I am a libertarian because I am convinced that government must be as principled as possible, due to the differences and shortcomings of individuals (and humanity collectively). So when considering whether something should be outlawed, my first question is always, 'on what principle would it be outlawed?'
Public orgies, for example, would be outlawed on the basis of 'common decency', an appeal to a majority opinion. Now when it comes right down to it, murder is outlawed by majority opinion as well, so this is not in itself a damning thing. Morality might motivate individuals, but it cannot really be said to be the foundation of a law. The immediate foundation of a law is the majority opinion, be their motivation what it may. But a law against public orgies is a majority opinion
about something very different than is a law against murder.
So the principle here is, 'if it is indecent, it should not be allowed in public'. My second question is, 'do I trust the majority to apply the principle?', and here the answer is no. While I am not worried about the majority deciding that wearing a religious symbol is tantamount to murder (at least, not worried enough to want to allow murder!), I
am worried about the majority deciding that wearing a religous symbol is as indecent as participating in an orgy. Especially when you recast 'indecent' as 'distasteful', which is more accurately descriptive of the visceral rule the majority would actually apply.
So I trust the government with the power to outlaw
unjust things (such as murder, but as defined by the majority), but not with the power to outlaw
indecent things (such as orgies, but as defined by the majority). Additionally, I ask myself whether I feel I have a right to restrict the action in question: government aside, would I be justified in using force to stop someone from committing the action? If the answer is no, then again it seems something that government should not be involved in. I don't want my children (or any children, frankly!) to see orgies on the way to school, but I wouldn't feel justified in using force to stop the act, or in using force to apply a deterent (such as a fine) to the act. The first would be like physically forcing the orgy to stop (if I was able to overpower them) at the time, the second would be like showing up at the orgyists (sp?

) house after school and taking $30 from their wallet, again if I was able to overpower them. Whereas with murder, yeah I feel justified in forcing someone to stop committing murder, assuming I can overpower them.
Problems arise when outlawing indecent things in public settings as well. For example, what happens in our society when a person who doesn't want to wear any clothing is defrauded of some money? He can't take his complaint to court, can he? Not without putting some clothes on first. And so our less-important rights, like the right to not see naked people on the street (seems weird to call it a right at all, but for arguments sake...) end up creating conditions on what are supposed to be fundamental rights, such as the right to one's property.