That rights of governments to intervene, in the actions of its citizens Options

Hi Everybody,

I like this topic its interesting and with alot of the legislation passed in almost every country contrary to what I believe it is relevant. Take for example FCC censorship or the cencorship of films and pornography the laws that say we must wear a safety belt or the laws that you cant do certain things before 18 or 21.

Basically the question is: When is a government or person waranted in interfering in the actions of an individual?

And my belief is that the no person or body has any right to interfere in the liberty of action of an individual except for the purpose of preventing harm to others (i.e. you cannot prevent self harm).

There are a couple of conditions:
a) the person must be in what is considered adulthoold by their community
b) the person must be of sound mind
c) the person must understand or be informed about their action (i.e. tell them the bridge is also broken so there's a chance it will break, rather than just being a dangerous bridge)
d) this concept also applies to free speech and expression of opinion.


Anyone disagree? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/13.gif)

This post has been edited by Avitus: Jul 26 2005, 03:03 AM

The question "when is a government or person warranted in interfering in the actions of an individual?" completely obscures the issue, as far as I'm concerned.

It implies that governments and people are entities of the same order, but it's evident that this is plain wrong, logically and morally.

A person - an individual - is unique and most people (the only exceptions I can think of are hardline fascist/communists and some Satanists) would agree, on some level, sacred. It is their individuality, their 'personhood' and what I shall conveniently call their 'soul' that makes them this way.

On an ethical level, a person is capable of exercising their own mind, their own conscience, their own reason, their own sense of empathy, judgement and self-criticism to arrive at an ethical decision. Because they have all these things, they have the imperative moral duty to use them. Because of this, they have the right to be considered, by other individuals (who also have all those things) in the same manner.

A government, on the other hand, is not a person, and does not possess any attributes of one, in that it does not - except in a metaphorical sense - have a mind. It certainly does not have the kind of unified, self-conscious mind which I have described as belonging to people and which, logically, is the source of their moral rights and duties.

It is, rather, an organisation, a species of bureaucratic machine set up by people (or, in some cases, in theory, by "The People", although of course in practice this has never happened) in order to carry out particular tasks more conveniently. In this, it has no more moral rights, or imperative ethical responsibilities, than my toaster. (Of course, it has practical imperatives. It has to do what it is meant to do, in as unobtrusive a manner as possible. Just as my toaster has no moral rights or obligations, it would still get slung out in the rubbish if it blew up my kitchen every time I tried to make toast. When this simple observation is made with regard to governments, it is technically known as Anarchism....)

A discussion about the limits of the rights of individuals, and one about the rights of governments, are both clearly and urgently needed. But confounding them together can only have one of two consequences. Either we invest government with a non-existent mind or 'soul' of its own and turn it into a demigod - literally, idolise it - or we reduce individual humans to small, will-less components in a societal machine. The history of the last century, and the tensions unfolding in this, should warn us most sternly against either.