Apart from a near miss constitutional amendment, life here in the USA is still pretty much “be who you are and that’s just fine.” In the eyes of the law anyway. You can prefer to have sex with which ever gender pleases you, worship whichever diety does best by you, wear whatever kind of clothes (within the bounds of “decency”), hairstyle, quantity of makeup or eyewear you see fit.
But there are some activities associated with “being who you are” that can land you in jail and result in circumstances which severely impair your ability to be who you are. Stuff like robbing, raping, indiscriminate nambling, lynching, ingesting various disapproved substances, etc. You know the list. Sometimes, being who you are can get you executed! So, it’s OK to be different from a recognized “average,” but apparently some restraint is called for. A line has been drawn at which we must sacrifice part of “who we are” in favor of…whatever the opposite of anarchy is.
Some people eye the mentally ill with some concern as perhaps being ON that line between unrestricted freedom and close monitoring–the anticipation being present that they might up and hurt themselves or somebody else, or damage property. Others concern themselves with preventing the destruction of a social fabric which they prefer. Still others go so far as to not tolerate anyone or anything that hinders their pursuit of happiness–which as I’ve indicated is not always amenable to the rest of us.
Where would you have that line be drawn? At what point should the collective “us” step in and restrain an individual?