Anti-paternalism

pa-ter-nal-ism n. A policy or practice of treating or governing people in a fatherly manner especially by providing for their needs without giving them rights or responsibility.

That is the definition of paternalism, which I believe is a mindset that American government follows too often. Laws that force individuals to do something that is in their own benefit but possibly against their will. This type of legislation assumes that some people aren’t to be trusted to make decision for themselves that they can’t make reasonable choices on their own, and so they should be forced to perform rationally.

I don’t deny that if people, when given liberty, will hurt them selves. Some may, most won’t. However given a policy of liberty, I think more good than harm will result. Three laws that are put in place, that are an example of paternalism, and should be revoked are the requirement of wearing a seat belt, wearing a helmet, and considering some drugs to be illegal.

Wearing a seat belt and a helmet are laws that clearly have been proven to save lives. But say a person enjoys biking without a helmet and is fully aware of the risks associated with doing so. What right does the government have to coerce the individual to use a helmet? The same logic can be applied to the requirement of fastening ones seat belt before driving.

Another similar situation but a bit more complex are the laws that ban the use of certain drugs. Drugs undoubtedly ruin lots inside a person but I believe by banning the use of them it gives more incentive for rebellious individuals to use them. Further more what if an guy is 65, and knows he is going to die very soon. Supposed he craved for drugs what right does the government have to prevent him from them? Taking restrictions off of drugs will kill the various black markets for drugs that exist, give less incentive for people to take drugs, and save taxpayers who aren’t affected by the usage of drugs billions.

A soon as a person has attained the capacity of being their own guide to their own welfare, coercion, either though laws and penalties for non-compliance, is no longer acceptable as a means for their own good. This is only justifiable to enforce for the security of others, but people should be able to as the please when their actions are harmless to others.