| Papers [1-16] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "DIFFERING OPINIONS LIBERTY": |
|
|
Differing Opinions of Liberty, 2008.
This paper looks at the differing views of Thomas Paine, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson regarding liberty.
1,658 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 7 sources, MLA, AU$ 85.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer discusses that for Thomas Paine, liberty was "common sense," the catchphrase that he used to describe his sermonizing pamphlet of 1776 denouncing monarchy. The writer notes that while this might have seemed nonsense to a colonist of a dozen years earlier, in 1776 it roused a people ready for independence. The writer then points out that Adams regarded the form of government as important and that he firmly believed that the separation of powers in government was essential to control human nature's tendency to become tyrannical. The writer notes that, unlike most of those around him, Hamilton favored monarchy and felt there were sound reasons for strengthening government. Finally, the writer points out that it was Thomas Jefferson, of course, who penned the opening of the Declaration of Independence.
From the Paper
"Hamilton felt there were sound reasons for strengthening government. In 1791, the Congress authorized an excise tax on distilled whiskey. To westerners, this was an insult. With only crude roads through much of the country beyond the bare seaboard, the westerners had no efficient way of moving grain. Grain distilled into whiskey was far more compact and marketable. Further, Hamilton's financial policies had so restricted currency that in the western territories nation that there was essentially no conventional currency. Whiskey became the accepted medium of exchange, offered and accepted in exchange for other goods. As a result, a tax on this amounted to an attack on their prosperity."
| |
|
"On Liberty", 2006.
An analysis of John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty".
1,552 words (approx. 6.2 pages), 1 source, MLA, AU$ 80.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper is an explanation of of Mill's philosophies and ideas regarding liberty, government, public opinion, the free state, freedom of expression and opinion and the limits placed on liberty.
From the Paper
"In the defense of liberty, Mill makes evident a lot of good points. First off, he points out that many ages have held certain opinions to be true, which have later been regarded as absurdities by later generations (showing us that the opinions that shape the way we think and feel may later be deemed absurd). He argues that no wise man has ever gained his wisdom in any other manner than by keeping his mind open to criticism, and by listening to all sides, including opposition. In fact, it does not exist in human nature to gain wisdom in any other fashion. "
| |
|
Personal Liberty within Government, 2001.
This essay is an analysis of "The Social Contract" by J. J. Rousseau, "The Federalist Papers" by Alexander Hamilton and "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mills which all discuss different opinions on personal freedom.
1,770 words (approx. 7.1 pages), 3 sources, MLA, AU$ 91.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay examines three different authors and addresses their thoughts on the essentials of liberty of an individual within a government and their outlooks on the different aspects of personal freedom, which all favor government in varying degrees. This essay also discusses the finer points of these ideals and any similarities in the opinions of the authors.
From the Paper
"Rousseau perhaps favors government more than the other two authors considered. In his opinion, an individual gives up natural liberty for that of a societal freedom. He sees a person who joins a society, and lives under its rule as gaining much more than he has sacrificed. Under the rules and laws of a society, an individual works for the good of the community, or group, each member of which, through vote, takes part in making up the rules the community lives under. The rules, in pertaining equally to each member of the community, are fairly equal to each: "Since no man has a natural authority over his fellow, and force creates no right, we must conclude that conventions form the basis of all legitimate authority among men". (Rousseau PG)."
|
| Essay # 23170 |
temporarily unavailable
|
|
|
|
Individual Liberty, 2002.
This paper discusses individual liberty as analyzed in John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty".
1,460 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 1 source, MLA, AU$ 77.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
An examination of individual liberty in John Stuart Mill's controversial essay, "On Liberty". In investigating this topic, the author looks at Mill's argument, the context of individual liberty in human history, the retention of elements in John Stuart Mill's philosophy and their practicability and democratic tyranny against individual liberty.
From the Paper
"One of the prime spokesperson of liberalism in the 19th century, John Stuart Mill was a supporter of Utilitarianism in moral principles. He was specifically of the view that every individual in a society should perform his role in such a manner that he progresses maximum happiness for the majority of the people. Despite his belief in collective welfare, Stuart Mill was a strong advocate of individual liberty and rights. However, the simultaneous elements of individual liberty as well as the social well being in Stuart Mill?s philosophy are considered controversial by most. Apart from this, he also promoted rights and liberty for women.
