Absolutely, I believe in some very basic stuff, like what you described (enforcing the harm principle). But, someone's drug abuse (for instance) does not harm me, unless I have to pay for the rehab; a lack of zoning may lead to an ugly house, but the closest that comes to harm is failing to provide visual or aesthetic pleasure to me.

However, you claimed restricting one from killing another is for the benefit of the one. Not so, rather it is to prevent undue harm to another. Conceptually, it is the difference between you stealing $100 and me giving you the same.

I also believe in remediating externalities, i.e. no one gets to dump toxic sludge in the river. I simply don't see an ethical case for laws that tell a landowner what he can and can't do with the property.

> However, you claimed restricting one from killing another is for the benefit of the one. Not so, rather it is to prevent undue harm to another.

I'm not really sure what you mean, I think we're in agreement here. I said:

> preventing people killing each other - that also is restricting other people, for the benefit of the others.

--

I'm not arguing that your views are wrong or unethical, just that they can't stand on natural superiority, it's all up for debate, it all impacts others.

(Drug use absolutely impacts others beyond hypotherical tax paying for rehabilitation - there's potential for anti-social behaviour, littering, and smell/noise/etc. in public spaces. I'm not making a judgement on whether that should or shouldn't be available for individual choice, I just don't see that it's ultra vires for a legislative body to rule on it.)