Free From Unnecessary Government Intervention

For Mill the only time we must justify our actions to society, or the government, are when they concern others and most importantly, bring them harm. Mill makes it clear that harm is much more than mere offence, he also gives some examples including physical harm and harm to our financial interests such as taking away property or money without our consent. Mill also accepts harm in certain instances such as judicial punishment, so ... ... middle of paper ... ...onally accept harm as legitimate reason for the government to restrict individual freedoms, everyone's understanding of what constitutes 'harm' is different. Utilitarian's may propose that harm is anything that is detrimental to an individual's happiness. If freedom is as important as Mill suggests then we can consider any restriction on freedom harmful, in which case the Government must constantly consider the degree of harm necessary to justify and outweigh the harm they will undoubtedly be causing by imposing restrictions on individual freedom.

In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes contends that government should highly restrict individual liberty. Readers find it difficult to determine why Hobbes thinks government should restrict so much individual liberty. On the surface, it seems that Hobbes believes that individual liberty engenders revolt against the government, threatening the stability of the government and preventing the government from protecting its people. However, a closer look shows that Hobbes does not believe that individual liberty is a threat to the government; he believes it is a threat to the very society that is free. Hobbes contends that the government should greatly restrict individual liberty because free individuals necessarily act in ways that threaten the survival of their society.

When a democracy finds itself in a problematic decision, it should choose to put liberty above the security of the people. It is true that too much liberty, hinders security but by showing the citizens that the country is genuinely concerned about their wellbeing, they build a better relationship and loyal citizen. Loyal citizen is what the country will need when it is fighting a war. Security is important for the success of the country and to have the ability to protect the country and to protect liberties but a country is nothing without its citizens.

They believe that this system has the tendency to slow down the entire course of governing and therefore prohibiting urgent action from taking place. However, in my opinion, I think that that is indeed its designed effect! After all, to defend and ward off the trouble of tyranny, human nature must be bound. James Madison did say, “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

This ensures that liberty is involved in implementing the safety of the community’s consent that would guard against an abuse of power. By abusing power, they are forcing people to do things, because that goes against their dignity and individuality. People should not share equally in the exercise of political power. The American model of representative government may result in a weak democracy, because it favored the rule of majority rather than minority interests. Self- government and “the power of the people over themselves” were ways to refer to the new system of government.

According to Mill, liberty should not be enforced by law as any imposing would lead to breach of individual liberty. On the contrary, Devlin claimed that if society has the right to make judgments it can also use the law to enforce it. He said that society does have a right to use the law to preserve morality in order to safeguarding social morals. Further Devlin said that the law is not looking for true belief but what is commonly believed by individuals in a civil society as a whole. He said that the judgment of the “right minded person” will prevail and immorality would be something which the those people will consider immoral.

When people use this type of disobedience they are trying to get society to accept the opposing view point (Starr, 1998). In this case the opposing view point is usually the protesters point of view. While this disobedience may be considered illegal, it's usually non-violent and the protesters or activist are willing to accept their punishment. The way they see it is that if the do get arrested, they're just one step closer to getting into court to challenge the constitutionality of the law (Suber, 1999). It even states, that in the Bill of Rights, if the government becomes unjust that it is the job of the people to retaliate and fix the government (Starr, 1998).

All of which is a recipe for disaster during wartimes. While at the same time, it is important to respect people’s liberties, giving to many liberties threatens the security of the country by allowing citizens to protest and rebel against the government. Thus, a society must decide the right amount of both. People in a society with restricted liberties might begin to feel fear, anger, and resentment. This leads to protest, revolts, and mutinies such as it did in the scenario.

Ideally, government would prevent these atrocities from manifesting themselves, so it follows ... ... middle of paper ... ...ents, excluding monarchies or rule by few. To ensure that the will of the people and of the majority is carried out, many voices must take part in every debate, and the fact that these voices will combat each other is certain. Why not extend a basic rule of government, the rule of opposing forces, to the higher orders of government as well? As long as the basic, uniting goal of keeping peace and liberty intact is not lost, the opposition of branches of government can only serve to strengthen the goodness of their final courses of action. In conclusion, the necessity of government for the greater good of mankind is blatantly obvious.

When should civil disobedience be condoned? Should it be condoned? Civil disobedience is defined as the refusal to obey government laws, in an effort to bring upon a change in governmental policy or legislation. Civil disobedience is not an effort to dissolve the American government, because without government our society would result in chaos. Sometimes, when there is an unjust law and the government won't take the initiative to fix it, the public must act as civil disobedients to bring awareness and fix the unjust law.