The object of Mills research in his writing On liberty is the civil and public freedom, the properties and limits of that authority which can be fairly recognized belonging to a society above the individual. The struggle between freedom and authority is the sharpest feature in those parts of history which we get to know first of all. Earlier people understood freedom as protection against tyranny of the political governor. The governors by the position should have the interests opposite to interests of their “citizens”. The society considered authority of the governors as something necessary, but, at the same time, something dangerous which can be directed both against it, and against external enemies. The society aspired to restriction of authority of the governors. Such restriction also referred to as freedom.
Liberal aspirations of people did not go further the constitutional applications. While humanity opposed one enemy to another and recognized mister above itself. Eventually there has come an epoch in which people have ceased to see known necessity for that that the government was authority independent of a society. Now governors were selected, operated and were replaced under their discretion. The former aspiration to the establishment of the constitutional barrier was replaced with aspiration to an establishment of such governments where the authority would be in hands of elective and time governors. For freedom there were necessary not restrictions of authority, and the establishment of such governors which could not have other interests and other will, except for interests and will of the people. Such views were inherent in all last generation of the European liberalism.
Micro motive is the inner motivation that leads us in performing particular acts. Those decisions are to pursue peoples' own self interest, unintentionally lead to contradict with other people's acts. Chasing that idea of human nature T. Shelling gives us variable results of how micro motives can guide the society in the world of externalities. Economists tend to rely on A. Smith's "Wealth of ...
In the Chapter 2 of On Liberty Mill says: If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind.” In this chapter, Mill’s writes about his views on religion and the importance of religion in the search for truth. Although Mill believes in the independence of the individual, he disproves the idea that government should stick on popular opinion. He doesn’t believe that the government should ever stop victimless free expression even if public opinion deems it necessary. Mill’s extreme liberalism is reflected in his statement that mankind does not even have the authority to silence one opinion, much less the whole of the minority. Mill’s argument of human weakness is strong – Mill states that all opinions need to be listened to in order to make a conclusion what is the real truth. However, this argument based on impeccability seems to be an infinite one, a student of Mill would wonder where the indecision would end, after how much deliberation would a truth be confirmed? How would one ever be certain of the truth and what kind of chaos would the resulting uncertainty yield? The Mill’s idea is that people should keep discuss one issue even if they have already found the way out and came to the conclusion.
They should not forget that time flies and new opinions can appear. The Women’s Suffrage Movement, Civil Rights Movement, and the Vietnam War are all examples of where the minority opinion, which needed to be heard, was suppressed in error. The opinion that people has no need to limit own authority above itself, could seem an axiom when the national board existed as dream is an opinion the French Revolution has changed. Then people have noticed, that words about self-management and authority of people are not absolutely exact. The will of people, actually, is the will of the most numerous or most active part of people. People’s power can have prompting to oppress a part of people and consequently such authority can as be abused.
One must find upon critical review a tremendous similarity of thought and process between Bertolt Brecht’s play Life of Galileo and the recent film Good Night, and Good Luck. They both anticipate and express the challenges faced when an individual confronts society with independent authority. Three such issues can be catalogued as follows: Claims of independence can be made in the face of known ...
Therefore, measures against abusing both this authority are necessary, and for everyone another. Thus, restriction of the governmental authority above the individual does not lose the value, and in that case, when invested with authority are responsible before people then not enough to have protection only from the governmental tyranny, it is necessary to have protection and against opinion prevailing in a society or feelings. There is a border, further which the public opinion cannot lawfully interfere with individual independence: it is necessary to establish this border and its protection from infringements. It is necessary, that the public opinion obliged people to execute known rules of behavior. However there is a question what should be these rules. And antipathy of a society to its most powerful part, that actually defines what rules individuals under fear of prosecution are obliged to observe sympathies on the part of the law or public opinion.
The authority of a society has caused against itself the direct protest only concerning religion. Is the encouragement of individuality, and with it the expansion of human happiness, best accomplished by an absolute prohibition against all social interference in the inner sphere of each person’s life? The personal blessing of the individual, physical or moral, not is a basis for any intervention in his action. Nobody has rights to force the individual to do or not to do something. Only in that case permissibly similar intervention if actions of the individual harm somebody. The authority of a society above the individual should not reach further on how many actions of other people concern the individual. However progress is higher, more important than freedom. Achievement of progress can justify such actions which do not correspond to requirements of freedom as in this case, progress is simply unattainable on the part of the governor.
Every one has human rights. they can be civil, political, social, cultural, or economic rights. Civil and political rights are also called first generation rights. These rights give an individual the right to protect them selves from the government.They can there for participate in free speech, voting and fair trial. They include, the right to life, the right from slavery, the right to marry and ...
Some interests justify submission of the individual to the external control only on his such actions which concern interests of other people. The sphere of a human life which has the direct attitude only to the individual, is the sphere of individual freedom (a freedom of worship, ideas, feelings, opinions on every possible subjects; a choice and prosecution of this or that purpose; freedom to arrange the life in accordance with the personal character; freedom to make common cause with other individuals).
The society in which the individual has no freedom of idea and a word is not free and only that society is free, in which all these kinds of individual freedom exist absolutely and is indifferent equally for all its members. Only such freedom also deserves the name of Freedom when we can aspire to achievement of that we count for ourselves the blessing and we go those ways which we count the best. The time when it was necessary to prove that freedom of press is one of necessary guarantees against the governmental arbitrariness or oppression, has already passed,. Mill denies, that people had the right, somehow to constrain freedom of opinions expression through the government, or somehow else.
Freedom of criticism is a intellect of the person, capable to correct the mistakes by means of criticism and experience. But it cannot correct them only on the basis of the experience. The criticism is necessary to make seen that is opened by experience. The only method to come closer to full knowledge of a subject is to listen to all possible opinions on this subject, to study it from all possible points of view. Clever people also reached wisdom this way; other way is not present also it is impossible on the property of human mind. As a result of non-freedom of opinions people not only do not know what they should recognize as true, but also this true loses for them any sense. In general practically on all significant vital questions, the true consists mainly in reconciliation, the consent of contrasts.
Freedom of opinion and freedom of his expression is necessary for intellectual well-being of people. The individual should not be harmful for people. But if it abstains from all that harmful to others and operates in compliance with the bents, the skills only when his actions concern him directly, under such circumstances, for the same reasons full freedom of opinions and actions is absolutely necessary for people. People should understand, that free development of individuality is one of the essential blessings, that it is not only an element accompanying that the civilization, formation, education, but also there is a necessary accessory of a free society. Paul Hager On Liberty” by John S. Mill, New York 2003.
Freedom and Rights How would you feel if your individual rights and freedoms were stripped from you during a national crisis? In many countries, the people's individual rights and freedoms are supposed to be protected by the government. But, in some cases, those individual rights and freedoms were taken away from the people during a national crisis. Some examples of these actions are Hitler ...