Debate Guide: Liberty-empowerment

For this argument stated in the negative, see cyclical paternalism and the analogies presented.

It can be argued that with respect to civil rights, we will not properly know the extent of a subjugated group's capability to self - determine, until we give them the liberty to do so. Cyclical paternalism and socialized apathy are important, but easy to ignore aspects here.

One recent example is the rise of women from a level of belittlement and socially-engineered apathy that convinced most (themselves included) of their innate inferiority. Should (over time) young people similarly be given more rights to control their own bodies, we might expect to see them become more competent and confident in exercising those rights. This will require radical changes to the lived experience - the "reality", if you will, of young peoples' existence, much as it did with women. See, for example, the sexual confidence of women in the modern world following advances such as the contraceptive pill, and women's liberation movement.

These changes, as with previous struggles for civil rights, will be actioned slowly, over time. While this will doubtless lead to prolonged suffering, a period of slow progress will help us strike a balance between empowerment and safeguarding, with specially tailored assault laws that protect the freedom of emancipated younger people while ensuring that adults can not have their lives destroyed on the basis of hearsay.