How much should a society protect someone from themself at the expense of freedom?

Question

Dani, sorry to be vague. I guess I'm referring to smoking, gambling, overeating, and vices. If you can think of another direction, that's fine too.

Answer 1

This reminds me a bit of a euthanasia debate in which I took part back in school. One of the main issues we discussed was the legal tribulation brought forth by the issue; if someone has the right to bear arms, believe in the religion of their choice, drink, etc., they should also hold the power to choose life or death. And that is exactly what is going on here; though a bit less vigorously; the right to risk your own safety and health in order to acheive pleasure.

I think that our country has tried, though unsuccessfully, to limit the amount of certain things; there is a legal alcohol limit, age restrictions, and other things. The problem is, we have these laws, but do they really stop people?

When you think it all out, if laws did work, they wouldn't exist. After all, when people do things wrong, rules are developed to stop it. But if that stopped people, the laws wouldn't be required.

Furthermore, government can make all the laws they wish. But it is up to society, family, and friends, to impose the correct ideas in the minds of others. I believe that we should do everything that we can in order to accomplish this, but ultimately, it is up to individuals in terms of what they do.

Answer 2

Not at all, IMHO. Society - the government, really - needs to protect people from eachother, but doesn't need to protect individuals from themselves. Personal responsibility, y'know.

That doesn't mean people can't point out dangers, or extort eachother to be careful. But, if someone wants to take a risk he's aware of, why stop him, just let him live (or not) with the consequences.

Answer 3

Could you be more clear.