assignment # 9

1.     What, according to Mill, is the major problem for a democracy?

Mill’s idea of a government consists that the interest of the people should be the interest of the nation; this was his theory of a democracy. In a democracy decisions are made on a majority vote, where the higher percentage of party will win. But this does not fulfill everyone’s opinion on what seek out of the government. Than the majority party makes decisions for everyone including the ones who were opposing them. Mill does not agree with that, he believes that if the majority wins then it should not mean that their opinions penetrates the one and only form of conduct. He thinks that the majority might have voted but there should be an opposing vote.

2.     Mill believes that not all laws are justified. Why not? Can you think of any existing laws that violate Mill’s principle? Do you agree or disagree with Mill? Why?

Every law has a "justification" behind it, but don't think that means it is rational. I agree with Mill that not all laws are justified, because laws favors one party while taking away from the other. Not everyone is always satisfied with the laws made.  Laws are simply a government's attempt to enforce a moral code. Just as each person has their own moral code, so do each government and its culture. Nazi Germany had "laws" that they provided "justification" for, but now an insignificant minority of Germans shares those beliefs, and so the law has changed drastically.

I think the driving age in should be 18 and over not 16 and over. Because I believe 16 is to young to comprehend safe driving, at that age teenagers are irresponsible and not adults.

3.     How does Mill justify the freedom of expression?

Mill believes that we are entitled to our own freedom as long as we do not harm others.

4.     Freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment; are there any cases of free expression, which are not protected by the First Amendment? Do you think freedom of expression should be unlimited?

Yes I believe that Freedom of expression should be unlimited as long as they do not harm others. Such as freedom of press, when It comes to the truth everyone should

be able to enter where they please but not into people’s personal attributes or private properties. More political related freedom to educate the people even more and not hide the truth.

5.     Some scholars have suggested that the cases in which the courts have permitted states to limit religious freedom nearly always involve activities important to minority religious groups: the use of peyote by Native Americans, the practice of polygamy among Mormons and Muslims, the refusal to salute the flag among Jehovah’s Witnesses, and so on. These critics contend that the courts would not be likely to permit similar restrictions if they impacted “mainstream” religious groups in America, such as Christians or Jews. Is this criticism fair?

I think this is unfair, because if minority religious groups are entitled to have religious freedom so should “mainstream” religious groups. Everyone should be allowed to the same benefits when it comes to freedom of religion.