A society has the right to impose negative restraints; but positive acts of compliance it may exact only extraordinary situations.
A century earlier, John Stuart Mill wrote something similar:
the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.
These two ethical formulations pose a number of questions. What are the consequences for society if we accept these formulations? Why do those who allegedly accept them disagree among themselves about the practical application?
