Should freedom be unlimited, that you can do absolutely ANYTHING that you wish? Or should freedom have limits of some sort?
I believe that without personal responsibility, you can not have freedom. Personal responsibility is an integral part of freedom, effectively being a limiter to freedom. Personal ethics would then also be an integral part of responsibility, again being part of limitations. So from this perspective, there are defacto limitations to freedom.
May the debate begin...
This can be seen as an interesting question. Freedom, one has to define this in the way you want to use it. Capitalism is supposed to be about freedom and democracy. We can see where this has gotten us in present applications. None of us are actually free of the decisions made by one idiot who seems to have control of the country. In capitalism, freedom is about the freedom of capital, the freedom of money. So if there was one thing I could remove from my limits it would be money and the way it is used in this country and other places in the world. If money was used to just keep track of the value of what one does and does not have the ability to multiply by just sitting and doing nothing, then we would be a little better off.
If you don't infringe on anyone's life, liberty or property, you should be able to do as you wish with your own.
Without The Golden Rule, or similar, you have a planet of Ted Bundy's
Exactly. We. are crap when left to our own devices!