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

lieving that there is a Jewish problem. There ideals are morally reprehensible, factually inaccurate, and thus must be stopped.

As a result, my solution is the neo-Nazi’s belief and ideas should be proved wrong, through an open discussion of ideas: each side will be given their respected full freedom to express their ideas and values. I challenge the people to rally together and prove that there is no “Jewish problem” in this country; because “the beliefs which we have most warrant for, have no safeguard to rest on, but a standing invitation to the world to prove them wrong” (886). Well thought out, articulated, insightful, and passionate facts and arguments will convey the bigotries, narrow-mindedness, and fallacies of the Anti-Semitic group. I say let reason rule the court of public opinion.

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.

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.

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,