Libertarian Paternalism, An Ideology By Sunstein And Thaler

In the essay “America’s Unjust Drug War” by Michael Huemer, Huemer discusses the facts and opinions around the subject on whether or not the recreational use of drugs should be banned by law. Huemer believes that the American government should not prohibit the use of drugs. He brings up the point on drugs and how they harm the users and the people in the user’s life; he proves that the prohibition on drugs in unjust. Huemer believes that drug prohibition is an injustice to Americans’ natural rights and questions why people can persucute those who do drugs.

Being two of the most respected and qualified academicians on public policy, Charles Murray, and Robert B. Reich have never been short of making controversial and contradicting statements which arguably serves only their interest of getting an audience. Public policy as it is has been subjected to lots of changes throughout the history leading to different reactions and opinions from different individuals. “What it means to be a Libertarian-A Personal Interpretation” written by Charles Murray, explicitly describes how the society should view the government by claiming it can help in achieving overall happiness and allowing members of the society to have a right to individual freedom when coping with the changes brought by public policy. On the other hand, Robert B. Reich’s “Aftershock the next Economy and America’s Future” talks about overcoming our problems by keeping a tier of classes. This paper discusses the contradicting views of these two writers.

As citizens, we have a moral responsibility to not only do the right thing for ourselves, but for the others around us. Therefore, if we secede our morals to the state, even though it does not define who

In relation to the human services field, the four different ideologies take different approaches. Libertarians are anti-collectivists who believe firmly in a free market. Due to this, Libertarians stand against the notion of social security and believe in minimal taxation and government interference in the market/people's lives. Thus, Libertarians would stand as a strong foil to those who support social services and the human services field.

Opioid addiction with prescribed and illegal substances has of late become a topic of concern within the United States. With this topic in the face of individual liberties, one must question the moral and legal obligations of society and of the government to control this outbreak of addiction. With one view, the side that would be in favor of Plato, one could argue that the use of any substance illegally is morally wrong and that people waste their lives if they even try opioids for something other than their intended purposes. On the other side, with the view of John Stuart Mill, one could argue that while the use of opioids could be considered wrong, government and society are not at right to prohibit individuals from using opioids, given several underlying assumptions. Of these two views, I argue that, while I agree partially with Plato, I agree more with Mill’s view that individuals should be allowed to use opioids if they so wish.

When it comes to drug legalization, many people think that drugs should be legalized. It would stop drug traffic, its use would be safer, and would be a better drug control under the state and government. Obviously, the harm principle is linked to this opinion due to, “If a person does no one else harm by a moderate drug intake, then he or she should be allowed to continue using drugs” (Rosenstand, 256).

In his essay, "Drug Policy and the Intellectuals", William Bennett dissects the "intellectuals" role in the National Drug Policy and explains that they are too uninterested and too lazy when it comes to this debate. Bennett understands that the drug policy is a complex problem, and forcefully suggests that it must be broken down carefully in order to find a conclusion that best fits our nation as a whole. Bennett's major claims are that legalization will be wholly ineffective and detrimental, our society has multiple drug related problems that urgently need solutions, and finally he offers what he believes to be the most viable and effective solutions to the problem at hand.

     John Stuart Mill and Gerald Dworkin have distinctly opposing views on legal paternalism in that Mill is adamantly against any form of paternalism, whereas Dworkin believes that there do exist circumstances in which paternalism is justified. Both agree that paternalism is justified when the well being of another person is violated or put at risk. Mill takes on a utilitarian argument, explaining that allowing an individual to exercise his freedom of free choice is more beneficial to society than deciding for him what is in his best interests. Dworkin, on the other hand, feels that certain cases require the intervention of either society as a whole or its individual members. He breaks

