The Bottomline of Freedom

I wholly support the bottomline of freedom. That is, freedom to individuals should be maximised when democratically allowed, at least. What it means is that, in the absence of a clear majority of people opposing a particular freedom strongly, it should be allowed by governments.

For example, I guess most in society would agree that there should not be a freedom to steal, bribe officials, be cruel to animals or vandalise public property. There is also a victim generated by each of these crimes. Therefore, these are rightly restricted by government.

However, marriage between people of the same sex, the terminally ill choosing to end their own life, chronic pain patients smoking marijuana and women choosing to have abortions for various reasons are not clearly and strongly opposed by a majority in many Western countries. It is certainly not the case here in Australia, for example. All these acts also have something else in common - they produce no victim. Therefore, freedom to do the aforementioned acts should be upheld by the government.

I personally have a moral opposition to abortion for social reasons, and I am as anti-drug as they come, culturally speaking. I am very uncomfortable with either topic, to be honest. But when it comes to liberty, I stand solidly with those who deserve it - even when other people who live a similar lifestyle as I do consider that I am betraying them somehow. Liberty is more important anyway.