On Liberty was the most controversial essay of John Stuart Mill?s works, stimulating much vehement manifestation of consent and censure. The composition was incited by the conversation between Mill and Harriet Taylor, his wife, in their letters on the subject that they lived in a society that was moving towards dearth of intrepid and gallant individuals."
| |
|
"On Liberty", 2001.
This paper studies liberty in the eyes of the government, the individual and society by analyzing John Stuart Mills' book "On Liberty".
1,730 words (approx. 6.9 pages), 1 source, MLA, AU$ 88.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper studies John Stuart Mill?s concept of liberty which is stated in his book "On Liberty". This paper endeavours to define exactly what Mills? notion of liberty is and how it should be regulated.The main discrepancies of his theory are highlighted so as to demonstrate the apparent contradiction between his ideology and the examples he chooses to showcase his theory in its application. This paper concludes that his approach seems to be liberal but ends up with a distinctly ?non-liberal? feel.
From the Paper
"Mill defines liberty (civil or social) as ?the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.? (Chapter I - Introductory; 1) The obvious wielder of this power Mill identified to be the government. However the government can be controlled or checked in turn since they are still held accountable to the people. Mill recognized another wielder of this control over the individual, the ?society? in question that exercises this power over the individual is the majority or those considered to be the majority. However, unlike the government, which is held accountable to the people, the majority does not have those checks. Mill states that in many instances the ruling majority is not always the same people who have this power exercised on them. The majority may even wish to dominate a part of the population. Therefore, there would still need to be a limitation placed on this ruling majority. (Chapter I - Introductory; 4)"
| |
|
"On Liberty", 2002.
An analysis of the complexities of the Principle of Liberty in J.S. Mills' "On Liberty".
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 1 source, AU$ 70.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay will argue that while problems clearly exist with J.S. Mill's Principle of Liberty, specifically with respect to the defining the boundaries between the private and the public sphere of control, it remains one of the fundamental basis of the philosophy of human liberty in Western civilization.
| |
|
"On Liberty", 2006.
A paper discussing limitations of liberty in John Stewart Mill's "On Liberty."
1,016 words (approx. 4.1 pages), 9 sources, APA, AU$ 56.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discussed Mill's treatise "On Liberty," and defines Mill's concept of liberty. According to the paper, Mill advocates complete freedom and non-interference of government in most cases. The paper explains that Mill only advocates limiting freedoms where actions of one individual can harm another individual.
From the Paper
"In his foundational treatise on the notion of liberty, John Stuart Mill opened a Pandora's Box for debate about the nature and limitations of liberty. His defense of the fundamental democratic ideal forces scholars into two camps: the first heralds the writer as the true defender of freedom and civil liberty, the others arguing that his service was as no great defender, but instead as the consistent utilitarian. Steadily the political son of Tocqueville, Mill's 1859 disquisition was immediately noted for its justification of the freedom of the individual in the face of a state imposition of control, from its inception a classic libertarian premise. However, Mill's idea of liberty was not boundless; while the first danger to liberty, he argued, is the threat of state control, its second danger is that to which most democracies are known, the 'tyranny of the majority.'"
| |
|
?On Liberty?, 2002.
A look at how philosopher John Mill's work "On Liberty" relates to today's problems of global terror.
1,074 words (approx. 4.3 pages), 2 sources, MLA, AU$ 59.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the text, "On Liberty" by famous defender of freedom and autonomy, John Mill and examines the relevance of this text in the current era of global power and vulnerability. The paper shows that in response to the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001 and the recognition that we are facing a worldwide network of terrorists whose singular goal is to harm the United States and its interests, we have had to re-evaluate our civil liberties. The paper questions whether our open society, our open emigration policy, our support of individual freedom and autonomy and privacy have left us uniquely vulnerable. It also reflects on how we can balance liberty with safety. The author of the paper puts forth the opinion that Mill would have called this a time for government intervention, much along the lines we are seeing now, because he would view this as an unfortunate time where ?barbarians? put us at risk for our very safety?out of which liberty arises.
