A new anti-paternalist theory

autonomy and self

Abstract

If an agent acts so as to harm only himself, then is state interference with that action ever legitimate? Paternalistic legislation has been the subject of much debate. For John Stuart Mill, the only legitimate ground for state interference was the harm principle: state interference to prevent an actor harming others is legitimate; the state, however, may not interfere with actions which harm only the actor himself. I introduce a distinction between (1) long-term desires and short-term desires and (2) current desires and future desires. I will argue that state interference with current, long-term desires is never legitimate.