Debate Guide: Cyclical paternalism: Difference between revisions

From NewgonWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(improve)
Line 1: Line 1:
Basically the reverse of [[Liberty Empowerment]] theory, this is summed up by [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/li1.htm Chin-Keung Li] on the MHAMic website:
This argument is in effect the reverse of the [[Debate Guide: Liberty-empowerment|liberty empowerment]] theory and is used to describe how paternalist/protectionist/parentalist/ageist practises in society will sometimes fulfil their supporters' prophecies that such measures will be required.
 
This argument (in relation to the concept of [[consent]]) is summed up by [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/li1.htm Chin-Keung Li] on the MHAMic website:


[[Image:Li.gif]]
[[Image:Li.gif]]


Child protection creates a need for child protection, just like self interested man 1's gun creates a need for self interested man 2's gun. Time has come for us to educate our young and give them the freedom to control at least a few more of their own affairs. This is not only relevant to their enjoyment and freedom, but their welfare and futures which as with most things are better off under the control of their beholders. But to achieve this, we must make them able. This can be achieved via the promotion of ideas similar to those on this website.
Some anti-drugs laws that aim to protect people from harmful substances have made the use of virtually harmless substances potentially deadly through poor production standards and lack of appropriate education. Similarly, attempting to protect a class of people from natural, human sexuality leads to inadequate education and hands control of these practises to a hidden, criminal element. Therefore, protectionist actions may be excused by the unthinking because they allegedly "prevent" and "bring closure to" the problems they are in part responsible for causing.
 
To resolve this issue, young people should be handed back control of their bodies and taught not to feel guilty about their sexuality.


[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Child/Minor]]
[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Child/Minor]]

Revision as of 21:41, 21 March 2009

This argument is in effect the reverse of the liberty empowerment theory and is used to describe how paternalist/protectionist/parentalist/ageist practises in society will sometimes fulfil their supporters' prophecies that such measures will be required.

This argument (in relation to the concept of consent) is summed up by Chin-Keung Li on the MHAMic website:

Some anti-drugs laws that aim to protect people from harmful substances have made the use of virtually harmless substances potentially deadly through poor production standards and lack of appropriate education. Similarly, attempting to protect a class of people from natural, human sexuality leads to inadequate education and hands control of these practises to a hidden, criminal element. Therefore, protectionist actions may be excused by the unthinking because they allegedly "prevent" and "bring closure to" the problems they are in part responsible for causing.

To resolve this issue, young people should be handed back control of their bodies and taught not to feel guilty about their sexuality.