John Stuart Mill Undemocratic Analysis

Good Essays
When we think of the political theorists Hobbes, Rousseau, John Stuart Mill, and Marx we often tend to catagorize them as one thing, undemocratic. In each one of their political theories they either criticize or lay out their concerns for being against democracy, some more severe on the opinion than others. Each laid out various explanations in their writings for why democracy isn 't the feasible way to run a government. While all of these theorists use democracy as a defense for why their political doctrines about how the government should be run should be applied to real life I think that there are a few of these arguments that would not hold substantial weight in the political world if they had not used democracy as a defense such as John …show more content…
J.S. Mill like other political thinkers before him had various issues with government that was ran through a democracy. Overall, I would not say that J.S. Mill is not undemocratic, he instead just fears what majorities would do if they had access to that much power because much of what Mill believes is centered on the personal development of the individual. One of other main concerns with democracy is that with rule by a majority you will in turn sometimes suppress a minority. By doing this J.S. Mill believes that there is a greater chance that the truth will stifled and by consequence of doing that people will only see one side and believe that the side that is seen is true. The issue with this for Mill is that it would be foolish to believe that any one opinion is the whole truth. By giving the majority control in a democracy and allowing their opinions to be made law by popular vote is not something that the government should be capable of doing according to Mill. Mill believes this because he thinks that “It is the duty of the governments, and individuals, to form the truest opinions they can; to form them carefully, and never impose them upon others unless they are quite sure they are right.” Mill also believed that with a genuine democracy that you would not have to worry about people tyrannizing themselves. This is why democracy for Mill is used as a defense for his political theory, because without it his doctrine would …show more content…
I think that the arguments of John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx ultimately fell short of this success because they used democracy to defend almost every point of their political doctrine and did not expand outside of this political school of thought like Hobbes and Rousseau. By failing to do this if you take away the defense of democracy to support their political doctrine then their works just become the opinions of men and their supposed utopias that they had wished to see enacted in the world instead of a concrete doctrine that if implemented could supposedly work in and even have the possibility of making society a better place. So ultimately it is in fact too easy to dismiss J.S. Mill and

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Rousseau wanted the people to be able to govern themselves because of the negative way he saw the King govern his citizens. The King made decisions without thinking about how they affected his people; he never took their opinions into consideration and Rousseau believes that people should be in control of how the government affects their lives. I understand what he is trying to do, but there needs to be a more controlled system in place. Another downfall about his vision of governance is: what is the group to do when a law does not apply to everyone? Should they enforce it anyways because it is for the good of the majority, or would that be breaking the general will?…

    • 1580 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    American Greed Analysis

    • 1498 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Generally, the job we ask our government to do is essentially unwinnable for them. They have to be that forceful power that is able to get things done and protect us, but at the same time, they also must make sure they aren’t infringing on the individual’s rights. So when we ask the government to become more “Creedal”, it is not a small task to demand because they have to abandon certain principles that make…

    • 1498 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Also, it is appropriate to go against the government if done so peacefully. Back in the day, equality was something that was not typically found. Throughout the world, quality is not the same. Whether it be about ethnicity, religion, or gender the government should not be able to endorse any form of prejudice. If the government is endorsing any form of mistreatment or any quality than the people have every right to go against their government.…

    • 1591 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Therefore, even if Hobbes hoped for a more submissive constituent that only questions government in result to a direct threat of life, this cannot be the case in our current political time. There is no homogenous group in one society, therefore a ruler cannot truly make one decision that appeases all, they can, however, make decisions that help some and hurt others. This is when Hobbes theory on ownership for self-preservation becomes flawed. Although his way of thought has informed many governments it has also done what he hoped it wouldn’t; provide an unsafe environment that directly threatens lives. Proving that ownership cannot guarantee a free society it is only a quick resolution to a mountain of overlying issues that may possibly go…

    • 1147 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Extended Republic

    • 1812 Words
    • 8 Pages

    While it is true that the first few leaders tended to be those who were prominent for their role in shaping the country, it was a largely unfounded fear. The representatives, who were elected in their own districts, were also held responsible for their actions. Their limited tenure meant that it was unlikely that they would disobey the will of the people, allowing that part of government to remain under the consent of the governed. This did not pacify the Anti-Federalists, as they believed that rotating the legislators made it easier to pass the blame to the predecessor, making it difficult for the people to recognize whose incompetency led to the mistake. Now, this is no longer…

    • 1812 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This text challenges the notion that retention of freedom is necessary to keep us secure. According to Mill, people gave up some of their freedom to protect against political tyranny of overzealous rulers. However, now that this type of tyranny is done away with, we have the “tyranny of the majority.” This refers to that fact that the majority places its interests above anything else, resulting in some people becoming marginalized and lacking in some freedom compared to those in the majority. And this “tyranny of the majority” can be seen even in democratic nations. Many people associate democracy with liberty or freedom but as Mill reveals in this text, the two could not be more distinct.…

    • 1207 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Each of the founders proposed a different issue with the Constitution, but overall the main concern was among them involved the fear of too much power. The United States Constitution gives power most of the power to the people because it is based off of a democratic outline of government, but still requires a leader. At this time, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton argued democracy was the best governmental system outline to follow because they believed that advocating for the majority should be a higher priority . They wholeheartedly supported the ideas of the people and wanted to let everyone have a say. Some of the men in the Ant-Federalist Party disagreed with the idea of democracy because they favored they favored the idea of rule of the few elite.…

    • 1004 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    It gave them a chance to start a new form of government without a king. The only problem was Hamilton and Jefferson did not have the same idea of the type of government they wanted to accomplish for their new nation. Hamilton wanted to accomplish a strong central government. He wanted a government that would be able to control the people’s behavior. He understood that “sometimes good people do bad things and bad people do good things”, this gave Hamilton an advantage because Jefferson did not recognize this.…

    • 829 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The main focus is usually on the extent to which people belong to a particular state are allowed in decision making. Repressive forms of government do not constitute development. A typical example of political development is characterized by democracy and its fundamental characteristics yet in real sense this democracy is suppressed by the elected. The elected use the state as a means of carrying out their interests and not the interests of the citizens and this creates a gap between the society and the elected. With this gap, the society then sees the unelected fit to carry out the functions of a state and trust the unelected causing conflict between the unelected and the elected.…

    • 1287 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    A country that has been under constant control from others finally has the chance of receiving real democracy. The only problem would be how far are the people of Antegria willing to go to receive it. Tyrants who didn’t see the importance of the civilians having a say so basically ran the governmental system before. Now there is an opportunity to allow citizens to freely voice their opinions. I don’t believe the people want to be ruled by one party that considered bias or mistrusting.…

    • 1276 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays