In an influential essay entitled On Liberty Mill argues for a much more limited role of government than is embodied in the American system today. He believes social utility will be maximized if individuals are generally allowed to make their own life decisions as long as these don't involve harm to others. This means, among other things, that in his view there shouldn't be laws against "victimless crimes" or situations in which the only one directly harmed is a rationally competent adult who has freely chosen a certain action or lifestyle. For example, Mill would oppose legislation against polygamy, same-sex marriages, prostitution, gambling, or the recreational use of drugs or alcohol in contexts that don't pose a threat to others. He'd view laws against such activities as expressions of the "tyranny of the majority," an oppressive attempt by the majority to legislate morality for everyone, even on issues that are rightly in the purview of individual choice. Many have argued against Mill, however, that it's not so easy to draw the line between the personal sphere and the public sphere and that significant government involvement is necessary to ensure public welfare. Use the hyperlinks below in your effort to judge for yourself what sort of legislation if any is appropriate for the issues below.
Chapter from the CATO Handbook for Congress supporting drug legalization; additional studies and commentaries from CATO available http://www.cato.org/current/drug-war/index.htmlhere (
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-55.html
)
Clarification of difference between legalization and decriminalization and other terminological issues from BAYSWAN (
http://www.bayswan.org/defining.html
)
Essay by Joseph C. Sommer for legalization as a means of reducing violent crime against prostitutes, among other reasons (
http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/prostitution.htm
)
Support for decriminalization of prostitution from Freedom USA (
http://www.freedomusa.org/coyotela/decrim.html
)
The scope of human rights
Coming out of the tradition of Locke and other followers of classical liberalism, America's founding fathers emphasized the importance of respecting negative rights (liberty rights), i.e., rights of noninterference. These include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly. Such negative rights impose the duty on others to refrain from restricting your individual choices as long as these don't harm others. More recently, however, much attention has been paid to so-called positive rights (welfare rights), rights to be helped in the fulfillment of one's significant needs and interests. These positive rights are correlated with the duty of others to provide you with certain goods or services. Typical claims of positive rights are rights to health-care and to a living wage. The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes many claims to positive rights, which is one reason it has not been ratified by the U.S. If you believe there are human rights, do you think they include positive as well as negative rights? What would you include in a list of universal human rights? Click on some of the hyperlinks below to explore the issue of the scope of human rights.
Declaration passed by the National Assembly of France, 1789; text from the Avalon Project (Yale Law School) (
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/rightsof.htm
)
Early declaration in the American women's rights movement, based on the Declaration of independence; text from Britannica Online (
http://search.eb.com/women/pri/Q00172.html
)