One of the many debates that continue to rage on amongst people in the United States, as well as various other countries around the world, deals with under what circumstances, if any, should the government interfere with a person's liberty. This issue has struck great debate amongst many people and.
has led to opinions varying from one extreme to the other with many in between. There are many different aspects to consider when determining if this kind of restriction of one's liberty is ever completely justified. .
The main issue in question is when can the government infringe on personal freedom. One of the answers to this question that has been debated is to prevent harm to one's self. I will attempt to show that this is not a.
legitimate reason for governmental interference with the right of human liberty.
The belief that the government has the right to prevent someone from doing harm to himself is known as the Principle of Legal Paternalism. This principle states that "the state is justified in prohibiting actions that hurt or endanger the agent himself; the state can interfere for the person's own good". This principle allows the government to pass laws to ensure the safety of an individual from himself and to prevent causing harm to oneself. Some of the areas this covers include suicide and mercy.
killing. The government is trying to place restrictions on what it thinks is harmful to the people by making certain acts illegal. In placing these restrictions on personal liberty, the government is in fact undermining.
exactly what this country was founded on. The United States was founded on the idea that humans possess certain freedoms and liberties that cannot be taken away under any circumstances. People were given the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, once this freedom begins to.
impinge on another person's freedom to do the same, the action now becomes illegal.
