I was thinking about a conversation I had with a friend last week. She explained that her mother was attempting to coerce her into her own belief of what a successful person was. Well, this is my best answer.

'My freedom to swing my fist ends where your face begins'. That is in essence the message of Liberty. The only thing preventing me from doing what I want to do, or forcing me to do something against my will, is that someone else would be harmed by my actions. My private life is my business, and as long as I don't actually harm anyone else by what I choose to do, then it is not for the state or society to interfere. Anyone who is an adult, and is capable of making informed decisions should be free to enjoy their version of the good life without any interference. Even if I harm myself through my own actions, this is not sufficient grounds for a state to intervene. I can decide to neglect my health, and degenerate into a couch potato, and should be free to do this. Paternalism, that is, controlling what people do on the grounds that you know better than they know what is good for them, is only justified towards children and those who, because of mental illness, are incapable of making responsible decisions for themselves. Also, more importantly, paternalism is justified towards 'uncivilised' people who are incapable of judging what is best for them. The rest of us, however, should be allowed a free reign because that is the best way of increasing the

overall level of happiness in the world.

Are we wrong to believe in unlimited freedom under a state of increasing restrictions?

Are we right to tear up the unwritten 'social contract' which we agree to everyday of our lives?

Where do we draw the line on what should not be tolerated?

The utilitarian theory behind all of this would argue that: whatever is likely to give rise to the greatest happiness is morally the right thing to do. If individuals are given enough space to pursue whatever interests them, the whole society benefits. I know what is best for me, more than anyone else. And, even if I am mistaken, choosing for myself is probably preferable to being forced to accept someone else's conception of the good life 'off the peg'.

It could be argued that in some situations, I am an empiricist, and therefore I believe that the way to discover truth on most matters is by experiment. With this view, through experimentation, society flourishes. In contrast to this idea, thinking in conformity leads to social stagnation, misery, and stunting of human potential.

Yes, you are entitled as a Mother or Father to be disgusted at how your (adult) child chooses to live. You can try to educate them into making better decisions, and the state is justified in trying to impose an education system that will make them less likely to pursue self-destructive lives as adults. But, your disgust at the way other adults live their lives is never enough to justify any intervention forcing them to live differently.

'A mark of a civilised society is that it can tolerate diversity.'