Category Archives: Uncategorized

John Taylor Mill holds a very restricting and narrow view on the laws of gun control in the United States. The atrocities across our country are absolutely terrible but the government’s role is not to be taking away our basic liberties. Mill argues on a utilitarian or “greatest happiness” principle. My biggest concern with this rhetoric is this way of decision making has a tendency to target individual’s rights outlined in my Second Treatise. The rights to life, liberty and property are essential to maintaining a free and rational society. This Op-Ed specifically deals with the rights to property.

The reason the American people rebelled against the British crown was to join a free society. In a free and rational society, each individual is entitled to life, liberty, and property and the right to protect those rights. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This text, straight from the constitution, defends the argument. The example I use in the Second Treatise comes with the situation regarding a mugger. The mugger forces the muggee to make a decision “your money or your life.” In this case, choose both. The mugger applies “force without right upon a [your] person makes a state of war both where there is, and is not, a common judge.”

The right to protect your own property is a natural right and guns achieve this purpose. The government seizing the citizen’s guns would be punishing the masses for the inability of few to follow the laws of the land. I believe it can be compared to taking away one’s right to drive because car accidents have hurt people and been used as weapons. The ultimate goal of a safe society is achieved at the heavy cost of freedom. Mill argues that since seventy eight percent of the US population doesn’t own a firearm, society would be achieving a greater happiness by taking away the rights of the twenty two percent that do. Mill is arguing to strip natural rights of eighty one million people in America because a small percentage cannot seem to follow the laws.

I agree with certain gun control regulation. For example, extensive background checks and mental illness checks should be required. If the government cannot trust you to abide by the laws set in place by the civil society, you should not receive the same rights as every other citizen. The boundary and decision on gun control should be shaped around whether it is a public or private issue I believe it is not made public until the public cannot trust you with the responsibility of a weapon i.e. background checks and health checks. Until then, the issue remains private. “Must men alone be debarred the common privilege of opposing force with force, which nature allows so freely to all other creatures for their preservation from injury? I answer: self defense is a part of the law of nature, nor can it be denied the community, even against the king himself…”

I understand the point Mill is trying to make and the solution believed to come from it, but our government is here to protect our rights not seize them. As soon as our right to protect one’s property is seized, where does the authority stop in taking all of our freedoms?  The “greatest happiness” is not worth the cost of liberty to eighty one million Americans. This utilitarian view point would soon start to attack more of our three primary freedoms using the same argument of the “greatest happiness.” The precedent is dangerous to the people of the United States.

There has been a submission under the name Ayn Rand that I would like to refute. In her argument Rand states that it is in the right for Whitefish energy to raise the prices of their services to Puerto Rico and its relief efforts. I, John Mill, claim that the actions taken by Whitefish were unethical and are both a public issue and stand against the greatest happiness principle of utilitarianism.

To set the scene, a devastating hurricane hit the shores of Puerto Rico, leaving the entire country without electricity and without the proper infrastructure to get their power up and running again. I would agree with Rand’s assessment of the situation as an emergency, something she defines as “an unchosen, unexpected event, limited in time that creates conditions under which human survival is impossible. In an emergency situation, men’s primary goal is to combat the disaster, escape the danger, and restore normal conditions.” Because this is an emergency it is the exact time that people need to unite together and promote utility, not the opposite. It was during this emergency Whitefish agreed to help Puerto Rico with their electricity issues, they even boasted about the speed and efficiency of their service, particularly in rough conditions. The only problem was that Whitefish price gauged Puerto Rico, charging them three times the amount they would normally charge. They did this because they saw Puerto Rico as vulnerable and in severe need of their services. Ayn Rand thinks that this sort of behavior is acceptable from a company, and I disagree.

Under my belief of utilitarianism, collective happiness should be held as the most important factor when making a decision, not personal gain or selfishness. I understand that this may require some self-sacrifice monetarily, but I believe that the “standard is not the agent’s own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether…Utilitarianism, therefore, could only attain its end by the general cultivation of nobleness of character.” In order to achieve the goals that we wish to achieve as a society we must occasionally put others first, and in doing so we can become the best nation and society possible. I believe that the goal of happiness should be the primary goal for any society “Happiness is the sole end of human action, and the promotion of it the test by which to judge of all human conduct.” In order to achieve this happiness, we must put each other and our society first. This is something that Whitefish refuses to do as they jack up the prices of their services for Puerto Rico, knowing that the country has no choice but to pay the premium, surely this is wrong.

Rand would argue that it is wrong to force companies to lower their prices, or prevent them from raising prices when they know they can. However, this is not an issue of right and wrong “One of the strongest obstacles to the reception of the doctrine that Utility or Happiness is the criterion of right and wrong, has been drawn from the idea of Justice.” There is right or wrong. This issue, as are all issues, is simply a matter of deciding which side of the equation promotes the greatest happiness. Puerto Rico is a devastated country that has just dealt with a terrible natural disaster and is in need to help from outside of their country, surely coming to their aide would promote the greatest happiness. Once we have determined aiding Puerto Rico promotes the greatest happiness, we have no choice but to side with them on this issue and claim that Whitefish should offer their services under the standard rate.

