The problem with this is that it cannot be applied universally without a lot of unnecessary deaths.
You do not let a baby play with knives.
You do not let a toddler play with sharp knives.
You can only give to a person the amount of freedom which they can be responsible for. There are people who do not have the mental capacity to be an adult, and these people have to be restricted.
That said, we also have to let people have enough rope to hang themselves. We have to let them explore the world to the edge of their own ability.
And this comes with the big problem of letting them fail, and getting wounded or worse.
You can't give people freedom.
You can only take it away.
I wish that was strictly true.
It is not, so this whole thing becomes very complicated.
Who exactly is the "we" in your "we also have to let people," and who are "they" to "let" me, a sovereign human being, do or not do, anything?
We are the people that live in the community with you.
I am not talking about govern-cement. Which is actually the opposite of community.
There are people that do not have enough brain power to do more than dress themselves. They need help with fixing food. The obviously cannot be left to do whatever they want, as that would harm many other people. So, which do you choose? Killing them before or after they kill someone else because they do not, and cannot know better?
Lets take an actual example.
A young guy who loved to drive his POS as fast as he could on mountain roads. Using up both lanes so he could drive a weee bit faster. He has had a lot of near misses and driven several people off the road.
At what point do you limit his ability to drive?
After he kills someone in a head on collision because he was in the wrong lane?
Do you go over and break both his legs so he can never drive again? This falls under self protection. Especially if you were run off the road twice.
So, what do you do in this situation? What do you do when your sister is in intensive care where they are trying to piece back together her spine and all her limbs?
I would be absolutely furious and in no mood to entertain abstract political theories. I see where you're coming from. Irresponsible ignoramuses in large numbers cannot be allowed, like wild animals, to destroy lives and property. My only concern is that I have always been a responsible, law abiding, taxpaying citizen, watching his freedom and liberty diminished because of the actions of others. I understand why, but I also recognize that unscrupulous politicians will always use pragmatic reasonable arguments to increase their power over me. No easy answers..... except maybe a tiered citizenship based on test scores. Poll tax, anything that would dis-empower the mob and empower the intelligent.
Govern-cement is a criminal organization who wants absolute control, and so they will take whatever freedoms they can.
They write laws to limit freedom.
The problem comes in that laws don't work. The 90% of people who follow the law, follow it without their being a law. The law is unnecessary.
So, what is a real law? If you do X, we (the community) will punish you, and here are the typical punishments for doing X.
The proper way to handle the really bad driver above is to take away his car. And if he is found driving someone elses car, then we will fine that other person, and limit the bad drivers movements.
This quickly escalates to a death sentence or life imprisonment.
But the real thing is that it is community based. Everyone knows it was Jake in 1975 Nova who has been tearing all over the place.
The govern-cement... what do they do? Well, they give a driving test. And then put him back on the road. Cause, anyone can pass a driving test. Even when he kills someone, it is an "accident", not murder. Govern-cement can't do this job. They have to be impartial in the way that makes them fail, and personal when it absolutely has to be impersonal. (if a city inspector gets upset at you, you may as well leave the state)