Blog #3

John Stuart Mill contends that society functions best when it is built upon a practice of doing no harm:
"[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 rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical 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 entreating 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 individual's liberty unless that individual's behavior will cause harm to someone else? Why?

I agree with Mill's position on the government's rights. I think that the government was put in place to create order and a sense of safety for the governed. The people should have the right to live thier lives freely, uninterupted by government. Government should only intervene when necessary; they should intervene when one individual or group is interupting anothers freedom or life. If someone is going to harm themselves, or someone else, the government should step in. Mill stated:
"The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our
own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to
obtain it."
The problem now is deciding what actions or words will cause harm. The government has the power to decide right from wrong, and it might not coincide with the opinions of the public. If someone's opinion or expression is viewed as harmful to the public, the government could intervene. Hate speech is harmful to those targeted, even if it isn't causing physical harm. I believe that there is a fine line between what can be viewed as harmful or not, in terms of speech. I think certain things will always be debated, and laws will be made and changed.