乔尔•范伯格总结道:“只有当国家的行为本质上是非自愿的，或者当需要临时干预以确定其是否是自愿的时，国家才有权利阻止自私自利的有害行为。”(引用阿内森的话，1980:pg 470)。在前面提到的桥梁的例子中，一名不知情的公众成员踩上了在他们的重量下会倒塌的桥梁，不能说他是自愿的;按照密尔的逻辑，在这种情况下，国家完全有权利派一名警卫在该地区巡逻，冲进去对付这些消息不灵通的人，阻止他们不由自主地采取致命的步骤。然而，如果他们跑向大桥，大喊着他们怎么知道桥会杀了他们，他的逻辑会阻止警卫采取任何直接行动。不管我们对这种让人们选择伤害自己的冲动有什么感觉，自由主义的一个基本原则是，人们知道什么是对自己最好的，干涉他们以自己的方式追求自己的利益的愿望本质上是错误的。然而，这可能比它最初出现时更难测试;例如，如果这个人有精神疾病怎么办?的确，如果一个人希望采取一种明显能促进他们的利益，但在某种程度上包含伤害或痛苦的行为，我们可以很容易地理解为什么一个人或国家想要干预，以及为什么他们应该被阻止这样做。然而，如果一个人说，他希望采取的行动不会给他带来明显的好处，但显然会造成很大的伤害，那么他应该在什么时候采取行动呢?是心理评估来确定他们的理智不公正的干涉吗?毕竟，如果一个人的精神状态不稳定，肯定不能说他的行为是出于自己的自由意志。知情同意不仅仅意味着了解风险是什么，还意味着了解后果意味着什么。
澳洲莫纳什代写作业:阻止自私自利
Joel Feinberg concludes that “the state has a right to prevent self-regarding harmful conduct only when it is substantially non voluntary or when temporary intervention is necessary to establish whether it is voluntary or not.” (quoted in Arneson, 1980: pg 470). In the example of the bridge referenced earlier, an ill informed member of the public stepping on a bridge which would collapse under their weight could not be said to be acting voluntarily; the state would be well within its rights in such a scenario under Mill’s logic to station a guard patrolling the area, to leap in and tackle such ill-informed people, stopping them from involuntarily taking the fatal step. If, however, they are running towards the bridge and shouting about how they know it will kill them, his logic would forbid the guard from taking any direct action. Whatever we feel about this compulsion to allow people to harm themselves if they so choose, it is a basic tenet of liberalism, that people know what the best for themselves is, and that interfering in their desire to pursue their own good in their own way is intrinsically wrong.This can, however, be harder to test than it would originally appear; what if the person is, for example, mentally ill? Indeed, if a person wishes to take an act which can obviously further their good but contains in it some degree of harm, or pain, we can easily understand both why a person, or state, would want to interfere and why they should be prevented from doing so. Yet if a person states that they wish to follow a course of action that will bring them no obvious benefit, and yet will clearly generate a great deal of harm, at what point should the state step in to take action? Is a mental assessment to determine their sanity unjust interference? After all, if a person is mentally unstable, surely they cannot truly be said to be acting of their own free will. Informed consent means more than merely knowing what the risks are, it means understanding what the consequences mean.
