More examples: A surgeon must do harm and create risk of further harm in order to perform a beneficial operation. Medical ethics do not allow surgery to be performed without the patient’s consent. Boxers harm each other, but this harm doesn’t justify third parties to interfere, if the boxers have consented. It could be argued that such activities are unwise, but not that they violate the liberty of the participants.
Yes, there is no end of problems and counterexamples as regards the theory of using "harm" as the criterion of what is coercively disallowed. They appear to amount to a clear refutation.
More examples: A surgeon must do harm and create risk of further harm in order to perform a beneficial operation. Medical ethics do not allow surgery to be performed without the patient’s consent. Boxers harm each other, but this harm doesn’t justify third parties to interfere, if the boxers have consented. It could be argued that such activities are unwise, but not that they violate the liberty of the participants.
Yes, there is no end of problems and counterexamples as regards the theory of using "harm" as the criterion of what is coercively disallowed. They appear to amount to a clear refutation.