» Home » Society
A Free Society Should Not Protect People From Themselves
People should have the freedom to make bad choices and learn from them. Telling somebody they can't do something that will have a negative effect on their health (physical or mental) encourages a state of dependency and risk aversion. In this state people will be less likely to behave responsibly and use their judgement effectively, so restricting a person's freedom in order to protect them is actually counter-productive. In addition, a state characterised by risk aversion will not result in any breakthroughs and therefore will not be conducive to progression.
 Kirsty08  20 Nov 2008 14:24
                           (What's this?)  Add to Firefox  RSS
It's not always that simply especially where the line blurs between protecting you and protecting other people from you. However I think that it should be left to the individual absolutely as much as possible.
 
 finsch  23 Nov 2008 17:57
 Add a Comment
 
 
Well kinda sorta. A line must be drawn somewhere.
 
 Specter87  20 Nov 2008 15:28
 Add a Comment
 
 
I agree in principle.

But there are definite exceptions 1) Legal adults should be free, children however still need guidance and protection as do citizens deemed mentally unable to decide and care for themselves. 2) Behaviors that risk direct impact on others need limitation. You're not free to test homemade bombs because the person you startle or blow up may not simply be yourself. 3) Predators who use violence or deception to get people to cooperate need to be controlled. If a predatory home lone agent pulls some magic with paperwork and it makes the individual lose their home you really can't blame that on the person who tried to read everything and choose carefully but ultimately was tricked. 4) Substances which bring disease and death are fair game to limit because all of society pays the cost of their impact.

But, even after saying all that - I believe for example that euthanasia should be legal. Why does the government have a right to tell anyone they can't end their cancer suffering and expenses early?
 
 Grenache  20 Nov 2008 14:38
 2 Comments
 
 I see most of your points, but human euthanasia is an issue for me. First of all, suicide is not a crime that one can be convicted of. If one chooses to take one's own life, they are gone and their suffering has ended. The issue is, physicians take an oath to do no harm. They must all take this oath. A physician cannot really ever know for certain that imminent, painful death is the definite outcome of a disease process. People have different responses to cancer, Huntington's, Lou Gehrig's Syndrome...just to name a few. Some people do linger and suffer. Others are diagnosed and die swiftly. If a physician were to say, "I'm sorry Mr. Smith, you have advanced pancreatic cancer and are going to suffer for 32 days and experience....." you get the point. They cannot accurately pinpoint a disease process nor give a totally accurate prognosis. Human will is stronger than many give it credit for. My father fought lung cancer and it never came back once he beat it. I hate the thought of people suffering and I do not fault those who wish to take their own lives due to that suffering, but the families of said patients will sue the pants off of doctors who assist these patients and most doctors are not willing to kill their patients. Also, there are many compassionate care alternatives. I have known several people pass with devastating illness in dignity and with comfort.

Sorry, I couldn't help but comment on that. I don't like the thought of asking physicians to help their patients kill themselves under any circumstances. My brother in law is a physician and I know he would do everything in his power to keep his patients comfortable, but would not be able to assist them in ending their lives. What if there were to be a miracle? Also, look where Dr. Kavorkian is.
by  my2cents2u
 23 Nov 2008 05:18
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Yes but no. I think people who show harm to other people should be Title 86ed.

And yes, Kristy08, they should be protected from themselves if they can cause harm to others.
 
 imright20  20 Nov 2008 21:25
 2 Comments
 
 Protection from THEMSELVES not other people
by  Kirsty08
 21 Nov 2008 08:50
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
 
A free society will always need protected from itself.
Without some forms of protection, it is anarchy.
Social engineering, conformance to governing rules, is required within a "free" society, which in reality means there is no such thing as a free society.
I am not saying this is a good thing.
 
 2free  20 Nov 2008 17:44
 2 Comments
 
 Yes but ultimately that is protection from other people. What I am arguing is that people should not be protected from themselves i.e. they should be allowed to smoke, take drugs, prostitute themselves, etc.
by  Kirsty08
 21 Nov 2008 08:49
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
 
Red light, green light! Walk, don't walk! Splat! Sorry Matey, you are living in a free society now. You don't have to be protected from on coming traffic!! Your motion is flawed Kirsty08. The driver and the pedestrian are just one example! You don't learn too quickly when you have just been flattened by a huge truck! Good try though, 8 out of 10 for effort!
 
 joe9  20 Nov 2008 16:04
 23 Comments
 
 What does that even mean you blumbering idiot?
by  Kirsty08
 20 Nov 2008 16:14
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Sign In / Sign Up
 For and Against Recent Activity
Related Debates
School Safety Is More Important Than Student's Privacy
Being Your Own Person Is The Key To Lead A Happy Life.
People Should Not Stay In Hotels
Once Immoral, Always Immoral.
We Should Have Only ONE Religion.
There's Been Too Much Deference To The Chinese Olympic Torch Attendants
Slavery Is Compatible With Christianity
People Misunderstand "Make Love Not War"
Get Rid Of Overdraft Charges