A good answer to this would take a book. It has already generated several books. I write books. Maybe I should write another one.
No one contests that some individual freedoms must be limited. When an action creates a victim, a person who is harmed physically or financially, there must be a law to protect the individual. No law is defined as anarchy, which is almost universally thought of as undesirable. It would mean rule by the strongest and meanest. But many of our laws now have gone far beyond that principle, and created criminals where there is no victim, and even more where the existence of a victim depends wholly on your definition of "victim" and "injury." For instance, many states and many local jurisdictions have prohibitions against smoking cigarettes in some places. In a passenger airplane, perhaps, In a movie theatre, in a restaurant. Does someone smoking a cigarette in the back of the room harm me, a person who has never had a cigarette in his mouth. I say no, but all too many are all too ready to say yes. And my favorite example of extreme over-regulation, it is against the law almost everywhere in the western world for me to be nude where somebody - anybody, old or young, either sex, clothed or also nude, can see me. My question is, of course, who is injured? Where is the victim? We accept "strong probability of injury", as also worthy of limiting laws, but with nudity, where is even the possibility, let alone probability, of injury.
Of course it's a matter of degree. We are supposed to be a "free" country. Lee Greenwood sings it strongly, "At least I know I'm free." But Lee, my worry is, how free are you when all you can do is what somebody else thinks is good for you.? That's the question. Is there an answer?