STATE COERCION AND CITIZENS’ RIGHTS
The paper aims to explore which situations the state can exercise political power over its citizens. The art is to find the fine line between citizens’ rights and state coercion. The best way to present an answer to this issue is by examining the principles when state coercion might be justified. Hence, wewill examine eight following principles: Harm Principle, Offense Principle, Legal Moralism, Legal Paternalism, Collective Benefits Principle, Justice Principle, Need Principle, Sufficiency Principle. In addition to defending liberal principles, wewill argue that Legal Paternalism and The Justice Principle can be adopted but only in specific situations. Finally, we suggest that The Need Principle and The Justice Principle cannot be used as justification to limit one’s freedom but they might be translated and expanded into The Sufficiency Principle.
- Devlin, P. (1968). The Enforcement of Morals, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Feinberg, J. (1984). Harm to Others, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Feinberg, J. (1985). Offense to Others, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Feinberg, J. (1987). Harm to Self, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Feinberg, J. (1988). Harmless Wrong-Doing, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Mill, J.S. (1909). On Liberty, The Floating Press [e-book].
- O’Neill, Onora. 1987. “Rights, Obligations and World Hunger.” in Poverty and Social Justice: Critical Perspective: A Pilgrimage Toward Our Own Humanity, eds. Francisco Jimenez, 86-100. Temple: Bilingual Press.
- Singer, Peter. 1972. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1(3): 229-43.
- Wertheimer, Alan. 2002. “Liberty, Coercion and the Limits of the State.” In The Blackwell Guide to Social and Political Philosophy, eds Robert L. Simon, Oxford: Blackwell.