>>Actually, controls over any of those cannot be rationalized. Individual rights end at one's nose. I should be free to smoke, eat and shoot at will so long as I do not infringe on another's rights.

Trouble is that this is a recipe for everybody making up their own mind whether they are infringing others' rights.

For example, if another can smell your cigarette, are you infringing on their rights? It seems that many smokers think not- or else rules to protect the dining experience of non-smokers would not be needed in the first place. It's the selfish Wild-West behavior of smokers that caused this- and how characteristic for them only to consider things in terms of their own sovereignty rather than the stink they expect everybody else to put up with.

The reality is that people are people: they're not always considerate and even with rules in place, often they will interpret realities to suit themselves and to heck with everybody else. The smell of my cigarette is affecting your dinner? Tough, it's a free world. You don't like me shooting pistols in the air to celebrate a football game? Get a life. You don't like hearing the pregnant woman next door being beaten up? Mind your own business, nothing to do with you.

I know you say you don't believe in no government- butit's not useful to accuse others of hypocrisy if the definitions apply equally to you. These are useless arguments only of use to people with antisocial goals in mind.