His reasoning of this concept is that, “In a free society, diverse persons control different resources, and new holdings arise out of the voluntary exchanges and actions of persons5.” His quote refers to the principle of transfer, with voluntary transactions being the best way of allocating and distributing resources2. In a voluntary transaction, the buyer and seller engage in a win-win scenario where both parties have a satisfactory trade on their own terms. Nozick discusses his objection to redistribution policies because of the patterned principle and forcing people to work for others4. He argues the patterned principle justifies distribution on some basis such as needs or effort4. This is problematic, because it plays back into his concerns of a certain group having control of resources. Forcing people to work for others is also problematic to him because it goes against voluntary transaction. For the individual mandate, Nozick sees these problems as central to this component of the healthcare law. Having presented a case for why libertarians find the individual mandate unjust, the following paragraphs will provide a counterargument that examines flaws in the libertarian

When one’s individual freedom connotes sacrificing that of a fellow human being’s health then that freedom needs to be restricted. People in the United States of America have the additional right to choose to engage in healthy habits and avoid the damaging ones. Thus, if an individual is fixed on being selfish and performs poor habits near these people such as smoking and driving a pollutant vehicle, then that liberty should cease to exist.

Drug legalization is an enduring question that presently faces our scholars. This issue embraces two positions: drugs should not be legalized and drugs should be legalized. These two positions contain an array of angles that supports each issue. This brief of the issues enables one to consider the strengths and weakness of each argument, become aware of the grounds of disagreement and agreement and ultimately form an opinion based upon the positions stated within the articles. In the article “Against the Legalization of Drugs”, by James Q. Wilson, the current status of drugs is supported. Wilson believes if a drug such as heroin were legalized there would be no financial or medical reason to avoid heroin usage;

In pre-modern times, drugs took on a role of medicinal use. As they were distributed in a free market without any constraints, Opium was recommended for sleepless nights, Cocaine for anesthesia, Hashish for relaxation (Hart, Ksir & Ray). These drugs were not dubbed as harmful, therefore, under the appropriate circumstances, provided beneficial effects to its users. More recently, individuals are more inclined to use drugs as an ‘escape’. Stimulants provide a sort of alternate existence which tends to reduce mental tension, increase energy, or induce euphoria (Hart, Ksir & Ray). Argumentatively speaking, drug use only affects the user, so there is no valid reasoning for impairing the freedom of citizens by prohibiting them. Individuals benefit by having the freedom to use

I was pleased to see that Tejretics is using the Harm principle as the framework for this debate. I accept his framework. Specifically, I accept that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." Furthermore, I accept that governments exist to maximize benefit and to minimize harm. What I will demonstrate in this debate is that those who partake of illicit drugs are not simply harming themselves, they are harming others. In addition to this, I will make evident that this would still be the case if, as my opponent is suggesting, most drugs are legalized for recreational use. This will be simple to demonstrate as the harm of recreational

Government passes law to the society to prevent the risk factor that is of significant harm to their health or life. Some of those activities that cause risk are drinking and driving, use of dangerous weapons. We notice that these activities pose a risk to others who are not engaged in these activities. But there are activities that pose a danger to the participant who engage in them. For example, drinking, smoking, rock climbing. Since all states follow freedom, the state cannot pass laws that forbid consenting adults from participating in such activities just because they cause harm to them. A person engaging in an activity with full knowledge of the risks involved is morally justified. It is morally wrong to get

The state justifies its authority in restricting individuals’ access to drugs through the liberty-limiting principle of paternalism. By paternalism I am referring to hard paternalism because information on drugs are made widely available so individual are aware of the harm. This essay will argue that the state is not justified in this paternalistic approach because paternalism is incompatible with personal autonomy and is significant to an individual’s freedom to act as they wish according to their values. The essay will regard drugs as drugs that are banned and criminalised in most political institutions such as marijuana and cocaine. I will appeal to the implications of accepting paternalism towards drugs on the subsequent action that must be taken towards other potential. This will highlight the incompatibility between personal autonomy and paternalism. In order to prove the significance of autonomy I will use the principles of Frankfurt and Dworkin. Then I will appeal to the ethics of utilitarianism due to the underlying consequential motive of paternalism to address counter argument by