government, particularly if we accept something as general as preventing "societal rot" or preserving "community strength", what limits remain on the power of government?

Do you accept insuring domestic tranquility as a legitimate role of government? No, I'm not just being a smarty-pants; and this role is, obviously, limited by what follows the Preamble. But the point is that it's one of the reasons for what follows. I absolutely do, therefore accept something other than the protection of liberty as a legitimate role of government, namely, utilizing the means necessary for the protection of liberty. That may sound like a nit-picky distinction, but let me explain.

Where I think you make your mistake is in seeing only the direct and immediate threats to liberty. I think that's shortsighted. Without a government insuring domestic tranquility - and establishing justice, and providing for the common defense as well - there is no protection of liberty.

The founders weren't so foolish as to think that the way to protect liberty was to repeal all restrictions on individual behavior. But so-called "libertarians" would have us believe that's the only way to do so. The founders crafted constitutions and laws designed to maximize liberty, not only without endangering it, but also giving it strong protection. The provisions of the Constitution itself sometimes infringes on liberty. By contrast, some libertarians would in fact endanger liberty, with proposals which would undermine her very bulwarks.

Almost any activity can threaten the health and vibrancy of a community. Trash tv is corrosive to our values and to our ability to think...(etc.)

The founders of this country saw nothing wrong with banning many destructive activities. Unlike us, they were more concerned with what freedom is for than with exploiting it for their own ends. They realized that liberty is often perverted into license, which then, like Frankenstein's monster, turns and devours liberty.

I think our disagreement simply boils down to a difference in how we assess risks. I believe that insufficiently restrained government authority is the greater risk, whereas you seem to believe that insufficiently restrained licentiousness is the greater risk.

Most libertarians recognize some restraints on the liberty of the individual as legitimate...laws against assault, theft, regulation against unforeseeable risk, and so on. Just out of curiosity, what restraints (if any) do you believe should be imposed on the majority's power to regulate society? IIRC earlier in the thread you mentioned fundamental liberties as being beyond the legitimate power of governments to regulate. What are those fundamental liberties? Is there a list, or perhaps a general description that would fit them all?

Perhaps more importantly, if the majority believed that a particular fundamental liberty was jeopardizing all other liberties, or the continued existence of their society, could they legitimately restrict it as well?