Libertarian Vs Paternalist Essay, Research Paper
Libertarian vs Paternalist – a libertarian vs. paternalist view on society. – libertarian paternalist principles moralist morals freedom rights beliefs immoralities anarchistsThe human race is the most diverse and complicated race on this planet. No one is born equal, as we grow as adults our beliefs and cultures shape us into unique creatures. Our view on society and what we believe in is a fundamental aspect in all of us. Whether we are anarchists or moralists, we each have a different interpretation of the word freedom and what it means to us. There are three principles that are found in a democratic society such as Canada. The libertarian, paternalist, and moralist principles will be discussed briefly as I come to a conclusion on my views and observations on each. Finally, I will then explain my personal beliefs on freedom and rights.Libertarians believe that freedom that allows people to act anyway they please shouldn t be restricted unless it causes harm to others without consent. The paternalist is almost the exact opposite of the libertarian. Paternalists believe that the state should ban all actions that lead to harm of the doer as well as harm to others even if these actions were consented upon. In theory, paternalists play the role of the father preventing harm to his children, in this case, the state is the father and its citizens are his children. The moralist principle is quite similar to that of the paternalist. However, the moralist believes that the state is responsible for maintaining a moral society. In other words the state should never grant anyone the freedom to partake in any actions that contravene the widely held moral values of the majority. This lack of freedom should be allowed despite the absence of any harm to one s self or others.When confronted with issues such as pornography and/or sexually explicit issues and/or actions, and whether or not these actions should be viewed or performed, a libertarian’s response would be the following. The viewing of pornographic material would be accepted even if the material in question is of an explicit and degrading nature. Pornography in it s most disgusting and offensive form, (child porn, depiction s of consented violent sex) is accepted in a libertarian society by virtue of it does not harm self nor does it indirectly harm others. Libertarians will argue that limiting these publications and/or actions will in turn limit the freedom of those who wish to view/partake in these actions. In addition, if anyone finds these actions offensive should not participate in them and refrain from observing such material. On the other hand the moralist would disagree with the mere existence of these publications let alone viewing them. The problem, according to the moralist, i!
s the direct effect the above mentioned actions would have on society as a whole. Rendering these actions and publications legal would result in the shredding of the fabric of society and the downslide towards anarchy would be immanent. Somewhere along the paternalist and moralist principles is where you would find my beliefs. I believe that the state should exercise its power by preventing its citizens from harming themselves. Paternalists would agree that prohibiting harm to self would eliminate the inevitable chain-reaction such actions would create, i.e., alcoholics abusing their families. Another controversial topic, particularly in this province, is gambling and society s acceptance of gambling addicts. I firmly believe that excessive gambling should be illegal considering the consequences that may ensue. An addicted gambler may, in one night, lose an entire lives-worth of savings risking any dependents to fend for themselves. It is known that excessive gambling and its associated debts have caused the outset of numerous suicides in the gambling community. There should be a system available to monitor someone s gambling practices. Perhaps a license to gamble should be produced considering that more vic!tims of this addiction are created daily. I am not alone when I say that it is a stigma to our nation when our government generates an absurd amount of revenue from individuals who cannot stop harming themselves and others. The following statement has transcended through the ages and continues to plague us. Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people –Proverbs 14:34. In our case our elected officials approve and support sinning, and immoralities. It is a gross injustice to us all when we live in a society that supports such abominations. Gone are the days when adultery, homosexuality, and promiscuity were all frowned upon. Liberal thinking has shaped the society in witch we live. Such broad-mindedness has caused the universal tolerance of evilness, and the question still looms. How far will this acceptance go, and when will society draw the line? We need to act now and respect the morals of our ancestors before we are all led astray, before our future !race reads about Sodom and Gomorra and the entire plant Earth.