In Ayn Rand’s article “Natural Disaster Relief Efforts” it is mentioned that Hurricane Maria made landfall on the island of Puerto Rico and created a humanitarian crisis for its population. The Puerto Rico Electric Power authority originally entered into a $300 million dollar contract with Whitefish to repair their island’s energy grid, where they charged 2-3 times their normal rate due to the risk Whitefish was taking with Puerto Rico. Since Puerto Rico is in a state of emergency and Whitefish had the resources to help quickly and efficiently Ayn Rand found this increase in cost to be moral and rational. Ayn Rand states that it would even be immoral for Puerto Rico to enter into a contract that was less costly because it would provide fewer resources and Whitefish is known for mobilizing quickly and working effectively in challenging situations. Rand also mentioned that Whitefish was just compensating for the great risk they were taking on with helping Puerto Rico.

I have to strongly disagree with Rand’s viewpoint on this topic, since Puerto Rico is in an emergency situation they originally agreed to this contact because of  the desperate need to restore their territory, but PREPA’s CEO changed his mind after being convinced by the public that what Whitefish is doing is selfish and unreasonable. The greater good in this situation is threatened, and I do not agree with Whitefish’s decision to increase their costs to aid to Puerto Rico. As mentioned in Utilitarianism  “The Utilitarian morality does recognize in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others. It only refuses to admit that the sacrifice itself is a good. A sacrifice which does not increase, or tend to increase, the sum total of happiness, it considers as wasted”. Puerto Rico is in a very desperate and vulnerable position and on top of this already heart-breaking and devastating tragedy Whitefish is only making the situation more uneasy by increasing the costs of their services to benefit themselves, which results in a Whitefish failing to make the sacrifice to benefit the greater good. Whitefish could have provided their services for 2-3 times less, or possibly lessen their original cost to aid to the already suffering Puerto Rico. The greater good, which is the overall island of Puerto Rico would be under great jeopardy if they continued to accepted these costly services with the belief that this is the safest option when it comes to restoring Puerto Rico, therefore leaving Puerto Rico very conflicted and put under even more stress. It is understandable that Whitefish is taking a risk by aiding to Puerto Rico, but the devastation that Puerto Rico is experiencing and amount of people affected greatly overpowers the inconvenience of Whitefish.

The public and political outrage in Puerto Rico due to Whitefish’s cost increase is completely understandable when acknowledging the fact that Whitefish believed they needed to raise their prices to aid to Puerto Rico when Puerto Rico is in an already devastating position, and PREPA’s CEO’s decision to break the contract in the best interest of the people in Puerto Rico is completely valid. After Puerto Rico withdrew from the contract with Whitefish, Whitefish ceased construction on Puerto Rico’s main transition line, which was in desperate need of repair. This shows that Whitefish could not sacrifice themselves to greatly benefit the island of Puerto Rico. Whitefish is going completely against Utilitarianism by their blatant disregard for “the greater good for the greatest number”. Judging from these events it seems that Whitefish is prioritizing their own unfair contract over aiding to an island in desperate need of repair.

I have said it before, and will say it again, that I do not know much about guns or the topic of gun control. Because of this, I cannot say that in the past I had a particular opinion as to whether or not guns should be restricted by the government, and I honestly did not see the importance of discussing it years ago, as it seemed arbitrary to me. However, in recent years, the issue of guns has become so prevalent in society that I will concede that it is a relevant topic and is something of importance within our society, enough so that I will share my thoughts.

I would like to begin by saying I believe there is importance in acknowledging the difference between laws and regulations. Laws are necessary limitations that the government has a right to enforce in order to maintain a just society. They must be carried out in society in order to protect the rights we have as individuals. Laws enable government officials to set boundaries that clearly define an act as legal or illegal, giving them the authority to deem acts criminal so that consequences can be carried out. Regulations, on the other hand, are rules that infringe on the individual rights of people within society. They are subjective in nature that give governments the ability to impede on individuals’ rights. Therefore, gun regulations are not something with which I am able to agree.

Ownership of guns is an individualistic pursuit. If someone wants to own a gun because it makes them feel safe, or because they enjoy the sport of hunting, then the government does not have the right to keep them from doing so. As discussed in my book, Virtue of Selfishness, the idea of achieving personal happiness is key in society as “man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself”. I believe that it should be man’s highest moral priority to achieve happiness in and of himself.

Not only do I oppose government regulation on guns as it would strip certain individuals of their ability to be happy, I also do not see the point in imposing pointless rules on the members of a society. I have faith that if a personal is wanting to purchase a gun with the intent of using it in criminal ways, they will find a gun one way or another. Enforcing gun regulations will not going to stop criminals from having them. I do believe that guns are used as tools for murder, such as concealed handguns which are not carried with the intent of killing animals, but I do not think there is a way to decipher if that is the intent of the person buying the gun. Someone with a clean record is not immune to psychotic breaks, so even someone who passes a background check with flying colors could still use their gun in destructive ways. The argument could also be made that the gun is not for the intent of killing others, but for protection in the case of a dangerous situation. Handguns could be used to protect oneself from an attacker. This said, I cannot think of a way to allow individuals to protect themselves without inadvertently giving them the freedom to kill others.

