Friday Lecture Notes
- Mill’s research question is basically, “what is the nature of the limits of the power that
can be legitimately exercised by a government/power
- Mill argues that you should be allowed to have your freedoms, up until the point
where they harm others. You should also have some social responsibilities, such as
funding the military and infrastructure.
- Mill’s belief that just because everyone believes something, does not prove that it's
wrong
- Mills argues that the usefulness of an opinion is a matter of an opinion in of itself.
This is true because it stems from three dangers:
- First danger is that censorship could be censoring an opinion that is actually
true
- The second danger of censorship is that censoring a false opinion can hurt the
truth, because false ideas are useful because you can use them as proofs of
truthhood
- The third danger to censorship is that some falsehoods contain a grain of
truth that needs to be understood
- TL;DR, Mill argues that diversity of opinion is a strength, not a weakness
- Mill has limits to freedom of speech. Speech should be limited up until the point
where it causes harm. By harm he means that opinions lose their immunity once they
are used to instigate mischievous acts.
- Mill argues freedom of speech does not work in a society where a society is not
capable of using freedom of speech to improve society. Freedom of speech wouldn't
work in a society overrun by rhetoric/dogma. By this, Mill means that freedom of
speech wouldn't work in a society where some voices are louder than others
- Overall, Mill believes that you should leave individuals alone in terms of their speech
Tuesday Lecture Notes
- Liberalism does not imply democracy, liberalism means freedom, democracy means
power (in theory) in the hands of individuals
- Classical liberalism (17th-19th century influence)
- Locke argued that the purpose of government was to defend life, health and
liberty. The US constitution argued that people have God-given rights that
must be protected.
- Adam smith argues that there are three things the government can legitimately
provide, protection from invasion, protecting members of society from each
other, and providing public goods, which is what individuals want, but it won't
happen without government power to coerce people to und it
- Argument against modern/socialist liberalism (17th-19th century, Adam Smith)
There is equality under the law, meaning that from the rich to the poor, taking people's
money to combat poverty is a violation of one's rights. The “invisible hand” will do a
better job at reducing poverty, instead of the physical hand of the government. The
classical liberal model is the right to be left alone
- Reform liberalism (19th century - 1970s) Think of freedom as the ability to make
choices, the more choices, the more free. Not focused on the equality of outcome, but
- Mill’s research question is basically, “what is the nature of the limits of the power that
can be legitimately exercised by a government/power
- Mill argues that you should be allowed to have your freedoms, up until the point
where they harm others. You should also have some social responsibilities, such as
funding the military and infrastructure.
- Mill’s belief that just because everyone believes something, does not prove that it's
wrong
- Mills argues that the usefulness of an opinion is a matter of an opinion in of itself.
This is true because it stems from three dangers:
- First danger is that censorship could be censoring an opinion that is actually
true
- The second danger of censorship is that censoring a false opinion can hurt the
truth, because false ideas are useful because you can use them as proofs of
truthhood
- The third danger to censorship is that some falsehoods contain a grain of
truth that needs to be understood
- TL;DR, Mill argues that diversity of opinion is a strength, not a weakness
- Mill has limits to freedom of speech. Speech should be limited up until the point
where it causes harm. By harm he means that opinions lose their immunity once they
are used to instigate mischievous acts.
- Mill argues freedom of speech does not work in a society where a society is not
capable of using freedom of speech to improve society. Freedom of speech wouldn't
work in a society overrun by rhetoric/dogma. By this, Mill means that freedom of
speech wouldn't work in a society where some voices are louder than others
- Overall, Mill believes that you should leave individuals alone in terms of their speech
Tuesday Lecture Notes
- Liberalism does not imply democracy, liberalism means freedom, democracy means
power (in theory) in the hands of individuals
- Classical liberalism (17th-19th century influence)
- Locke argued that the purpose of government was to defend life, health and
liberty. The US constitution argued that people have God-given rights that
must be protected.
- Adam smith argues that there are three things the government can legitimately
provide, protection from invasion, protecting members of society from each
other, and providing public goods, which is what individuals want, but it won't
happen without government power to coerce people to und it
- Argument against modern/socialist liberalism (17th-19th century, Adam Smith)
There is equality under the law, meaning that from the rich to the poor, taking people's
money to combat poverty is a violation of one's rights. The “invisible hand” will do a
better job at reducing poverty, instead of the physical hand of the government. The
classical liberal model is the right to be left alone
- Reform liberalism (19th century - 1970s) Think of freedom as the ability to make
choices, the more choices, the more free. Not focused on the equality of outcome, but
