Freedom of Opinion, Limits, and Social Intervention
Freedom of Opinion and the Truth
Mill emphasizes that freedom of opinion does not destroy the truth because it will prevail. I, being less optimistic, am inclined to defend freedom of opinion so that the truth does not disappear forever. I understand the right’s defense of non-interference of the state in the formation of courts to judge non-political cases, but I think it is more necessary to ensure the independence of the judiciary responsible for resolving political issues from the legislative branch in order to ensure a genuine democratic functioning without which the freedom of individuals is doomed to disappear.
It would also be useful to recall that some state intervention—against what was recommended by Mill—in the workplace was delivered to Europe’s economic savagely exploitative capitalism denounced by Marx, but supported by those—from a liberal perspective—justifying it by invoking the principle of human liberty and the human right to determine their own destiny and to participate freely in the contracts that were favorable to their interests under the banner of “free and equal competition for all.”
Finally, I believe that Mill was wrong to allow freedom of expression provided they do not incite violence because we can fall into the paradox of democracy and tolerance. If we are tolerant with the intolerant, if we are democrats with anti-democrats, are we not cementing the destruction of tolerance and democracy? Should we, in an exercise of respect for individual liberty, allow discriminatory, xenophobic, intolerant, and undemocratic views? If those who support them have no power to impose them on others and determine their lifestyle, they may offend the rest without causing injury. But the freedom to express these views can promote a current majority opinion and powerful do not hesitate to violate minority rights. Would not intervention be justified from the beginning? Should we wait until the damage occurs to risk not being able to intervene to reverse the process?
The Limits of Individual Freedom
Mill’s successful limit of individual freedom is not to harm others. But Mill is imprecise in defining what is meant by prejudice. Discarding feeling offended amounts to being harmed, because almost all walks of life are offensive to someone. I understand that no single action does not affect another and that the victim was aggrieved. Mill should therefore clearly establish how much interference would justify social prejudice. By not doing so, the application of the principle may be subject to subjective and social factors such as seem to have happened to our philosopher when you consider that some actions are permissible and harmless in private should be banned in public places coming into conflict with the intervention justified only in case of injury and no offense to others. Also, the absence of clear criteria enables doubt in resolving specific cases such as respect or curtail freedom those that encourage individuals, for profit, to engage in activities that are considered harmful for the cases of pimping and the promoters of the game.
Fornicators and players do not harm others, but those who incite them because they limit their ability to decide freely, while acknowledging their uncertainty to decide in this case and stressed that the State only to ensure free choice of citizenship should relegate underground premises for such practices, but instead, in the case of premises selling alcohol, saying it does not decide what the working class is not childish or savage. It seems that the maturity of the people varies according to temptations. I think, rather, that individual and social conditions determine the decision.
Education and True Freedom
It seems very positive Mill’s defense of the necessary training and education of the student condition because no true freedom, if you know the truth, is achieved through the critical examination of conflicting positions and not the dogmatic adherence to one. But real individual freedom in this and other areas is achieved only by removing the obstacles that would preclude it, but ensuring that society provides the means to make this possible. The argument used by Mill that the truth must be discussed to fortify it seems correct, but unnecessary because, as he says, nobody is infallible. It could be a concession, perhaps ironically, to convince the holders of a truth itself or disclosed, they consider legitimate to impose it on others, the advantages of not doing so.