A dangerous way of thinking: "I feel that..."

As it has turned out over the past few decades in Western politics, it seems that the biggest part of the modern politician's job is to discuss banning or not banning of this and that. The free speech has again and again met restrictions in the name of "public health", "public interest" and such phenomenons. The self-ownership of individuals over their own bodies has been cast away long ago, more often than not in the name of "public"-this and that. All good reason and logic, all concrete political philosophy, and all good sense says that this shouldn't be the case. How is it that we cannot own ourselves and not say what we want without a State interfering? Is it because bad words are violence like bullets? Is it because someone has built a concrete case stating that no-one is himself and everyone is everyone and therefore no-one can harm him/herself because then it's a matter of the general public? No - no such case has been built. The reason the individual is increasingly being swallowed up by the State is the "I feel"-logic (IF-logic).

The IF-logic can be seen in use all around. It's not real logic - Hitler used it to "justify" his actions, and so did Stalin, Pol Pot and other well known celebrities of the far-Left, and who wants to justify their actions today? However, the IF-logic has been allowed to reach the status of being enough to support banning of this and that. A few examples from various debates:
Should be ban public smoking? Yes, because I feel it's uncomfortable to breathe in second hand smoke in other people's private houses, and I don't feel like convincing my one smoking friend of going to a smoke-free cafe with our six, mutual non-smoking friends.
Should we ban certain kinds of sex between consenting adults, for example that which comes to be because money exchanges hands? Yes, because I feel that no-one should sink so low as to having to sell their own bodies to make a living, even though there would be police all around to catch those who abuse and use violence and oppression. I feel I couldn't imagine doing anything like that myself.
Should we force companies into hiring more women in executive-positions if there are proportionally few women in such positions? Yes, because I feel that men and women should be equal - not just when it comes to the law but also when it comes to wages, job-division and other measurable units.

The IF-logic should in reality be nothing more than a casual sentence to be used when arguing with the girlfriend about the color of the bed-sheets, or the quality of Sylvester Stallone as an actor. In politics the feelings can of course be there (and should be to a large extent), but without sound logic they should merely be looked at as a weak reminder of the person's inner desires. Never should one person's feeling govern another person's actions, and that's exactly what happens when the IF-logic is deemed sufficient as a case for new laws and regulations.