From: "Geo" 

There is nothing wrong with limiting an individuals activities if those
activities are harmful to others or impose on the rights or freedoms of
others. It's the morals that don't impose on anyone else that are the
example you need to consider.

As an example, the Taliban had a whole bunch of morals they imposed on the
population of Afghanistan, we freed the Afghans from that oppression. Why
was imposing those taliban moral values considered wrong by us, why did we
see that as oppression, as a lack of freedom?

Sure, enforcing your moral values on everyone sounds like a good idea,
until you find out it's not going to be your moral values but instead it's
going to be the taliban's moral values, then that ain't right, big problem.
Well if it ain't right for the taliban then what makes you think it's right
for you?

It's only when an activity is harmful or imposes on someone else's rights
that laws need to be created. The idea is you restrict freedoms as little
as possible, with the restrictions only being created in a case where it's
needed to protect someone else or their freedoms. To preserve freedom you
must restrict via laws as little as possible.

Geo.

"jeff"  wrote in message
news:419b9529$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> People do it every day. The speed limit is simply the most obvious
example.
>
> Geo wrote:
> > Do we have a right to impose our morals on others?

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5