#9

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

Mill was a utilitarian, and as one, he wanted people to be treated equally. He wanted everyone to be happy.  His problem with democracy was that neither happiness nor the opportunity to do so was satisfied by his own standard.  Unfortunately when we view happiness today, and even before, happiness is mostly measured if one has the money and alliances, such as someone with higher status or influence, that can control anything around us. For example today, government limits people on liberty. For example, the internet, once was used to make connections with others world wide, now politicians have made it strict to the point as to check our accounts, same goes for phone calls, or even the freedom to travel. 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?

I agree with Mill. Some laws are made in the interests of a particular group while ignoring others. I believe anti-prostitution laws violate his principles. It is a violation of the liberty of tastes and pursuits. While the laws are now meant to apparently stop and contain the spread of AIDS and other STD’s, these laws are not needed to do so. It is in the best interests of a sex-worker (prostitute), to not spread or become infected with an STD. As doing so would reduces the amount of clients a worker has. Therefore, the law is not justified under its current premise. 3. How does Mill justify the freedom of expression?

In a democratic country, there will be groups that are not represented in government. Freedom of expression will allow certain groups to have a voice even though they are not represented in government. 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?

The classic example for yelling fire in a movie theater is a case where freedom of expression is not protected by the first amendment. It should be unlimited, ideally, but as we have seen, there are certain types of expression we could do without. Yet, there would be no discriminatory means to moderate any expression. As the cost of having to listen to terrible things, freedom of expression should be unlimited. 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?

This criticism seems to be fair. We must take into consideration that mainstream religions have adapted to coincide with existing laws  (Christianity) have become special exemptions from these laws to an extent (Judaism). Yet, before we go on and approve every religious freedom, we must consider the effect of allowing said freedom to exist within the group.For example, the use of peyote wouldn’t affect people of other religions since that freedom would only be granted to the Native American. Of course, the sale and distribution of it among that group would have to be regulated.We must also consider how far reaching the freedom will be. For example, polygamy would be allowed among Mormons and Muslims but should these marriages be entitled to the same privileges of a monogamous marriage? While I do not have the answer for this question, it does bring up some thought.As we say, Democracy is the tyranny of the majority. I’m sure if the sides were reversed, similar arguments would be made.