Paternalism Vs Libertarianism

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

The idea of industrial democracy is not new. Before the industrial era under feudalism, enterprises were small and every enterprise had a family spirit between the owner and the worker who worked together and there was a direct and paternalistic consultation between the two. However with time the industrial revolution started and the sizes of the enterprises and the numerical strength of the workers also grew larger and larger and it was not possible for the owners to have direct and informal consultation with the workers. The employers also started feeling less responsible for those who worked for them and the workers were regarded as one of the factor of production. The old paternalistic attitude towards their workers gave away to the mechanization

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Libertarianism, by definition, is “a collection of political philosophies that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value. They contend that the scope and powers of government should be constrained so as to allow each individual as much freedom of action as is consistent with a like freedom for everyone else” (Boaz). While there are many arguments on either side of the spectrum, the important thing to remember is that libertarianism is not a sound philosophy. The idea behind libertarianism is what is good for the individual is good for all. This clearly is not, and cannot be the case because not everyone behaves in a way that benefits the greater good. What people promoting this belief do not realize is there will never be a government that works perfectly according to their standards, because it relies on human nature. Those promoting libertarianism essentially want to be treated like adults by the government in all aspects, rather than a child. The problem with this is that not everyone acts and behaves as an adult. This premise can only work if everyone behaves as such. This idea might work in an ideal, utopian society, but in a realistic society, it cannot work. There are several arguments to be made against the idea of libertarianism. First, that the premise of a “small government” is unrealistic and impractical.

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

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.

Paternalistic libertarianism, defined as “the idea that it is both possible and legitimate for private and public institutions to affect behavior while also respecting freedom of choice, as well as the implementation of that idea.” (Wikipedia). The term paternalistic often takes the idea that someone is looked after by another as a child may by their parent in a way that is for the looked after individuals benefit. So together, with the term libertarian, it suggests that the freedom of choice is given with the aid of an entity whom guides at a groups discretion the most beneficial choice. Ideally, it’s a concept that can mean anyone is informed of the best choices while maintaining the ability to refuse. In all it’s a fantastic idea that could and would work for many situations. What are the implications of this ideology when it comes to the continued problem of organ donation shortages that plague the modern world and from what of the current systems in place can we take away to reduce if not solve the issue?

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

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.

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