Very good post and interesting comments:

Your one paragraph I think brings up an issue that many seem to glance at but fail to fully vet.

“Second, some actions affect society more than others. If I smoke a cigarette every day, the worst result will be some secondhand smoke breathed by my family and maybe an early death from lung cancer. If I smoke crack every day, I’m going to have a hard time thinking, holding a normal job, having a good attitude with people, and generally contributing to society.”

Point one seems to indicate smoking is private sphere as early death is the only consequence. But otherwise they can contribute to society.

Second point indicates crack is bad because going to have “hard time…generally contributing to society.”

So “contribution to society” seems to be a key element. And I agree that it is a key element in most government and religious philosophies. And I believe is a key moral question.

If a child is born today what “contribution to society” does he owe if any?
Does the geographic location of his birth change the required amount of contribution?
Can the child ever completely pay off his contribution?
To whom in society does this child owe his contribution?
Does he have to pay his tithe to the church?
Does he have to pay his tithe to his parents?
Does he have to pay his tithe to his county, State, Country or UN?
Is a genetic “gift” of intelligence thus increasing his required contribution?
Could not a genetically impaired person be almost identical to the crack smoker above, in actual “contribution to society”?
Didn’t the smoker above deprive society of his further contributions because of his early death?
Wouldn’t abortion also deprive society of contributions?
Wouldn’t the guy that works a job he loves over one at which he is better also deprive society of contributions?
And if those in power are religious could they not claim that those that preach “atheism” also deprive the society of contributions?
If I were to ask every man in society how much I owed him individually would that be equal to what I owed society collectively?
Is there some sort of prize (or heaven) for the man that contributes the most to society?
Do all have to play this game?
Or is it all emotionally relative and I have to have faith to know the answers?

I’m impressed that you took the time to compose such a detailed reply. I am curious if anyone is reading this dialogue besides us, although it doesn’t matter.

I took your closing line as the essential point: “I personally don’t think that the US written Constitution says much about that (right to individual liberties), but our constitution, in the broader sense of the word, has a lot to do with private versus public rights and responsibilities.”

The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution had a very limited view of the federal government. Barron v. Baltimore established that the Bill of Rights apply to the federal government’s powers, but do NOT apply to state or local governments. Rights that everyone today assumes are bedrock American principles are actually rather recent. States could and did establish religions, outlaw free speech, legally take property without due process, etc.

Individual Founding Fathers, notably Jefferson and Madison, believed the principles of the Constitution should apply at ALL levels of government. States rights to restrict individual freedom were not curtailed until after the Civil War. It was not until the twentieth century that the Supreme Court gradually included the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees.

This explains why the days of Sunday sabbath restrictions (nothing was open on Sundays when I was growing up) were perfectly legal until recent times. It also explains why you now can get the Netflix or Blockbuster DVD of your choice through the U.S. mail, condoms or birth control pills, and have whatever sexual relationships between consenting adults behind closed doors.

First, no one lives in a bubble. Every action contributes to what kind of person the actor is, and what kind of person he is affects those around him. This is sometimes hard to envision concerning a whole nation, but we can all see it within smaller organizations. That’s why there’s a team spirit, or a more or less intellectual environment in certain schools, etc.

Second, some actions affect society more than others. If I smoke a cigarette every day, the worst result will be some secondhand smoke breathed by my family and maybe an early death from lung cancer. If I smoke crack every day, I’m going to have a hard time thinking, holding a normal job, having a good attitude with people, and generally contributing to society.

Third, how much a certain action affects society determines whether it is in the private or public sphere. Only an extremely absolutist government would claim the right to make anyone do anything. Most peoples and governments distinguish where public actions leave off and private choice begins.

Fourth, a culture’s common values determine how much an action’s effects matter to society. Nineteenth century Britain regulated divorce and homosexuality, but was pretty permissive with personal opium use. The modern US is quite strict with drug abuse, but very hands-off when it comes to the institution of family. The difference lies in how harmful drugs and homosexuality are perceived to be to society.

You mentioned two examples. As regards smoking, I’ll just say that all the evangelicals I know (and I grew up with them) don’t think the government should have much say. Most don’t even like the idea of a tax on cigarettes, reasoning that the same principle could be used to tax things that they like to do. As for contraceptives, your words were:

“Is this just a matter of moral relativism, not moral before 1960’s and therefore subject to restriction, but now accepted as moral and a personal right ? Or is there an enduring Constitutional principle that can’t be legislated away depending on the prevailing moods?”

Of course, that depends on what you mean by “constitutional” and “principle.” The principle in our actual laws is that there are private and public spheres. Where those spheres end and start has been adjusted according to the values of each generation, not according to some eternal, natural standard. I personally don’t think that the US written Constitution says much about that, but our constitution, in the broader sense of the word, has a lot to do with private versus public rights and responsibilities.

I appreciate this rational discourse.

“American law defines the private sphere as ‘those actions which do not harm society’.” I am not a legal scholar, but I think the distinction is not one of benefit-neutral-harm. Private acts have those characteristics, but I don’t think that is the premise for definition.

“The religious right may be completely wrong to think that private sexual actions affect the public, but they agree with most Americans that truly private actions are off limits to government interference.”

That last phrase is intriguing.

I know this is hypothetical, but I want to explore the principle outside of personal sexuality. Can the government prohibit cigarette smoking in one’s own home? It’s obviously not a truly private action in your sense of the term. Secularly, we all pay the costs of the harm it does to the health of the individual, not to mention a spouse or children in the home. Furthermore, many interpret the Bible as indicating that smoking a moral sin. I guess you are making the point that while the government isn’t likely to make that law, it’s only a matter of preferences, not something that is (or should be)restricted by Constitutional law.

The Supreme Court case overturned a law prohibiting the use of “any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception”. I think most Americans understand their current liberty to use contraception is a truly private right which is off limits to government interference.

Is this just a matter of moral relativism, not moral before 1960′s and therefore subject to restriction, but now accepted as moral and a personal right ? Or is there an enduring Constitutional principle that can’t be legislated away depending on the prevailing moods?

The religious right may be completely wrong to think that private sexual actions affect the public, but they agree with most Americans that truly private actions are off limits to government interference.