One common argument is that paternalism attack freedom of choice. That point seems reasonable, but actually doesn’t make any sense. According to “The New Paternalism: The Avuncular State” of The Economist, the state should repress a man’s a man’s acts only if they harm others. The article also mentions that Harm to himself alone was not a good enough reason for the state to limit his freedom (19). If a teenagers watch smoking ads and then start to smoke, that will be his own business since he only harm to himself that government have no right to make paternalism on him. However, as an individual group, advertising companies are harming teenagers by these ads so that at this time government do have right to control them by
One common argument is that paternalism attack freedom of choice. That point seems reasonable, but actually doesn’t make any sense. According to “The New Paternalism: The Avuncular State” of The Economist, the state should repress a man’s a man’s acts only if they harm others. The article also mentions that Harm to himself alone was not a good enough reason for the state to limit his freedom (19). If a teenagers watch smoking ads and then start to smoke, that will be his own business since he only harm to himself that government have no right to make paternalism on him. However, as an individual group, advertising companies are harming teenagers by these ads so that at this time government do have right to control them by