The Between Liberty And The State

This essay argues that John Stuart Mill's On Liberty presents a strong case for individuality of citizens, challenging the role of paternalism through autonomous social progress and utilitarian values. On the other hand, it is shown that Mill's arguments against public regulations are very narrow, and his own ideas frequently adhere to paternalism, thus creating a weak defence against state control politics.

What makes a political authority legitimate? A legitimate political authority, in this essay, will be taken to mean that there is a justification for an individual or a body to have power over other people in determining such things as laws and protection of freedom. To consider this question, three theories shall be looked at – Hobbes’, Rousseau and finally Locke and determine which gives the most persuasive account of legitimate political authority. To begin with, their hypothetical starting point, the state of nature, shall be discussed to establish the foundations of their political authority. Secondly, the reasons that shall lead man to get out of the state of nature will be examined in order to see if these logically follow on from

When the Framers wrote “securing the blessings of liberty,” they were referring to the freedom to criticize the government or petition it when they disagreed with its policies, in other words, even though they wanted a government, most of them were still skeptical about the idea. The Bill of Rights was the first ten amendments provided that personal liberties, so the government did not have the power to violate those rights set down no matter what, now we have 27 amendments.

Wolff (1970) defines a state as a group of persons who have the right to exercise supreme authority within a territory, over a population. He proposes In the Defense of Anarchism, men are autonomous, as higher degrees of autonomy is achieved, a man will resist the claim that states have authority over him. This illustrates the puzzle of Political obligation and can be explained through the appeal to consent.

The shared passion of visionaries, thinkers, and writers profoundly influence society in the modern world and hold in their hands the ability to craft a better future. They inspire new ,, and sometimes even revolution. Two documents of the 18th century, The Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Rights of man established and angle for which we view human rights, liberties, and human freedoms. While the underlying motivations of the declarations each have a distinct purpose, the intent to establish universal human rights parallel and often mimic one another in language and meaning. Both documents however have interesting contradictions and inconsistences with regards to whom the liberties should apply, from whom the authority is derived and the motivations behind the drafting of each respective declaration.

The words “… 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.” are the building blocks that gave rise to one of the greatest countries, the United States of America. Without the help of influential leaders, such as Thomas Paine and his thought provoking writing Common Sense, this country’s independence would have ceased to exist. In April of 1775 the war began which would be fought for 8 more years to end British rule over the 13 colonies. The fight for independence was not easy, but Paine wrote words of encouragement for all Americans to consider.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, adopted in 1789 by the National Assembly, explicitly defines “the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man” (Declaration, p. 1). Two philosophers, Jeremy Bentham and Karl Marx, object the document, especially its usage of natural rights, by presenting different arguments against its language and function. Bentham centers his argument around the Declaration’s promotion of anti-legal rights and its vagueness in description in his essay “Anarchical Fallacies.” Marx criticizes the Declaration’s perpetuation of social alienation and for not pursuing human emancipation in “On the Jewish Question.” Of the two arguments, Marx presents a better and more convincing argument than Bentham. Marx advocates for complete human emancipation beyond political emancipation whereas Bentham does not go beyond the criticism of the legislators, of their use of language and design, as opposed to the law itself.

The Declaration of Independence declares that human beings have certain unalienable rights, “that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Through slavery, these rights were systematically denied to a select class of people. George Santayana (1905) commented that, “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Although abortion is legal in this country, the debate on whether it should be or not is far from settled. In November of 2014, Colorado Amendment 67 (The Personhood Initiative) initiated a state Constitutional amendment that would have included unborn human beings under the definition of “person” and “child” in the Colorado criminal code. The amendment failed. Unborn children are being

During the eighteenth century, philosophers began to tackle the question of how to be a good citizen within a secular society without the threat of punishment that had been previously provided by religion. This was based on the multi-faceted inquisition of whether an individual can still be considered a good citizen if they do not follow authority, and consequently engage in rebellion. The question must also examine the extent to which humans have, or do not have, natural rights, and whether or not the government has the potential to breech these ethical liberties. It is these very issues that are faced within The Social Contract by Rousseau, as well as the Second Treatise of Government by John Locke. I will examine these works of Locke and

Foner describes 1848 as “the spring time of nations, a time of democratic uprisings against the monarchies of Europe and demands of ethnic minorities for national independence. American principles of liberty and self-government appeared to be triumphing in the Old World” (Foner 380). Many reforms began to take place after the successfully removing slavery from the North, one of which was in the education system. Representatives began asking for subscriptions to the railroad from the citizens in Connecticut. Although the railroad would advance trading, shipping, and traveling tremendously, that did not come with many safety and operating complications. As the North was abolishing slavery, they were also running into representative issues;

Selective Incorporation, also called the Incorporation Doctrine, says that states cannot enact laws nor make court rulings that take away the constitutional rights of American citizens that are given by the Bill of Rights. Origins of this doctrine dates back to the beginning of constitutional America. There were debates over the relationship between the rights of state governments and the federal government. To guarantee that certain rights were not limited, the Federalist, an early political party, had insisted that the Bill of Rights to be added to the Constitution before they signed it. But even years after the addition of the Bill of Rights to the constitution, there are still debates over the extent of the relationship the federal government has with state governments.

In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville’s memorable claim that there is an incredible tension between liberty and equality in America is certainly true. His secondary argument is equally justifiable—that Democratic nations, especially American, will grow to love equality more “ardently and enduringly” than liberty (Tocqueville, 202), and can be proved by observing current American political patterns and events.

In this reading, Simmons compares different philosophies from Hobbes, Locke, and Kant to form his own thoughts on the problem of political obligation. Simmons’ conclusion is that most existing states do not fulfill the two requirements set by Locke that make them legitimate states. That requirements are being able to secure rights for the people and the people consenting to their authority. I disagree with Simmons in that matter. I believe that the requirements set are not definitive enough to deduce modern states’ authority.

The human mind is capable of painting freedom as limitless. Liberty to it perhaps means, complete freedom to do as one desires or the state of being free within society from onerous constraints inflicted by an authority in one's particular choice of life, personal or political opinions. The use and consequences of freedom reflect in the social order of our lives. It reflects in the social structures, relations, customs, values and practices, which actually preserve, maintain certain manner of socializing and carrying oneself. The balanced or the unbalanced relationship of liberty and social order decides the progress or the downfall of any particular society. The modern American conservatism mentions, “Individuals possess the right to life, liberty, and property, and freedom from the restrictions of arbitrary force. They exercise these rights through the use of their natural free will. That means the ability to follow your own dreams, to do what you want to (so long as you don’t harm others) and reap the rewards (or face the penalties).

A central belief of the liberal atmosphere on which western legal systems are fundamentally based is that of negative freedom, to do as one wills, provided that it causes no harm to others. But a question which goes to the heart of the ethics of allowing total individual freedom with minimal intervention from society can be characterized like so; where to draw the line between freedom and condemnation?  When is interference with individuals and their private morality justified? The harm principle, which seeks to introduce personal liberty and its coexistence with society, appears in John Stuart Mill's “On Liberty”, first published in 1859. However, the idea is not black and white - the harm principle can be criticized for its excessive paternalism, lack of clarity, and incomplete handling of certain situations. In this essay, I will argue that Mill thoroughly justifies his theory for the harm principle. To make this argument, I will examine the harm principle, evaluate possible counterarguments, then apply the Harm Principle to a real-life scenario.