Government Intervention, When is it okay?

John Stuart Mill is a classical liberal philosopher who argues that the government should only intervene when there is clear and present danger to someone other than one’s self. He does not believe in paternalistic laws such as refusing to wear a seat belt or a helmet. Then, we have Karl Marx who is in agreement with government intervention to ensure a safe society. I am in agreement with a little of both.

I believe that the government should not be able to control personal decisions such as wearing your seat belt and a helmet, a women’s right to choose, the right to bear arms and freedom of speech. However, I also realize that there are circumstances that arise that challenge these issues such as when one’s behaviors begin to destroy or harm their families or other parts of society. This when I begin to agree with Marx. The government needs to intervene to ensure the safety of society as a whole. The problem is that there is a fine line defining what is individual and personal and what is considered to be for the greater good. It is a fact that an outside source, such as a government, will never be able to control what one deems right due to their individual circumstance. I feel our country is still doing its best to figure this out, but still has proven to have a long way to go. Capitalism works when we have checks and balances or in other words when we have real statesmen working to enforce reasonable laws. Unfortunately, the majority of the people making the laws are playing a partisan rewards game and the real significance gets lost. Another thought is that it would be nice if  the people the government is actually helping only amounts to 20% of the population that truthfully can't take care of themselves, rather than including the percentile who work hard and make bad decisions or choose not to work at all with the expectation that the government will help them out. Then, we are left with the percentage of people who work hard and make good decisions and of course the 1% of people who own and control the economy, take more than their share and take advantage of society. When is it that an individual, a company or a big bank has to own up and pay for its failures and at what point was it that everyone became so concerned about themselves they lost sight of the bigger picture? I don't think that any of what I just described is what Karl Marks or John Stuart Mill were condoning and therefore I think the answer to government intervention may lie somewhere in between.