Paternalism Vs Libertarianism

Moreover, one way in which modern liberalism has departed from the ideas of classical liberalism is the extent to which the state should involve itself in the lives of the individual. Classical liberals, in particular John Stuart Mill, emphasised a minimal state and believed that an interfering state would impede upon the private lives of individuals. Yet modern liberals fully supported an enabling state; Beveridge believed that citizens should be protected by the state s from ‘the cradle to the grave.’ This implies that, unlike classical liberals, modern liberals supported a government which is fully involved in the lives of individuals and would therefore support policies such as benefits and the national health service. However, classical liberals, notably Samuel Smiles, thought that people should take responsibility for their own welfare because the individual is the guardian of their own prosperity and therefore state intervention is dangerous. This contradicts the belief of modern liberals, who believed that a state should be established in order to help people to help themselves.

The patient is Bob (name has been changed to protect confidentiality), a 15-year-old boy with leukemia who is taken care of by the nursing team, including myself in the oncology department of a general hospital. Bob was diagnosed with leukemia at the age of eleven years old and has been receiving treatment, consented by his parents ever since then.

Government and more importantly democracy in government has always been an important aspect of any society. Theories created about government seeks to shed light and provide insight to the masses so that they will be more capable of understanding what their government is all about, the policies that stand for and how accessible they are to the citizens of the country. The theorists being examined in this study are John Locke and J.S. Mills. These 2 theorists support democracy, and the rights of people to have a say in their government. They have shared their views on how a democratic government should operate and have influenced many other theorists and entire governments with their views governments as knows as the United

Libertarians want to be free and rule over their own lives, “One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state” (The Advocates). They do not want to sacrifice their own self for the benefit of another, but respect an individuals’ rights. The first traces of libertarianism were found in ancient China, Greece and Israel. It began to develop into what we have now by the seventeenth and eighteenth century. Libertarians see that each individual is the basic unit of society, each of them make choices and are responsible for their own life. However, libertarianism is not the belief that people can do as they please whenever, but rather that each individual can chase their goals and respects the lives and choices of

One of the most popular controversys that even the Founding Fathers of America have been debating about since 1776 is the most just way of running the U.S Government. Even today, it has not been thoroughly established which principal regarding Utility, freedom, or equality is the most significant aspect of the U.S government. However, freedom has always been the most popular right that every American constantly struggle to fight for. The Principle of Libertarianism is the individual right that everyone is entitled to and shall not be interfered by governments policy or regulations, as long as these individual rights would not harm others as well. Considering the principle of Libertarianism, it does cater to the American People by not only allowing individual rights that may protect the people from government corruption but also help benefit the economy of America in which demands from the people are met and that brings the greatest happiness for everyone. Although, Libertarianism can not perfectly serve every aspect of a just government, it should still be the most prioritized principal of the U.S government because overall it benefit the most civilians compare to the other two principals.

Based on the political quiz that evaluated my stances on certain issues, my political beliefs and interests aligned with Centrist ideology, although slightly leaning to the Left Wing. Despite my upbringing as a strong Republican, the results classifying me as a Centrist did not shock me due the simple fact of maturation and growing more aware of current world and local issues through watching the morning news, reading news articles on the internet or reading The New York Times, and going to high school. Overtime, with these various exposures- a wide variety of political beliefs- I stopped relying on what I just knew from being around my family and hearing only their bias opinions, and instead began analyzing at what I personally believe and

This essay will assess the relationship between liberalism and conservatism by exploring the differences in ideological beliefs of these two ideologies. Ideology can be defined as “set of interrelated and more or less coherent ideas” that constitutes of both “descriptive and normative element” on how a society works (Heywood, 2007, pp. 6-7). One of the most popular ideology in contemporary politics is liberalism which accord individual liberty and free market as its primary priority. On the other hand, conservatism is generally known for advocating tradition, societal state and authority. Firstly, we will look at theories developed by liberalism and conservatism on creation of state. It would then be followed by liberalism’s notion of individuality and individual liberty versus conservatism’s emphasis on individual imperfectionism and need for society. Thereafter, we will observe liberalism and conservatism as political ideology and how it has evolved over time. The essay will be summed up by a conclusion in the end. The terms, liberalism and conservatism mentioned in this essay are intended to be synonymous to their traditional or classical thoughts and beliefs. Every argument presented in this essay are intended to support the claim that liberalism and conservatism are not compatible ideologies. By compatible, I meant being consistent without any disagreements.

