has led to opinions varying from one extreme to the other with many in between. There are many different aspects to consider when determining if this kind of restriction of one's liberty is ever completely justified.

The main issue in question is when can the government infringe on personal freedom. One of the answers to this question that has been debated is to prevent harm to one's self. I will attempt to show that this is not a

legitimate reason for governmental interference with the right of human liberty.

The belief that the government has the right to prevent someone from doing harm to himself is known as the Principle of Legal Paternalism. This principle states that "the state is justified in prohibiting actions that hurt or endanger the agent himself; the state can interfere for the person's own good". This principle allows the government to pass laws to ensure the safety of an individual from himself and to preven

happen as well. I am not denying this totally. I am saying that the use of valium and heroin are dramatically more likely to cause this to occur and therefore are more severe in nature. To make these drugs legal would

to cover those people who have been injured. Therefore, by not wearing a seat belt, a person is causing insurance rates to increase. This is not in the best interest of people and can be classified as a harm. Some might object to this reasoning by stating that one person not wearing a seat belt cannot have that much impact on insurance rates. While this is true, I am looking at the situation as a whole. If most people don't wear seat belts then insurance rates will go up undoubtedly across the board. For this reason, seat belts

The act of justifying the illegality of not wearing seat belts is a little more complicated. When a person decides not to wear a seat belt, not only can he harm himself physically, but he can also harm others in another way. We classify harm as a violation of one's interests. So not only physical harm counts as harm. It can be statistically shown that the severity of injury from a car accident increases greatly when a person does not wear a seat belt. Because of this increase in the severity of the injury to a person, insurance companies are forced to pay off more money to cover the expenses incurred from the injury. Therefore the cost of insurance premiums go up across the board to compensate for the increased amount of money used

could become so enraged by such a minor thing that he takes his anger out on another person. This infringes on that other person's rights. Some might argue that all drugs and even alcohol could cause this to

As for keeping the act of contracting to be a slave illegal, this justification is fairly simple. Under the premises given by the government of the United States, all men are created equal and are given equal rights under the law. That is, all men have the same number of rights as his neighbor and no man is entitled to any more rights than any other person. If a person contracts to be a slave of another person, in essence, he has given some of

Some common words found in the essay are:
Legal Paternalism, , wearing seat, seat belts, contracting slave, wearing seat belts, over-the-counter sale heroin, sale heroin valium, over-the-counter sale, seat belt, heroin valium, sale heroin, insurance rates, valium wearing seat, valium wearing, heroin valium wearing, wear seat,
Approximate Word count = 1454
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)