How much right does authority have to prevent self-harming idiocy?

There is also a fine line between allowing people liberty and ennabling certain undesirable behaviors, and as history has shown it is an easy line to cross.

If the behavior is only self destructive, it doesn't matter if it's undesirable. Unless you submit that society has a right to prevent people from engaging in behavior it deems undesirable?

I mean, undesirable from society's perspective.

Exactly what constitutes undesirable from society's perspective is of course up to debate.

One standard of measure could say that something would cost the society a lot of money that could be prevented by spending a smaller amount of money. Another is that it causes other people more hardship/suffering.

(Yes, I am aware that using the phrase "undesirable behaviors" has a lot of negative Big-Brother-style connotations.)

edited 16th Nov '10 6:01:20 PM by GlennMagusHarvey

The second one has merit. The first only has merit if it's not personal property.

Huh?

I was referring to your methods. "It might cost society if it decides to help you" isn't a valid reason, "you're hurting other people" is.

To answer the thread title directly - none. If a person's actions don't affect any other person he should be free to do whatever he wants. Recreational (personal) drug use, suicide, everything. I don't have anything against authority-supported education or warnings, but ultimately the choice should be in the hands of the individual. Personally i have never expected my parents or my government or any form of authority to protect me from my own stupidity or ignorance, and i think even if a million people would die if authority stopped being their safety net - so be it. The ones that remain will understand the issues in question much better, as personal experience is worth a lot more than propaganda.

Of course there's the thin line of when an individual becomes capable of excercising judgment. IMO the requirement of an arbitrary age isn't the best solution, after all people are far too different from each other. Some reach emotional maturity at 13, some at 25, some never. You can't just judge everyone by the same criteria. Perhaps a test or something of the sort to gauge an individual's "maturity" (for lack of a better word) at an age of the individual's choice is a better idea. Perhaps.

Litmus tests for maturity are a terrible hornet's nest to get into that are all but guaranteed to raise more Big Brother issues than they solve. I mean, I'm all for the idea in a general sense but when you get down to specifics, you run into all sorts of problems. Who runs the test, who picks the criteria, how do you prevent "cheating"?

It's far simpler and less controversial to assign an arbitrary age of maturity. So what if a notionally mature 13-year old has to wait a few years to drive? Who does that really harm in the long run?

Anyway, it's worth pointing out that, most of the time, governments are not preventing these behaviors - you don't go to jail for not wearing a seatbelt or eating junk food. What governments are doing is raising barriers, ideally of the "stop and think first" kind, or making notionally harmful activities more costly.

Cigarettes aren't illegal, but you can't smoke in most places where the smoke will affect others and they're very expensive. But you can still get them and smoke them if you want. Similarly, you can always choose not to wear a seat belt, at the cost of being harrassed by the police, having higher insurance rates, etc.

And authority is overstepping it's bounds in making something more expensive.

How? It's like preemptively making you pay for the potential future harm your actions may cause. Take sugary drinks, for example. Taxing them additionally forces a consumer to stop and think: Do I want to pay extra for this stuff that's worse for me than this other stuff? Barring the thinking part, it also helps pay for their future medical costs as obese diabetics.

edited 17th Nov '10 8:51:16 AM by Fighteer

But the damage is too oneself. It doesn't matter how much damage one does to oneself, a simple warning and a signed statement saying the warning has been heard is all authority has the right to do.

edited 17th Nov '10 8:53:12 AM by Deboss

@Fighteer That's still control, only indirectly. For example i can push someone off a building, or tell them i'll knife their mom in the eye if they don't jump on their own. I know it's a gross exaggeration, but the it's essentially the same thing.