"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...

The principle that society is entitled to make rules for its
collective betterment that may disadvantage some individuals is not in
dispute.

The point that you have missed is the ridiculous scope and
impossibility of clear definition of the rules that some people
believe they are entitled to foist on to others. There are some rules
that should not be made because the test that the betterment of
society exceeds the loss of individual freedom is not met. There are
some that should not be made because defining them unambiguously and
enforcing them equitably is not possible. This one is both.

For a country whose public mythos features freedom of the individual
very strongly there seem a great many who are ready to declare that
you may be as free as you like as long as you agree with *their* way
of life and *their* view of right conduct. This is a good recipe for
a conformist authoritarian society which those same people spend their
energy railing against. How do they justify such illogical behaviour?
Simple. They are right and the rest are wrong so everybody shut up
and do as you told. Or as you put it, if you don't like it move away.

D

I wish you were one of my senators. Lucky me is "represented" by Mitch
McConnell and Rand Paul.