From the Paper
"On the other hand, there is something to be said for listening to the complaints of the disenfranchised. Mill points out that tolerating dissent has had catastrophic results in history. Currently in the United States in the wake of the terrorist attacks, not enough of a critical dialogue has been allowed. Even in times of unique crisis such as this, dissenting opinions and even criticism must be welcomed. Here I agree with Mill. He notes that ?the claims of an opinion to be protected form public attack are rooted not on much on its truth, as on its importance to society.? The current public policy has quietly embraced this, and unfortunately, certain truths are not shown. The darker aspects of war are whitewashed?at least from our side. And it?s important to discuss whether the terrorists have any legitimate claims. Although journals like Foreign Affairs may openly analyze the situation we are in, the level of public discourse is purposely simplified and sentimentalized. This helps us ignore our own flaws as a superpower, and where we might adjust our policies in order to create more international harmony."
| |
|
Poetry and the Statue of Liberty, 2004.
An analysis of three different poems about the Statue of Liberty and the freedom it represents.
2,891 words (approx. 11.6 pages), 5 sources, MLA, AU$ 136.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how the Statue of Liberty, originally intended to represent the idea of liberty and self-rule for all people in all countries, over the years has represented political liberty, individual freedom, and an example of an immigration policy gone wrong. It looks at how three different poets have expressed all three views of the Statue of Liberty in poems, all using the statue as an icon or symbol of the meaning of ?liberty? the statue held for them. The poems reviewed are Emma Lazarus's "The New Colossus", ?The Bartholdi Statue? by John Greenleaf Whittier, and "Unguarded Gates" by Thomas Bailey Aldrich.
From the Paper
"In 1892, the United States built a receiving facility for new immigrants on an island next to the one holding the Statue of Liberty (NPS). Ellis Island was the entrance point for nearly all new immigrants to the United States. With the Statue of Liberty overlooking the facility, the statue became a cultural icon representing immigration to the United States. Many immigrant Americans developed great affection for the statue. In fact, however, Lazarus?s poem honoring the Statue of Liberty didn?t get much attention until her death. A group of people organized to raise money to put the statue on a pedestal. One person on that committee, Georgina Schuyler (U of V), came across Lazarus? poem."
| |
|
Liberty, 2002.
The concept of liberty in relationship to several philosophers.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 3 sources, AU$ 56.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the concept of liberty with respect to the works of Locke, Rousseau, and Marx. The author compares their concepts of liberty and compares and contrasts negative liberty to positive liberty.
| |
|
Liberty Vs. Utility in Mill's Work, 2005.
This paper compares liberty and utility in the works of John Stuart Mill.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 2 sources, AU$ 84.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this paper, two of John Stuart Mill's seminal works are discussed, these being 'On Liberty' and 'Utilitariansm'. The point of this discussion is to decide whether Mill's vision of liberty takes a subservient role to that of utility, the Greatest Happiness Principle. The paper first takes a look at the problems of each papers. Then it contrasts liberty against pleasure, deciding that liberty DOES take a backseat to happiness and utility.
From the Paper
"It has always struck me as odd, when talking with fellow students of philosophy, that many of them view John Stuart Mill as some shiller of sleaze, his doctrine of Utility and Greatest Happiness completely libertine, especially when compared to the immovable, tucked-under-the-covers prudishness of his contemporary ethicist Immanuel Kant. Yet, in two of his seminal works, On Liberty and Utilitarianism, Mill shows that liberty is not the end all and be all of his beliefs. Instead, liberty is more of a tool, an enhancer, of his overarching principle of utility. In the opening remarks of Utilitarianism, Mill makes this statement: 'All action is for the sake of some end, and rules of action, it seems natural to suppose, must take their whole character and color from the end to which they are subservient'."
| |
|
"On Liberty", 2003.
A review of John Stuart Mill's book, "On Liberty".
