facility:john stuart mill

  • Public Housing Residents in Worcester, Massachusetts, Must Now Get a Job or Go Back to School - CityLab
    http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/12/when-the-government-tells-poor-people-how-to-live/420303
    http://cdn.citylab.com/media/img/citylab/2015/12/lead_960-5/facebook.jpg?1450113246

    Worcester program goes a step beyond many of these initiatives, as the penalty for not complying is so great. If residents do as they’re told, they’ll go through a program that includes intensive case management and will get a job, earn some money, and move out of public housing. But if they can’t or don’t find work or enroll in classes, a worst-case scenario could see them kicked out of public housing, often the last thing between the very poor and a homeless shelter.

    Is this the role government ought to be playing in people’s lives? John Stuart Mill condemned such efforts, writing, “The only purpose for which power may be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”

    People may make bad choices, Mill and others argue. But that’s one of the costs of a free society. And it’s not as though government intervention is risk-free: The government may make even worse decisions on people’s behalf. Or, when it treats them like children, why expect that they will ever act like adults?

    But what if the government can step in and improve the lives of some of its most vulnerable citizens? What if people can’t achieve the American Dream without the government telling them how to go about it? Is it okay for the government to exercise its power in that case? In other words, what does it mean for Mill’s concept of a free society if the Worcester strategy works?

  • Norway’s Terrorism in Context - Daniel Pipes - National Review Online
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/272804/norway-s-terrorism-context-daniel-pipes?page=1

    In the past, one had the cold comfort of knowing that deranged acts such as his were carried out by individuals under the sway of extremist ideologies. Not so Behring Breivik. This terrorist lists among his favorite authors George Orwell, Thomas Hobbes, John Stuart Mill, John Locke, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Ayn Rand, and William James. The disconnect between Behring Breivik’s mainstream political conservatism and his psychological derangement presents a shocking new dilemma and challenge.

    Bon sang, même Daniel Pipes lui-même est obligé de l’admettre : « Behring Breivik’s mainstream political conservatism » !

    (Évidemment, l’article de Pipes est délirant de bout en bout. À nouveau : il ne faudrait pas que les actes d’un islamophobe pro-israélien nuisent à l’image de l’islamophobie pro-israélienne en général. Solution ici : Pipes se demande si Breivik n’a pas agit, en fait, justement pour nuire à l’image de l’islamophobie pro-israélienne.)