Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:42:02.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Manipulation, Liberalism and Paternalism: A Reply to Morriss

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Alan Ware
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his Comment on my article Peter Morriss raises several interesting points, but in this reply I shall try to show that the objections he makes to my analysis are not convincing. I consider first the more general arguments grouped under my ‘second error’. This permits consideration of the ‘first error’ to be placed in the context of anti-paternalist liberal arguments.

Type
Notes and Comments
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , January 1982 , pp. 119 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Ware, Alan, ‘The Concept of Manipulation: Its Relation to Democracy and Power’, British Journal of Political Science, XI (1981), 163–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty, Everyman edn (London: Dent, 1910), pp. 151–2.Google Scholar

3 As I argue shortly, the liberal would also require intervention if the desire to drink the sulphuric acid had been acquired as a result of the use of force against the person.