>>>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.

That's why rights must be defined and laid out for all to see. They must be vigerously defended even if one doesn't agree with them because the weakening of one right is a weakening of all rights. If we as a country decide that something should no longer be a right then there is a Constitutional mechanism for doing away with it. However, to water any of them down is to water down the idea of rights as a whole. Then what's left? A piece of paper on the ash heap of history.

I'm not sure if your simply playing devil's advocate or actually do not understand the fundamental concept of rights. Thus, I will respond by simply replacing a couple words and see if you recognize the answer is inherent in your questions.

>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.

If another can smell your barbeque, are you infringing on their rights? It seems that many BBQers think not- or else rules to protect the dining experience of vegans would not be needed in the first place. It's the selfish (insert irrelevant description of a world without laws that noone is talking about here) behavior of BBQers 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.

You do not have a right to not smell. Put another way, you do not have a right to not be offended.

>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 reality is that the world is full of selfish people and being considerate is not a requirement of life. Trying to legislate behavior is a futile exercize which ends up restricting the liberty of all citizens for no gain as the rude will continue to be inconsiderate.

>The smell of my cigarette is affecting your dinner? Tough, it's a free world.

The smell of my BBQ is affecting your tofu dinner?

>You don't like me shooting pistols in the air to celebrate a football game? Get a life.

This doesn't work as you've now infringed on another's right to life. Bullets that go up must come down.

>You don't like hearing the pregnant woman next door being beaten up? Mind your own business, nothing to do with you.

This is more of a personal decision and comes down to one's own sense of morality and interest in the affairs of others. Do I get involved? If so how? Do I rush over to "save" her? What if he has a weapon and kills or seriously injurs me? Who will take care of my family in my absence? What if I harm him and they sue me? I DID break into their home to "help". Do I call the cops? What do I do when the cops take him away only to have her bail him out and start right up where they left off. Domestic issues are complicated and personal. They are not black and white and there are many ramifications to getting involved.

>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.

Liberty means allowing others the freedom to make decisions you disagree with. Each restriction on another's liberty is a restriction on us all. Law are applied equally. In legal terms, restricting smoking is no different than restricting salt or drink sizes. Legally, forcing people to buy insurance is no different than forcing them to buy a gun. These are not useless, they are real-world issues that have important ramifications.