Richard has some interesting questions about freedom. I tend to think that the negative freedom of non-intervention is quite over-valued, and that we should value some kind of positive liberty, ability to do things, perhaps power in Nietzsche's sense. Thus, I'm inclined to think that freedom may well be enhanced rather than restricted in the examples Richard cites. However, I very strongly agree with his Millian point in the comments. Even if people have no absolute right not to be interfered with, as a general rule we should resist paternalism, because paternalistic authority is too frequently employed corruptly, and even when employed with good intentions, people are usually better judges of what's good for themselves than of what's good for others.