[David,]

[You wrote:]

> The mantra of libertarian self-government could scarcely be
> stated more powerfully.  Yet, no matter how familiar the 
> principle has become (for how many of us have heard a student, 
> or ourselves, invoke its terms when confronting bigotry or 
> intolerance?), questions vie for our attention at every turn.
>
> What sort of "interests" are those that determine the boundaries 
> of the general welfare?  Obviously, it cannot be the case that 
> mere insult or moral disgust can trigger the public right to 
> intervene in private choice.  For then Mill's "freedom" would 
> surely vanish altogether amid a conflagration of moral 
> sensitivities.

Unfortunately, it seems today that what I like to call "The nanny State" seems to feel free to infringe upon personal liberty in a variety of means. On college campuses and in public offices, the mere possibility that someone might be offended curtails one's freedom of expression; the resignation of an officiqal who used the word 'niggardly' to mean miserly and was forced to resign is a case in point...I see a real danger of what you deem the conflagration of moral sensitivities, ad absurdium. A government which sees an 'interest' in preventing people from seeing or hearing unpleasantries is doing more harm than good....

> What sort of "prejudice" to the interests of others entitles 
> society to invoke its jurisdiction over my choices?  Such 
> prejudice must be more than a mere risk of interference or mild 
> frustration.  Surely my choices must do more than make my 
> neighbor's life difficult before my neighbor is entitled to cry 
> foul. We can scarcely ignore the fact that all of our choices 
> impact the lives of the people around us, and forever alter the 
> course of history.  This impact is frequently disagreeable, 
> though no one would pretend to know in every case whether it is 
> more or less disagreeable than the state of affairs absent any
> particular choice.  Where does inconvenience end, and authentic 
> prejudice begin?  Once again, freedom demands a line be drawn 
> somewhere.

I think partisanship has obliterated the line...

> Finally, are we to concede that society has no jurisdiction 
> over my choices except where I do positive harm to my neighbor?  
> Is there no value to the maintenance of jurisdiction over 
> choices which only impact on the individual decision maker?  
> Even Mill did not go so far.

The "nanny State" again rears its ugly head. We are fast approaching a "tobacco Prohibition" where the State feels it necessary to protect us from ourselves. Personal responsibility is the price of the Libertarian version of freedom, but it is far better than being told what I can and can't have, do, see, say, read, or hear at the risk of emotional or physical damage. I'd rather take my chances and take responsibility than rescind all of my rights to the State, but it seems others view things differently....they want a V-chip installed in their lives...the L-chip!

> "It would be a great misunderstanding of this doctrine to 
> suppose that it is one of selfish indifference which pretends 
> that human beings have no business with each other's conduct 
> in life, and that they should not concern themselves about the 
> well-doing or well-being of one another, unless their own 
> interest is involved.  Instead of any diminution, there is 
> need of a great increase of disinterested exertion to promote 
> the good of others.  But disinterested benevolence can find 
> other instruments to persuade people to their good than whips 
> and scourges, either of the literal or the metaphorical sort. 
> ... Human beings owe to each other help to distinguish the 
> better from the worse, and encouragement to choose the former 
> and avoid the latter."
>
> It is unclear whether this brings us very far from an atomic 
> view (and thus a rather impoverished view) of social living.  
> How often do we hear persons of good will and generous intention 
> say, "All we ask is that all persons be given equal opportunity 
> (and encouragement) to succeed."  Is the school, like a tool 
> shed, merely a place for our children to pick up the instruments 
> of success? Is learning merely a metaphor for the acquisition of 
> devices of the intellect, the possession of which enable or 
> disable the achievement of material affluence?

Education should ideally produce kids with guts as well as brains.

[Steve R.]