Conversely, John Stuart Mill objects to the proposed amendment to the constitution based on paternal legislation which is ruled out by the harm principle. Given the assumption of infallibility and the value in differing ideas, Mill demonstrates that the government is hurting the well-being of society by suppressing minority opinions. His solution is to solve the problem though intellectually stimulating open discussion and debate. Through reason, arguments, and facts the problems will be resolved in a civil manner. Ultimately, John Stuart Mill’s argument is more convincing because it is more rational, valid, and effective compared to the argument in favor of the legislation.

This group is a threat to the country for they promote, endorse, and most like will commit acts of violence. The neo-Nazis believe that the “white race either kill or be killed”. Moreover, they believe in brain-washing children into be

It is critical to remember, actions are immoral; opinions are not. But, this proposed amendment is illegitimate and doing society a disservice because it is restricting one’s individual freedom based on moral judgments. Governing establishments have “no authority to decide the question to all mankind, and exclude every other person from judging” (884). When the terrorist group starts seriously planning/committing heinous, malicious acts of violence and terror, the government will be obligated and justified to intervene as is implied under the harm principle.

I will start by introducing my harm principle, “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others”. This theory rules out such things as legal paternalism, that the state should never interfere with an individual’s freedom, such as the liberty of thought and expression, simply for his or her own good. I oppose this proposed amendment to the constitution based on it being legal paternalism.

On the contrary, Mill’s solution is more reasonable and useful. His hypothesis is by allowing people to talk freely and openly exchange ideas will result in people becoming more aware of the problem, and it will expose the irrationality of the hate group. Ultimately, John Stuart Mill’s argument is stronger because not only does he give an appropriate and productive solution to the problem; but, he demonstrates the danger and fallacy in having a minority’s opinion be suppressed by a governing establishment.

Furthermore, there beliefs are erroneous, bigoted, and narrow-minded. There is no “Jewish problem” or “Black problem” in this country. This stereotyping is not based on reasonable facts or evidence; but based on personal prejudices. They dislike other culture solely because they are different. People should not be judged in such a superficial way.

Some topics in this essay:
Mill’s Argument, Stuart Mill’s, Stuart Mill, john stuart, John Stuart, stuart mill’s argument, john stuart mill’s, proposed amendment, mill’s argument, stuart mill’s, harm principle, Ultimately John, national-origin group”, violent animosity racial, animosity racial religious, human race, differing ideas, “jewish problem”, ideas values, racial religious national-origin,