In Defense of Liberty and Individuality Essay

The American Dream by James Truslow Adams in 1931, "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement" regardless of social class or circumstances of birth.The Declaration of Independence protects your opportunity to improve your life, no matter who you are.It boldly proclaims: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.ur Founding Fathers introduced the revolutionary idea that each person's desire to pursue their idea of happiness was not self-indulgence, but a necessary driver of a prosperous society. They created a government to defend that right for everyone. The pursuit of happiness became the driver of the entrepreneurial spirit that defines the American free market economy.After the 1920s, many Presidents supported the idea of the Dream as a pursuit of material benefits. President Roosevelt outlined an Economic Bill of Rights in his 1944 State of the Union address. He defined the pursuit of happiness as decent housing, a good

However, is this political approach immune to social desires to regulate and guard all citizens? This work explores such tensions between freedom and liberty, and enforced state control, assessing Mill's liberal utilitarian politics, and their impact on individual lives.

The British colonies of north America declared their independence primarily for political reasons to what extent do you agree with this statement?

America is the universal symbol of freedom. But is it really free? Does the history of the United States stay true to the ideas of our forefathers? Or has the definition been altered to fit American policies? Has freedom defined America? Or has America defined freedom? I believe America was at first defined by freedom, then after time, America defined freedom, altering the definition to fit the niche it fits in, but still keeping key components so it still seems to be staying true to the ideas of America’s founding fathers.

One of the most important parts of the Declaration of Independence is its preamble, and, more specifically, certain phrases contained within the preamble. Thomas Jefferson does an excellent job of explaining why the colonies are doing the things they are doing, and is very clear in stating what he and his associates think are the “unalienable rights” of the American people. Among these are “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Probably one of the most famous lines in American history, I have chosen to focus on this phrase and what those three things might have meant to Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers as they prepared this document, as well as what they mean to us today.

In his book, Unlearning Liberty (2014) Greg Lukianoff, President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) asserts that violations of free speech— whether by students, faculty, or administration—will have devastating effects in greater society. Lukianoff supports his assertion by describing cases he has seen throughout his career at FIRE. From administration punishing students to professors getting fired for clearly protected speech. Lukianoff’s purpose is to point out the misguided lessons about freedom that are being taught on campus and to encourage his audience to stand up for freedom on campus. Lukianoff writes in an earnest tone to an audience who recognizes the importance of freedom in America society.

Life… Liberty… and the pursuit of happiness. The 3 things that we, as Americans all share, and that itself, cannot be taken away from us, unalienable rights, as you would put it. But, what are these things, and what do they mean. Today, I will go in depth of what they actually are.

One principal proclaimed by anti-paternalist writer J.S Mill, “is that the 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. 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.” In Mill’s proclamation, not one simple principle is being emphasized, but rather a few intricate opinions regarding an individual’s own good. He is asserting that self-protection or the prevention of harm to others is sometimes sufficient and that someone’s own good is never a sufficient authorization for the exercise of domination.

America is commonly called the “Land of the Free”, but the abundance of liberties, and liberties for all, has not always been the case. The Puritans were some of the first to settle in the New World, but they were self-interested and did not come with the purpose of creating a free state for all. As time progressed, so did their believes, and by the time Tocqueville arrived from France, liberty was an important aspect of American life. So important that people would fight and die for it. Tocqueville, while impressed at the amount liberty and freedoms that citizens had, believed that America had a long way to go before it could call itself a truly free country. Fast forward over a hundred years later, and John Rawls lived in a time were the

This paper will discuss John Stuart Mill’s argument about the freedom of expression of opinion, and how Mill justified that freedom. I will also discuss how strong his argument was and whether or not I agree with it. John Stuart Mill was a political economist, civil servant, and most importantly an English philosopher from the nineteenth century. Throughout his writing, John Stuart Mill touched on the issues of liberty, freedom and other human rights. In his philosophical work, On Liberty, he discussed the relationship between authority and liberty, as well as the importance of individuality in society. In chapter two of On Liberty, Mill examined the freedom of expression in more detail, examining arguments for and against his own.

John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher and a political economist, had an important part in forming liberal thought in the 19th century. Mill published his best-known work, _On Liberty,_ in 1859. This foundational book discusses the concept of liberty. It talks about the nature and the limits of the power performed by society over an individual. The book also deals with the freedom of people to engage in whatever they wish as long as it does not harm other persons.

Mill wastes no time in articulating the central thesis of On Liberty; he states, "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign" (69). Mill, then, does not make the individual more important than society, but he separates the individual from society and articulates a realm of existence in which society, or the community, should have no power over the individual. Mill states, "The 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…His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant" (68). Society, therefore, has no right to intervene in the private life of any person, unless they act in such a way that prevents others from enjoying their own rights.

Throughout the essay On Liberty John Stuart Mill struggles with walking the line between granting society the liberty to act or speak freely and implementing necessary restrictions from both society and government. Mill believes in the principle that living life freely will allow for greater growth and advancement of society, however, when these rights are used irresponsibly intervention is necessary in order to prevent harm to society. This essay will examine the major ways in which Mill feels it acceptable to limit individual liberty for society’s betterment and whether or not they are correct. The three major areas the essay will focus on is groups denied liberty as a whole, society’s ability to create restrictions, and government intervention

The book starts off by discussing the fact that liberty is important to protect individuals against political tyranny of overzealous rulers. Citizens of the society were beginning to realize that in order for them to achieve liberty the government would have to step in, and act as a instrument of the peoples will. Whatever the majority chose in a society was what the government would have to go with as its main purpose should be to serve the best interest of the citizens. Mill recognizes this new so-called victory of the people is nothing they assume its like to be, its in fact just a way for a new type of tyranny; the type of prevailing opinion. This type of tyranny is far worse and more evil as it silences the voice of the minority, and lets the majority rule. The minority of a society should be able to state their opinion even if it may be wrong, right, or even part of the truth. According to Mill, everyone’s contribution is extremely important in a community. Mill states that society should not impose its values on anyone because even though the majority choses one path, it doesn’t mean that they are right because human opinion is error-prone and thus we should listen and not be so judgmental on the opinions of those who don’t agree with majority. The majority group if people who choose one path may not always realize that they might be making a error in judgment which those in minority can be able to see. Mills

In summary “Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion", chapter 2, paragraph 2.1-2.20 Mill looks at the issue of whether people should be allowed to limit someone else’s expression of opinion. Mill refutes the idea that government should adhere to popular opinion and he doesn’t believe the government should stop victimless free expression even if public opinion deems it necessary. He says that we should not silence the opinions of others and that all opinions need to be heard in order for anyone to decide what the truth is. Mill emphasizes the importance of individuality by explaining that by not letting people express their opinions it keeps others from coming up with their own judgments. Mill refers to Marcus Aurelius, who wrongly judged and refuted Christianity, although he was a good man.