I think we're basically arguing different forms of the same thing. You think that we should have laws that allow the maximum possible amount of personal freedom to the maximum amount of people, while I think that we should keep laws that are somehow necessary for the continuity of society (keeping in mind Hurkyl's point), and discard those laws that only restrict personal freedoms. The end result is the same: the greatest number of people possible have freedom from the imposition of unnecessary morality-based laws.Skyhunter said:Would not the best society be one where every individual enjoyed maximum personal freedom?
In order for everyone to enjoy maximum personal freedom, everyone must respect, and not infringe upon the personal freedom of others. This principle is the foundation of social morals, as opposed to personal morals which are naturally based on personal beliefs.
With this as the guiding principle, as opposed to the hypothetical argument about society’s survival, we can therefore create a standard to measure whether or not a law is just.
We have to consider the question "at what point do the needs of society exceed the needs of the individual?" It is at this point that the break between the broad categories of laws I've been talking about happens.