Against Limiting Individual Freedom

To oppose restrictions on individual freedom and individual freedom is one of the main reasons for our establishment. In order to establish a country that everyone has the right to pursue happiness, our founder wrote "independence declaration" according to the law of "4 division" and "Thomson duty". But, I feel that people should now limit their freedoms.

Rousseau explains the civil liberties of two kinds of freedom in social contracts, "freedom of nature", "only by individual force", and "freedom by general freedom". Nature's freedom is freedom to follow your own desires. The liberty of citizens is their freedom to receive according to the general will. Like Rousseau, Muller talked about civil or social freedom; but unlike Rousseau, he did not guess "state of nature". Rather, Muller believes his theory is proved by utilitarianism, he does not compare the state of nature with civil society. I think that this makes Muller's argument more convincing because it does not assume that we have "natural rights". Mill does not seem to think that we have natural rights, even if we have, Rousseau wonder how we can really know what they are I will not tell it.

Mill and Rousseau's concept of freedom is completely different. Muller's view of liberty is that people should have personal freedom to improve themselves as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. In order to achieve this goal, the state should play a smaller role in the lives of its citizens. If the state interferes too much, it will hinder his or her self-development. Freedom should make sure that what the people want is not what the country wishes to be. Mill's freedom emphasizes individual freedom and sets some conditions for it. Utilitarian Mueller's theory is much simpler than Rousseau's theory. Individuals who are allowed to fully mature through self-development will help build a society of better people and more happy people. "Negative freedom" helps to achieve this goal to some extent.