Some of your examples do not merely safeguard the individual who is being controlled, but others around them as well. For example:
- second hand smoke from cigarettes affects the health not just of smokers, and the use of cigarettes increases the expenses of our public health care system, so non smokers pay for the treatment of smokers
Second hand smoke might be a good point. But my example was Taxing cigarettes excessively to promote quitting.If you use the argument that "the use of cigarettes increases the expenses of our public health care system" that becomes a slippery slope. So does risky sports, so does eating poorly, ect. If your going to have universal health care you have to be careful how you use paternalism. Not to mention when you raise taxes like that you promote the underground economy.
Ohhh and not to be to unfeeling but I hearing about study done by Philip Morris for the czech republic that showed citizens that smoked in the long run save the government money. They saved money from things like Tax revenues from the cigarettes,Heath Care saving from early death, Pension savings, and saving in housing costs. It showed a savings from premature deatht of $1227.00 per person. Gotta love Big Tobacco
- the argument over abortion is centered around whether it is in fact killing an individual who should also have the right to live
True this is a issue of personhood so I'm not sure where I stand as far as paternalism. Is a human being a person at conception or only at a later stage? I don't believe religion doctrine has any role in this issue. It's a legal issue so science and reason should be the only tools used.Canadian Medical Association, 1991
“A human fetus becomes a person ... when the foetal nervous system has developed to the point where it has the basic capacity for sapient cognitive awareness irrespective of level of sophistication.” (CMA, Committee on Ethics, p. 290)
Cognitive awareness? Is this different from bare consciousness?
Fetal personhood (fetus at 20 weeks = person)
Abortion is murder for after 20 weeks ?????
- seat belts and motorcycle helmets reduce the severity of injuries in accidents, which means that other people involved in the accident get sued for less and have lower insurance costs
Here in BC insurance is public so for me it's very similar to the smoking example. If it is private insurance like in Alberta I would say that it's like any insurance is should be stipulated some where that if it is found that your injuries were for the most part caused by not wearing a seat belt or helmet your coverage or compensation is reduced. Government has no business being involved.
- an improperly stored gun can be a risk to people besides the person who stored it improperly
To have a truly free society, it is important for all of its members to accept responsibility for their own actions. Accidents happen, you can educate people, but you can't legislate responsibility.
Edited by CitizenX, 04 August 2011 - 07:01 PM.