Cristian Saldana
9/24/14
Political Theory This essay considers the extent to which the U.S. should be tolerant of what can be considered damaging images, speech or actions. For example, I can choose to either live a life of good contribution to the country or no contribution in terms of productivity, development and research. Thus concludes my question if liberty, freedom and democracy improve whether or not somebody does or does not contribute. Mill argues that the people should be free and have the choice to do what they want without being told what to do. He writes, "government... will often attempt to control the expression of opinion" (480:1). This quote means that if somebody tries to convince a large majority of people of what to do he assumes this would be wrong. The government wants us to have independence but be ignorant to what that given freedom is doing to our country. For example choosing to not care about school is fine because nobody can tell you what the truly right thing is to do. Therefore, Mill's point is that the concept of being told what to do is wrong and detrimental to our rights as Americans even if it does affect …show more content…
He writes, "excess in anything [freedom] tends to produce a violent change to the opposite" (220:c). This means that having too many choices will lead to confusion, lagging, and the desire to fulfill one's desires or pleasures. For example if getting an education was pre-determined you would be satisfying the role of contribution to the whole. The point is one person very rarely makes an impact great enough to change a large percent of the population and it may not be great enough for the already brainwashed [freedom-riders] to follow. While the vast majority will always impact a change more frequently, successfully and hastily with longer periods of
9/24/14
Political Theory This essay considers the extent to which the U.S. should be tolerant of what can be considered damaging images, speech or actions. For example, I can choose to either live a life of good contribution to the country or no contribution in terms of productivity, development and research. Thus concludes my question if liberty, freedom and democracy improve whether or not somebody does or does not contribute. Mill argues that the people should be free and have the choice to do what they want without being told what to do. He writes, "government... will often attempt to control the expression of opinion" (480:1). This quote means that if somebody tries to convince a large majority of people of what to do he assumes this would be wrong. The government wants us to have independence but be ignorant to what that given freedom is doing to our country. For example choosing to not care about school is fine because nobody can tell you what the truly right thing is to do. Therefore, Mill's point is that the concept of being told what to do is wrong and detrimental to our rights as Americans even if it does affect …show more content…
He writes, "excess in anything [freedom] tends to produce a violent change to the opposite" (220:c). This means that having too many choices will lead to confusion, lagging, and the desire to fulfill one's desires or pleasures. For example if getting an education was pre-determined you would be satisfying the role of contribution to the whole. The point is one person very rarely makes an impact great enough to change a large percent of the population and it may not be great enough for the already brainwashed [freedom-riders] to follow. While the vast majority will always impact a change more frequently, successfully and hastily with longer periods of