I agree with objectivist founder Ayn Rand that the basic condition for man to maximize his potential and enhance his spiritual side is that he be free to act according to his rational judgment. To be truly free, an individual must not be coerced into actions that he otherwise would not have taken by some authority.

Government should coerce us from harming other people's rights and freedoms with appropriate punishments. Individuals do not have the right to rape, assault, steal and murder because those actions harm another individual's rights to life, liberty and property. The primary responsibility of government is to guard against one individual trampling on another's rights and freedoms.

Yet, while government can serve to protect individual freedom, government power is also dangerous to individual freedom, as government represents power in the hands of some men to control and regulate the lives of other men. Mandatory motorcycle helmets, compulsory old-age insurance and the criminalization of marijuana are examples that the American government is a threat to individual freedom.

By making marijuana growing and consumption illegal, the government assumes it knows what is best for individuals. When questioning a governmental policy, ask yourself: Does someone doing this infringe on my rights or freedoms? If not, then a governmental policy outlawing that act infringes on the legitimate freedom of an individual to make decisions on how to best lead his life.

An individual or a group of individuals smoking pot, a fairly harmless drug which that causes far fewer people to become dependent on it than alcohol or tobacco, in their house should not be arrested as the act harms no one, except possibly the user. And government's role is not to protect us from ourselves, as we are responsible for our own decisions and development. If someone who was smoking pot drives a motor vehicle, then government has the right to arrest him. In that circumstance, he becomes a danger to the larger society.

The government infringes on individual freedom in many other ways, too. Most of the time Americans don't object because they view government as looking out for the public interest. So, we let government tell us that we have to ride helmets when we ride on a motorcycle. If we don't wear a helmet, we are only bringing harm to ourselves. While it is advisable that individuals wear helmets, it is not government's right to punish us if we do not.

And what about the enormous tax on tobacco? That certainly represents a government that is trying to coerce its citizens into a certain behavior. Government can and should disseminate information about the dangers of tobacco, but it shouldn't place such a punishing tax on the smoker because cigarette taxes coerce behavior.

The true believer in individual freedoms realizes that these types of regulations are against the principles of a free society. The freedom to be a fool is a viable freedom. And who is the judge of foolish behavior?

Is it possible that an individual knows how to lead his life better than a distant government that has never talked to him and heard his dreams and desires? Some regulations do not fall into this category.

For example, regulations to monitor food and water safety are non-threatening to freedom because they represent a government protecting her citizens from corporations or industries that sacrifice the health of the consumer for profit.

Social Security is the best example of a government program that demonstrates that the American government is suspicious of its own citizens' capabilities and therefore compels individuals to act a certain way. Social Security represents an invasion of the government into the personal lives of Americans without strong justification. In a parental fashion, the American government seeks to provide for its citizens what it deems them as incapable or too shortsighted to do for themselves. In assuming that the government knows better what is 'good' for the individual than that individual, government compels that individual to use some of his current income to purchase annuities to provide for his old age.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman states the problem with a paternalistic government very well. "Those of us who believe in individual freedom must believe also in the freedom of individuals to make their own mistakes.

If a man knowingly lives for today, by what right do we prevent him from doing so? We may argue with him, seek to persuade him that he is wrong, but are we entitled to use coercion to prevent him from doing what he chooses to do? Is there not always the possibility that he is right and that we are wrong."

A government that assumes it knows what is better for an individual than the individual is a threat to individual freedom. Individuals, living in a society where government believes it can do the best job caring for its citizens and providing for their needs, risk becoming complacent and acquiescent to the desires of government. Individuals begin to place more and more responsibility for their personal well being and growth into the hands of other people. Then, as government desires to get even more involved in the lives of her citizens, individuals acquiesce again.

Let's pray that our generation chooses freedom and not a care-taking government, which taxes and regulates our behavior, prohibiting us from acting according to our rational judgment.