1,936 words (approx. 7.7 pages), 1 source, MLA, AU$ 97.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper examines Mill's struggle between his desire for liberty for all and his belief in the superiority of the educated class, concluding that the latter ultimately undermines the former. It addresses, first, his attempts to secure liberty for all, examining his views on human nature. It then delves into the role of the "genius", in Mill's eyes. Supporting quotes from his "On Liberty" are provided throughout.
From the Paper
"In his book On Liberty, John Stuart Mill differentiates himself from many of the political philosophers before him. When he discusses liberty he focuses not on civil liberties and the purpose of government, but rather the extent to which individuals must conform their ideas and actions to the conventions of the society in which they live. Mill describes this as he nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual."
| |
|
Liberty and Tyranny, 2004.
An exploration of the theme of tyranny in John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty".
1,313 words (approx. 5.3 pages), 1 source, MLA, AU$ 70.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how, in his formative essay, "On Liberty", Mill approaches the issue of governmental and societal tyranny. In particular, it looks at how he approaches the basic areas in which liberty is important, in addition to discussing the problem of tyranny, which can abridge those liberties. It shows how Mill provides an historical look at the ways in which tyranny has been played out and details its evolution from a tyranny of the despot to a tyranny of the majority.
From the Paper
"The basic problem of tyranny has always been with humankind, and may in fact be the foundation of our society. Mills suggests that tyranny may be the only way to cement primitive ?barbarian? cultures, and that where civilization is so lacking that it is as if all the people are like children in development it may be necessary to so restrict their freedoms so as to let the society survive. However, this is not the case, he adds, with any society where his book might be read or understood. As mankind left the primitive stage, it remained true that tyranny was necessary for the protection of the people. In this early form of tyranny, there was a single ruler (or ruling force) to which people turned for protection but from whom they in turn sought to protect themselves."
| |
|
Breyer's Active Liberty Approach, 2008.
A review of Justice Stephen Breyer's active liberty approach to interpreting the US Constitution.
1,577 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 5 sources, MLA, AU$ 82.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses how US Justice Stephen Breyer takes issue with originalism as an approach to interpreting the US Constitution and advocates what he calls active liberty, which is a far more activist way of interpreting the Constitution. The paper also describes the intellectual profile of Justice Breyer in the context of his work, his life, his writing and his peers and argues that Justice Breyer's active liberty perspective is a useful one for dealing with the complex constitutional issues that arise in our dynamically evolving society.
From the Paper
"Many of the provisions of the Constitution are somewhat vague. Indeed, it is notoriously difficult to write legislation that is entirely unambiguous in all situations. This means that at times, a judge's task of interpreting and applying the law can seem more like an art than a science. Some judges favour textualism, which means that they try as hard as possible to stick to the letter of the laws as written. For example, Justice Antonin Scalia advocates "originalism," meaning that the courts should attempt to stick to the original meaning of constitutional texts (Ryan). However, other judges tend to be more activist, and have even been accused of using their position to pursue their own agenda, in effect legislating from the bench. "
| |
|
The Principles of Liberty, 2004.
This paper discusses the principles of liberty, based on Fareed Zakaria?s ?The Future of Freedom: Liberal Democracy at Home and Abroad?, and includes an in-depth case analysis of Pakistan.
3,950 words (approx. 15.8 pages), 10 sources, APA, AU$ 170.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that countries need to follow the whole process of building a liberal democracy from beginning to end for there to be true liberty, or a true liberal democracy, in that country. The author uses the case study of Pakistan, as compared to England, as an example of Zakaria?s theories in action; a country, Pakistan, that has not experienced a history of building liberal democracy lacks the understanding necessary to develop vibrant capitalism and a robust democracy. The paper concludes that liberty, in Zakaria?s sense, cannot be forced upon a country, however much the U.S. will try in countries, such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, or any of the countries on the "axis of evil".
From the Paper
"While the religious parties take to the streets, in an attempt to persuade Pakistani?s to join in their jihad against the West, the two large mainstream parties, the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) [PML-N] and the Pakistan People?s Party (PPP) are cracking, unable to decide where to go, what policies to pursue, disillusioned by the fact that there is no knowing the future in Pakistan. With the moderate opposition silent, the danger remains that public resentment will play into the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists."
|
|
|
