Reply #16: I agree with every word, but

[Skip Intro]

there is a line where my freedom may intrude upon someone elses - we don't have the freedom to erode others' freedoms.

Choice=freedom. Yes.

But the role of the government must be to protect everyone's freedoms. The governemnt currently enforces morality, and that is wrong. But the point at which someone else's freedoms intrude upon, or require me to sacrifice my freedom, is a point at which we are all no longer free.

I must say, I've never been on this side of the argument. Please don't get me wrong. No one has a right to tell me how I should live outside the context I've just laid out. And let everyone make their own decisions. And bars that cater to either smokers or non-smokers, or both, are fine with me. My freedom doesn't extend so far that it erodes someone else's freedom.

I think we agree 99%+, but I cannot say I choose to kill, and therefore should be free to do so, because it robs the victim of his or her freedom to live.

There is a line. But what goes on in my own home, or in places that cater to people who share my choices, is my and their own fucking business, and no business of the government.

Everyone should be free to live their lives as they see fit, the pursuit of happiness, so to speak, but no one's right in that respect tramples my right. Room must be made for all, while protecting freedom for all, for all.