Both John Stuart Mill and John Stuart Mill are credited as being the two major philosophical influences on modern-day American libertarianism. However, Locke and Marx do not speak on all of the same issues and also have different perspectives on the applications of their proposed ideology itself. In general, Mill emphasizes civil liberties but accepts government intervention for the sake of benefiting social welfare, while Locke only desires absolutely essential government involvement in all aspects of policy. Consequently, both founders would hold differing views on many different political issues in today’s society. Even though they share similar philosophical views, John Locke would oppose the individual mandate embedded within the Affordable
…show more content…
Locke fully recognized that a state of anarchy would inherently lead to massive abuse because of a lack of consequences for punitive actions (109). Moreover, Locke readily expounds that a government is the best actor to correct all of the malice that would occur in the state of nature. However, the mistreatment Locke refers to does not pertain to a lack of health insurance, but instead “the evils that are bound to follow from men’s being judges in their own cases, and government is to be the remedy for this” (110). Locke only wants the government to be a force to correct the wrongdoing that would follow every person acting upon his/her own self-interest with no regard for the wellbeing of others. Clearly, Locke would consider an individual mandate outside the scope of government intervention because it is not fixing a harm that occurs in a state of nature. Rather, Locke would see the government as overstepping its bounds to impose its will on the people. Locke may have even agreed with the Obama Administration’s initial reasoning on the mandate, but he lamented a system in which the person in power “can do what he likes to all his subjects, with no-one being allowed to question or control those who carry out his wishes…whether …show more content…
In 2016, approximately 6 million people had to pay a $470 fine to the IRS because of a lack of health insurance (Galewitz). Since the Affordable Care Act provides exemptions for financial hardship and other conditions, a very small percentage payed the fine because of true inability to pay. Mill would not see the majority of the 6 million as having their liberties abused because he believed “the only part of anyone’s conduct for which he is answerable to society is the part that concerns others” (15). Since the mandate is essential for having widespread benefits throughout society, Mill would see the nominal financial harm done to the small sect of uninsured Americans as completely outweighed by the applications of the policy on the majority of Americans. In essence, Mill would argue that the mandate is a mechanism of liability to ensure the maximum benefit to society within the health of all citizens. Although the 6 million are not directly harming someone else’s life, the fact that the mandate is necessary to cover pre-existing conditions falls under Mill’s philosophy that “a man may rightfully be held to account by society for not saving a fellow-creature’s life, or not protecting a defenseless person against ill-treatment” (14-15). Simply, the Greatest
Locke fully recognized that a state of anarchy would inherently lead to massive abuse because of a lack of consequences for punitive actions (109). Moreover, Locke readily expounds that a government is the best actor to correct all of the malice that would occur in the state of nature. However, the mistreatment Locke refers to does not pertain to a lack of health insurance, but instead “the evils that are bound to follow from men’s being judges in their own cases, and government is to be the remedy for this” (110). Locke only wants the government to be a force to correct the wrongdoing that would follow every person acting upon his/her own self-interest with no regard for the wellbeing of others. Clearly, Locke would consider an individual mandate outside the scope of government intervention because it is not fixing a harm that occurs in a state of nature. Rather, Locke would see the government as overstepping its bounds to impose its will on the people. Locke may have even agreed with the Obama Administration’s initial reasoning on the mandate, but he lamented a system in which the person in power “can do what he likes to all his subjects, with no-one being allowed to question or control those who carry out his wishes…whether …show more content…
In 2016, approximately 6 million people had to pay a $470 fine to the IRS because of a lack of health insurance (Galewitz). Since the Affordable Care Act provides exemptions for financial hardship and other conditions, a very small percentage payed the fine because of true inability to pay. Mill would not see the majority of the 6 million as having their liberties abused because he believed “the only part of anyone’s conduct for which he is answerable to society is the part that concerns others” (15). Since the mandate is essential for having widespread benefits throughout society, Mill would see the nominal financial harm done to the small sect of uninsured Americans as completely outweighed by the applications of the policy on the majority of Americans. In essence, Mill would argue that the mandate is a mechanism of liability to ensure the maximum benefit to society within the health of all citizens. Although the 6 million are not directly harming someone else’s life, the fact that the mandate is necessary to cover pre-existing conditions falls under Mill’s philosophy that “a man may rightfully be held to account by society for not saving a fellow-creature’s life, or not protecting a defenseless person against ill-treatment” (14-15). Simply, the Greatest