From a philosophical perspective, what is the difference between this and that?

If genius is in part determined by originality, can then a contemporary be considered such if he attained the same conclusions as supposed “great thinkers” without the benefit of prior reading or external influence?

If you are behind someone whilst driving along a road and they are driving slower than you would like to go, what gives them the right to dictate your speed? 
They are taking away your decision-making ability. 
How does that affect you and your “karma”?

Could the above also be true of the laws in our land?

How could you debate the concept of “Secondary Smoking” in public as a direct infringement of your will as a non-smoker? 
Could it be argued that smokers (or bars, restaurants etc) are taking away your choice to NOT inhale smoke? 
Aren’t laws passed in this country every year to stop us from doing things which could be dangerous or detrimental to our health? By their very nature, a law determines what we can or cannot do. Therefore, wouldn’t it make sense to pass a law which forbade us from causing/provoking potentially fatal diseases, such as cancer? 
After all, we are not allowed by law to take our own lives, but the slow killing off of our bodies by smoke inhilation is allowed?

Do you believe Hitler went to heaven? If not, why not? What makes you better than him? 
I would argue it is only a matter of degrees…