Should the government only restrict an individual’s freedom in order to prevent harm to others?

In democratic society, the role of the government is generally considered to promote morality and justice among citizens, trying to limit so-called immoral and unfair behavior. Thus, if an action is deemed unethical, it is clear that there is a reason for the government to limit it, regardless of whether it is harmful to others. However, since everyone has different understandings of morality and freedom, no government can legally restrict the law in an "immoral" way.

John Stuart Mill, the father of modern liberal, believes that people can only restrict the freedom of others in order to preserve their freedom. I think that the legalization of medicine will harm other people than damage - this is a big injury because now these drugs are illegal

Restrictions on freedom of speech may follow the principle of injury or crime. John Stuart Mill introduced the so-called hazard principle and pointed out that freedom of speech could be restricted to prevent harm to others. By contrast, Joel Feinberg introduced the principle of crime and thought that Muller's harm principle does not provide adequate protection against other people's cheating. He suggested that several factors should be taken into account when applying its principles. Today, Article 10 paragraph 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights is different from the wording in Article 19, Paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but in the Case Law, the two provisions relate to freedom of expression It has relatively the same restrictions. . Both articles are important, but I am just looking at European tests. Restrictions are only applicable if you comply with the ECtHR 3 part exam.

Preventing harm is not necessary or sufficient to limit individual freedom. Nevertheless Mueller believes that basic freedom is a particularly important benefit and can only be confused to prevent harm to others and / or to prevent serious harm to the individual's own organization You may think. After studying Mueller 's liberalism, we can return to the obvious tension between the rights of liberalism and utilitarianism. Muller uses complicated categories rather than simple categories, but there seems to be a tension between the fundamental freedom of classification protection and the analysis of case-by-case outcomes required by utilitarianism. We may consider three different settlement strategies