When does responsibility come to effect!?

[Iskatehard]

I'm not entirely sure on this thread.. I'm putting it into the philosophy forum, because I'm certain that the discussion can branch far from my initial topic at hand.. Though I must say, this OP will seem more political than anything else.

Anyway.. We've (Americans, anyway) seen a lot of "change" and heard of a lot of "change".. There have been a lot of bills proposed and passed. And a lot of them seem to be invasive into the common American's personal life.

For the sake of broad discussion, I don't want to refer to any specific bills or anything.. I just want to know what some of you think...

When do governing forces need to step back? It seems some feel they need to protect society from themselves. Now, I can understand some things.. For example, the fact that driving while intoxicated is illegal. I can agree with that law because it's unfair when somebody driving cautiously and correctly is killed because of negligence of somebody else. We should take proper steps to deter people harming other people, yes.

But should we take steps to deter people harming themselves only? Apparently, the government thinks so. But I have to ask, when should the government step back? What ever happened to the point of personal responsibility?

I can get some aspects, as I've said. When the well being of somebody is risked without any consent from them (such as a baby crawling into a busy road because they don't understand the possible consequences), it's good to step in. But why should we attempt to protect people from themselves when they're in a perfectly capable state of mind and body to make decisions for themselves?

I hate to get specific.. But shit.. It's not illegal to go jumping out of an airplane, is it? No, because the people doing so are very capable of making good decisions and protecting themselves, thus taking responsibility. But it's going to be illegal to market flavored tobacco? Why? The persons purchasing it are of age and knowing to understand the possible consequences of using the products.. Why step in and intervene with their use of responsibility concerning their own well being?

Shit, I hate to have to use actual examples.. But whatever. When is it okay to try to assume the role of an individual's responsibility? What makes it worth the time and effort? And is that time and effort more justified being placed to help somebody out of a spot they willingly put themselves in rather than helping someone out of a spot they never wanted/intended to be in in the first place?

Is it really possible to protect somebody from themselves? SHOULD we assume to role of trying to protect somebody from themselves? If a party understands the ramifications of their decisions, why interfere?

[Roboman]

Good point. That all aligns with the euthanasia argument really.

I guess it's all down to the judgement of whether their actions affect others in a bad way. The drunk driver car crash is a very concrete example of that, but it would still have a social effect on people in buying flavoured tobacco willingly or cases of euthanasia.

Last thing the people in power want is to be seen advocating suicide or promoting negative things (like smoking), regardless of the willingness of the person and the clarity of their judgement.

[Iskatehard]

I don't think the people in power need to address the points like that at all, for the most part (I can understand some topics, such as euthanasia, since it contrasts some of our laws)

I know the tobacco example I used in OP could be argued that it does affect people other than the person using the product. And in situations like that, I can understand the forming of laws that would prevent that. And we've done that already. Such as not letting people smoke in public. (we're not even allowed to smoke in our car while driving here...)

Why it doesn't end there doesn't make sense to me. That seems to be the most common way our government addresses a lot of harmful things.. Such as guns.. You can own one, but you can't go waving it around on the streets, firing it into the sky.

Concerning the tobacco bit (which I hope isn't the main focus of this thread), I don't understand why it doesn't end with laws preventing people from harming other people with it. Why any person in power would take the topic further than that is completely beyond me.

I can understand that it isn't very appealing to go around advocating harming yourself.. But to go out of your way to intervene seems like a bit much. And especially in a place like America, which is a democracy.. And I'd think giving us the ability to vote concerning topics such as who to put into office, we'd be capable of making decisions which only affect ourselves.

And in all honesty.. When the government seems to feel like they need to step in and play a role in my decision making for my own well being.. It's kind of insulting and makes me question what the government thinks about me.. Am I not smart enough to make a 'right' decision on my own? And when they feel like we're not capable of making one decision on our own, you have to wonder what decision might they think we're not capable of making next.

[Ezio]

After regulating a lot of aspects of our life (seatbelts, smoking, trans-fats) it seems like the government has set up the growth of a regulation trend. Personal responsibility should come into play when decisions made by person affect the decision maker solely. That's my take on it, at least.