1-Feb-12 Where is the separation between individual and group democratic rights?

This coming Wednesday, we will be discussing the dividing line between an individual's freedom versus what freedom they have to give up to be part of a democratic social group or society.

The example of a theater goer not having the freedom to shout "fire" in the crowded theater to cause panic when there is no fire comes to mind. 

On the other hand, the democratic will of the group also have to yield to the rights of the individual minorities within them so that some important principles can be upheld or the rule of law can be consistent.

What are the considerations for drawing these lines of compromises?

Is it based on utility? where curtailing the freedom to shout "fire" is such a small thing to give up to avoid group panic that can have serious negative consequences? 

As the curtailing of the individual freedom become more onerous and the negative impact to the group become less so,  who decides where the line should be?

Our changing attitude towards smoking shows us how the shift of the rights from the smoker to the nonsmoker over the past decades has progressed. Now that smokers can no longer smoke indoors, within a certain distance of public entrances, public parks (?), soon within cars when there is children, should we take the next step and have them stop smoking whenever they see someone within their sights?

Very often, a reasonable approach is taken in balancing the two.  Most municipalities have noise by laws limiting construction within certain hours of the day to balance the need for construction within the area versus the noise that may disturb neighbors in that area.

Who decides what "reasonable" is and how do we balance that against workers who want to start at 7am or earlier so that they can avoid the afternoon rush hour traffic home versus the neighbor who wants to sleep in?

Should minority groups such as first nations, french speakers, ethnic communities, and others automatically have a veto because of their minority status?

Can we have more than one group that has veto power and what if they don't agree with each other?

Should all stakeholders have rights, "equal" or proportional rights based on impact?

Who selects the stakeholders?

Who would represent the interests of future generations and outside parties who are not present but will be impacted by the decision?