"[T]he sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rigthfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physically or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entering him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise."
Do you agree or disagree with Mill that governments have no right to interfere with an individuals liberty unless that individuals behavior will cause harm to someone else? Why?
I agree with Mill that the government has no right to interfere with an individuals liberty unless that individuals behavior will cause harm to someone else. In the US Constitution we have the right to the pursuit of happiness. We can do whatever we want without hurting one. We also have Freedom of Religion which we can practice anything, but when it comes to hurting or killing people, then we lose that right. We have our rights and our freedom and the government cannot take that away from us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that the government doesn't have a right to interfere with an individuals liberty. But as far as the the government taking away our rights and freedom, they sometimes do. When a state of emergency is in effect sometimes our rights are temporarily suspended. And what about government censorship? One could argue that, that is the government taking away some of our rights and freedoms.
ReplyDelete