Libertarian Paternalism In David Brooks Nudge Debate

The Principle of Legal Paternalism justifies State interference with personal rights to protect individuals from self-inflicted harm and to guide them toward their own good. Legal Philosophers have often drawn a distinction between “soft” and “hard” Paternalism. “Soft” Paternalism restricts an individual’s actions in circumstances where the conduct is insufficiently voluntary. In contrast, "hard" Paternalism restricts an individual's actions in circumstances where the conduct is sufficiently voluntary.

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.

“Government show thus how successfully men can be imposed on, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage.” – Henry David Thoreau.

The narrative presents a society where the needs of the group outweigh those of the individual, and individual liberties are given up for what is purported to be the greater good. In the current world, debates about social welfare programs, government surveillance, and the state's role in regulating personal behavior make this idea increasingly relevant. Rand's portrayal of the dangers of collectivism serves as a helpful reminder of the importance of defending individual liberties and rights in the face of collective forces. However these similarities, it's crucial to remember that Anthem's universe is a fictional creation as well, and that Rand may have wanted to spark debate and contemplation on some very significant philosophical issues in addition to making future predictions. Readers are encouraged to reflect on the consequences of giving up individuality for the sake of the group by the harsh aspects of the society shown in Anthem.

A central belief of the liberal atmosphere on which western legal systems are fundamentally based is that of negative freedom, to do as one wills, provided that it causes no harm to others. But a question which goes to the heart of the ethics of allowing total individual freedom with minimal intervention from society can be characterized like so; where to draw the line between freedom and condemnation?  When is interference with individuals and their private morality justified? The harm principle, which seeks to introduce personal liberty and its coexistence with society, appears in John Stuart Mill's “On Liberty”, first published in 1859. However, the idea is not black and white - the harm principle can be criticized for its excessive paternalism, lack of clarity, and incomplete handling of certain situations. In this essay, I will argue that Mill thoroughly justifies his theory for the harm principle. To make this argument, I will examine the harm principle, evaluate possible counterarguments, then apply the Harm Principle to a real-life scenario.

Moreover Devlin asserts that moral legislation is crucial to maintain a social bond. He maintains that society has a right to protect its own existence by barring behavior that threatens that existence. This is distinctly divergent from Mill's perceptions on paternalism.

In the introductory chapter of John Stuart Mills’ paper, he argues that liberty of a person should only be hindered when it restricts another man or his self-protection. The author uses many examples of freedom and how the government has changed and works to further his main idea. Mills also discusses tyranny and how rulers should exert their power to further his argument. Mills uses the ideas of freedom, a ruler’s ability to exercise power, and society as a form of persuading his audience to agree with his argument that personal liberty is good until it hurts someone else. The author mentions how the society plays a large roll in freedom.

In the contemporary United States of America, individuals, ruled by a republican democracy, are encouraged to participate in social and political affairs. Citizens are provided with the right to voice their ideas and influence government should there be discontent. In a society built upon freedom and liberty, Americans are unimpeded, capable of striving for and attaining goals that they deem necessary for personal success and contribution to the overall community. In a plethora of ways, America is ideal in its advocacy of ‘rugged individualism’. In truth however, a deeper analysis reveals otherwise as the reality of the American society closely parallels with the hyperbolic dystopian society presented by George Orwell, in his novel, 1984.

In all actuality, a decide for regarding individuals as though they had exceptional privileges and commitments may, all in all, have a tendency to advance utility. By the by, authentic realities are not considered by the utilitarian to have any characteristic significance, and their impact upon the decisions of equity gets absolutely from worries about what's to come. Thusly, we may surmise that regardless of the possibility that utilitarianism gets the correct outcomes, it does as such for the wrong reasons.[3]Such dissensions can serve to spur the libertarian 'privilege hypothesis',

Freedom is a necessary principle to abide by in order for the human race to function. On the other hand, freedom can be taken advantage of, thus resulting in harmful consequences to those directly and indirectly involved. The article, “On Liberty” by John S. Mills, places emphasis on the functioning of individual liberty and its co-existence with society. Mills stresses the limits of individual liberty through what is famously known as his Harm Principle: "the only purpose for which power may be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant" (Cahn). With special consideration placed on drug use and free

The Harm Principle is one of the central core of liberalism which was first introduced by the English Philosopher, John Stuart Mill, who believed that “people should be free to act however they wish unless their actions cause harm to somebody else." Such concept is a typical libertarian policy who promote comportment such as freedom of choices, individualism or again individual judgments. An example of a libertarian policy would be about hate speech prohibition, public cigarettes bans or again legalized prostitution. While authoritarian policies are those that prevent people from harming themselves.As an example, it could be about banning suicide, marijuana prohibitions, abortion prohibition,

     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

John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873) is recognised as one of the most prolific thinkers of the nineteenth century, whose liberal political philosophy has influenced intellectuals and political theorists for decades (Feinberg, 1986). At the same time, Mill's utilitarian approach to society at large reveals sensibilities and moral considerations that enhance his liberal attitudes in the most surprising ways. According to Losurdo (2011), it is widely believed that Mill is one of the greatest opponents of paternalism, supporting individuals' liberty and autonomy. However, Mill is also accused of overt sentiment, ignorance of natural rights, or a diversion from original conceptions of Utilitarianism. As a result, this essay is concerned with his conception of individuality, as discussed in his On Liberty (1859), investigating how this notion, based on individual liberty and autonomy, opposes social control and paternalistic policies.

The “theory of moral sentiment” did not only explain how human behaviors are modified by sympathy, but in addition, the theory supported Smith’s view on what policies should be adopted based on these theories. Laissez-faire was the early form of attitudes that Smiths and some of economists pursued in Europe during 18th century. It suggested that government should reduce their intervention on import and export regulation, such as imposing taxes and tariffs on these transactions on private parties. In addition, governments should advocate perfect competition in the nation in order to maximize economic growth. The Theory of Moral Sentiment has properly backed Lassies-faire up and clarified why human beings can regulated themselves in an

Berlin goes on to explain that placing an importance on positive liberty can lead to, “using organic metaphors to justify the coercion of some men by others in order to raise them to a ‘higher’ level of freedom.” (350). He goes on to use examples of justice and public health as goals used to motivate coercion, and states that this line of thinking presents a path to tyranny. By allowing a governing body to determine a hierarchy of freedoms, or in other words supporting positive liberty, this presents a paradox, as we are surrendering our freedom of self-determination. If governing bodies make laws with the consideration of positive liberty, then the individuals will have no liberty, because they will not be determining the hierarchy of their own