As will be described in the choice framework post, a government's ultimate responsibility is to provide the maximum number of choices to society as a whole. This means that you have the ability to make any decision you chose with regards to yourself. However, in order to allow for this, there is one key limitation - it must not limit the choices of others. Within the context of this debate we have the choice to smoke without geographic limitations and the choice to remain unaffected from the harmful effects of smoking.
Smoking on campus inherently infringes on the second choice. Particularly in places like the Jaywalk where
everyone is concentrated into one area, there is no feasible way to escape the effects of smoking. This means that the first choice, the choice to smoke, inherently constrains the second choice, the choice to avoid the effects of smoking. In such cases, the right that is being infringed always takes precedence. We have to, as a society, act to protect those who cannot preserve their freedoms on their own.
Secondly, in terms of maximizing choice, we must remember that absolute freedom undermines itself. Though this does limit the choice of smokers to smoke without geographical limitations, in the end it expands their long term choices by protecting their well being and encouraging them to live a life without the detrimental effects of smoking.
No comments:
Post a Comment