In conclusion, I think that the government should not regulate guns because I stand firm in my opinion of government regulations in general. I believe that people do not have a right to murder, but they do have a right to self defense. I also believe that regulations will not keep criminals from obtaining guns. A gun is simply a tool. In its physical form it does not create any issues. It is the person using it that causes destruction, so regulating the object is not a practical way to prevent the issues that our society faces today. Because of this I am forced to refute the comment made that states, “more people would be safe from mass shootings and homicide” because I disagree that gun regulation would keep homicide and mass shootings from occurring.

President Trump has officially acknowledged the opioid addiction as a national problem over the past few weeks. He went so far as to declare it a 90-day public health emergency. President Trump, however, has not issued a specific plan to address the issue and it does not seem like he will do so in the near future. Many suggest that there should be an expansion in the treatment of insurance coverage for Americans who struggle with opioids. Yet I urge you, the reader, to think about it twice. You might be suspicious of my intention and well, do I approve of the prohibition of drugs? No, I don’t. I think drugs should be sold openly because it is the individual’s right to do with them as they please. We must not forget our individual rights, our freedom and our pursuit of happiness.

President Trump should reconsider his past statement. This is not a crisis. If the individual wants to consume drugs and the result is a fatal overdose, then the decision of the individual must be respected. If drugs were to be sold legally, it would put the whole underworld out of business. Also, all the drug traffickers would be put out of business because they wouldn’t have to commit crimes to buy and sell overpriced illegal drugs. We as a society need to pressure the system to become a country free of government intervention, free of the regulation and the controls of an oppressive system. I must clarify that this does not mean that I am in favor of any type of handouts or free medical services that would come with it. It is simply a matter of economic policies. Allow me to explain, no one in a free market can become a monopolist and it is only under government regulation that you can keep competitors out of the field. Free health services are not free if there is a monopoly in every overpriced and restricted drug.

Governor Charlie Baker’s plans to increase the requirements necessary to buy opioids oversteps the true intentions of government. A true government should respect the liberties of the people and their decisions, regardless of the outcome if it does not cause harm to others. Although we do not live in a free market we must do our best to live our lives to the best our ability, guided by our own moral values.

In the article “Mill on the Utility of Red Meat”, John Stuart Mill claims the idea of moral sanctions over legal, Food and Drug Administration approved, sanctions on regulating the food industry, specifically regarding red meat, will result in the greatest possible happiness for all the parties involved in the process of producing red meat. He backs his assertion through several supporting facts, which when looked at holistically, can appear to bring about a collective happiness. But therein lies the problem, the existence of collective happiness does not ensure happiness for the individual. Collective happiness exists when the greatest number of people have achieved greatest happiness. Despite the large number of people in United States who eat red meat on a daily basis, Mill believes that these moral sanctions can result in conformity to the no longer binding Paris agreement, positive health trends, and the preservation of natural lands. However, to sacrifice a daily habit, let alone in eating, a habit that one has no choice but to partake in, must require the individual to make a significant change in one’s meal schedule, and this is without taking into consideration of the interest to do so and emotional attachment to eating red meat. To do so would imply a certain level of altruism, fueled either by the interest of appearing to be good or the fear of appearing to be evil. It is possible to achieve the benefits of morally sanctioning red meat without sacrificing one’s interests. Though it may not be as easy, these moral sanctions are not the only way to reduce carbon emissions, carcinogenic intake, and industrialization of natural lands.

Mill seems to believe that these goals from the moral sanction are shared among the greatest number of people. The mere assumption that his interests in the benefits mentioned above are the goals of the masses is, if anything, presumptuous and conflicts intrinsically with the collective happiness of the nation. If by consuming red meat, most Americans are achieving the greatest happiness, then why would imposing moral sanctions lead us to an even greater happiness? The evidence is clear in that many Americans do like their red meat, Mill even references the existing success and the soon-to-come success of American meat manufacturers with Trump’s pledge to preserve red meat in America. Mill seems to confuse the heath of the environment and the people in it with happiness although many people knowingly engage in activities that are detrimental to the environment and their bodies to bring them a sense of joy. Mill’s argument hinges solely on the basis that Americans share his same interests and by making that assumption, he cannot definitively prove that the greatest happiness can be brought about with moral sanctions. To do so, would present a double standard in that meat manufactures are not able to assume what American’s greatest happiness is while Mill could.

In the most optimal sense, if everyone were to be happy, then a total collective happiness would be achieved. Therefore, if every single person were to choose whether or not they want to abstain from red meat to either share Mill’s values or indulge in a tasty meal and that would result in their happiness, then by definition collective happiness would be achieved. To be truly “selfish”, to be concerned with one’s own interests, can actually result in a collective happiness. To assume that one’s interests are representative of the collective whole is wrong and is often lumped together with the misconstrued definition of selfishness, which is to act with no regard for any living being and only for oneself.