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 Mill's argument down into two

     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

Libertarians emphasize the individual rights to life, liberty, and property. Likewise, people must be able to choose voluntary association to promote responsibility, equality, and human dignity (Boaz, 1999). For example, in the “Summer Libertarian Camp” podcast, people expressed desires to buy unregulated foods and products. They believe customers are to regulate markets, which balance out the supply and demand. Libertarians view government and Internal Revenue Service as unconstitutional entities. Those institutions confiscate ordinary citizen's profits without providing adequate services in return. For example, California has many regulations and laws that are ineffective, drive up the prices of essential goods, and promote free market inefficiencies

First and foremost, I am a proponent of negative liberty. Not only does this mean that individuals should be free from external impediments to action by other people, but also that a government should primarily remove obstructions to our freedom, which is in contrast to positive liberty, for the purpose of preserving individual liberties. The lack of hindrance to human action will limit government activities and create a free, tolerant society. In addition, negative liberty supports the individual freedom of choice and movement. With this in mind, I cannot help but emphasize the significance of the degree to which individuals encounter interferences from others. Some may argue that a government should actively create conditions necessary for self-determination and freedom to act in the presence of internal capacities; however, I interpret that as a sense of entitlement that requires a redistribution of wealth and ultimately violates the human right of private property. For this reason, I find positive liberty to be an infringement of others’ liberty and not even a political concept, but an economic concept. Throughout mankind’s history, there have been many types of oppression that illustrate my support for negative liberty, such as the exploitative authoritarian regimes, economic maltreatment, and racial oppression.

Libertarian paternalism, a mix of libertarianism and paternalism, is an ideology by Sunstein and Thaler. It holds that humans should have free will and should be able to have the freedom to decide what to do with their own body and life, but with some government interference. This ideology does not take away any choices but it does basically manipulate people into making choices that are good for them; therefore a libertarian paternalist would agree with the decriminalization of drugs and prostitution but would nudge people away from it. Libertarianism is the belief that someone 's liberty should not be restricted even if it is for their own good. Libertarians would agree with the legalization of drugs and prostitution even though they may harm people. The opposing view of libertarianism is paternalism which is the belief that it is justified to restrict someone’s liberty for their own good. Gerald Dworkin (1968), a pro-paternalistic philosopher, believes that coercing someone to do something is “justified by the reasons referring exclusively to the welfare, good, happiness, needs, interests or values of the person being coerced” (p. 108). This is pure paternalism. On the other hand, impure paternalism is restricting the freedom of people who do not benefit from it, such as imposing laws that regulate the sale of cigarettes. Paternalism does not allow for the legalization of drugs or prostitution. In this paper, I will argue that the state may legitimately interfere with our

Globally, there are a lot of people who need help to sustain their life and to fulfill their basic necessity. Especially, as they become old in age and their ability to generate income weaken the reliance of citizens on government increases. Government on the other hand should prepare a way to help the citizens. In essence, unless one takes a libertarian view, it is the role of the government to ensure that people do not reach old age being poor

First and foremost, I am a proponent of Negative Liberty. Not only does this mean that individuals should be free from external impediments to action by other people, but also that a government should primarily remove obstructions to our freedom, which is in contrast to Positive Liberty, for the purpose of preserving individual liberties. The lack of hindrance to human action will limit government activities and create a free, tolerant society. In addition, Negative Liberty supports the individual freedom of choice and movement. With this in mind, I cannot help but emphasize the significance of the degree to which individuals encounter interferences from others. Some may argue that a government should actively create conditions necessary for self-determination and freedom to act in the presence of internal capacities; however, I interpret that as a sense of entitlement that requires a redistribution of wealth and ultimately violates the human right of private property. For this reason, I find Positive Liberty to be an infringement of others’ liberty. Throughout mankind’s history, there have been many types of oppression that illustrate my support for Negative Liberty, such as the exploitative authoritarian regimes, economic hardships, and racial oppression.

Whether or not by design, this Libertarian emphasis on individualism is a theme that has become heavily ingrained into contemporary American life as the culture, economics, and politics of the country all have elements of this value. In fact, according to a recent Pew research study, U.S. citizens hold the