Individuals should be given their chance and space to have an independent opinion and voice their view of anything as long as they are concerned because the liberty of thought exists. This freedom of discussion is fundamental to the majority, and they hold it as a right that should not be taken away from them.

The government should be following the thinking line of the people that have set it on power. However, this is through democracy so that the people in government are not allowed to go to the extremes of assuming dictatorial powers that would tend to limit freedoms. The author, John Stuart Mill, thinks that the government should not coerce anyone in going by its decisions but should instead follow the voice of the people if it is democratic at all. He argues that silencing the opinion of the people can only be compared to robbery. This robbery is in terms of taking away by force the rightful possession of the human race, not just a person. More so, the robbing is extended to the posterity as well as the existing generation who are deprived of their rights to think and come up with ideas on their governance and airing of political views. Indeed, not even the worst government on the face of the earth has more rights that the best one so all of them are just formed by the will of the people and they derive their mandate from the same individuals who make up the citizens of the particular places. Therefore, if any government arises to deprive its people their liberty, then the present generation and posterity is being robbed of its fundamental right.

There, of course, must exist those who dissent from an opinion. On the other hand, there also live those who concur with the same. However, there should not be any particular wrongness in silencing these people because they have the right to express themselves politically and socially regarding their own lives and governance structure. Any opinion counts and should be taken into consideration so that there should not be the exchange of errors for the daring truth. The opinions that are being suppressed by the authorities may be having a big chunk of truthfulness that should be allowed to have its way. The author argues that some of the bodies do silence opinions bofy refusing a statement made by someone is permitted when you are sure that it is a fallacy. And in this case, the authorities must ascertain their statement contradicting the inconsistencies created by the members of the public must be undoubtedly true.

People have the right to give their opinions on whatever subject they think they should. On the other hand, the governments have also been accorded the right to judge despite being fallacious. However, the fact that they may err in their judgment does not deny the government the power to weigh these opinions. Nonetheless, people are also no to be condemned before their arguments are heard and determined by the authorities. Every idea must be acted upon by the authorities, and they cannot merely be assumed to be wrong because the interests must be cared for, at least by the authorities. The duties of the citizens must be upheld so that actions are taken in their way and that the right outcome is attained. Objections exist, and they should be used in many circumstances. It is openly known that there are some of the disagreements that exist to all conduct. Nevertheless, they cannot be used or claimed to be always valid objections to any particular manner that has been raised at any time. This is the reason why governments have their rights and individuals have also their opinions, but none should enforce theirs over the other except in circumstances where one is sure that they are confident of being right.

The author discusses how a judgment deserves the confidence and how it has managed to be assumed so. The owner of the decision must then have some necessary qualifications to be granted the certainty that their argument is right. The first one is that the individual must be willing to have their opinions and conductcriticized. Secondly, the individual must be ready to listen to others who want to say whatever reason they have to against the argument so that they prove out the fallacy of whatever is fallacious in the opinion. Lastly, the person should be ready to understand that the view can be looked at by many others of varying perceptions and minds and each may havedifferent versions of their side. Therefore, the opinion giver should be ready to deal with all these three situations for their judgment to be said to be deserving confidence.

Every wise man has had their ideas criticized, and they have always opened their minds to receive the opinions of others from different perspectives but on the same issue. Apart from this, human intellect is not in any way better because it cannot be wise than in whichever another way. The most prudent humanity who have found themselves to be entitled to trust their own opinions have at many a time opened their criticism against their views from a miscellaneouscollection of both foolish and wise individuals. The group of these people is what is known as the public.

Beneficial beliefs that are associated with religion and God should be allowed to take their place if the individuals in the society approve of them. The author argues that only bad men can go against such beliefs because they are quite useful by the public and the authorities. , and therefore there is no such fallacy. Some people may argue that the notion of God and such doctrines are infallible. However, in some cases, it may not be the case. However, if it forms the moral base of the society, then they are infallible.

Intellects who have been known to be giving their most certain conclusions have at sometimes had to go back and pick some of the premises they had earlier silently rejected so that they can form sound conclusions. This means that there must be areason for every assumption that one makes even if their right state of mind may argue otherwise. However, there exists free discussion and also its enemy. The latter claims that there is nosound criticism against the opinions of the learned such as philosophers or even theologians. These enemies further claim that ingenious people should be given the opportunity of expressing themselves without being opposed by ordinary folks.

Nonetheless, this argument by the author has some fallacies that can be seen out clearly. In most democratic societies, people have divided opinions. Whenever the authorities try to come up with reasonable rules, the views of the public come in plenty, and they conflict with each other. There is the majority of the people whose opinion is respected by the authorities. However, in some of the circumstances, the authorities have to ignore the views of the people to act in their best interest for the sake of society. Not everyone should be consulted on their opinion by time wastage and other considerations. It is indeed true that the freedom of discussion must be granted but there are sometimes that calls or it to be denied.

Any discussion and its freedom must be limited to some point for the sake of time-saving because if an opinion is open to criticism, this may be perpetual since not the thinking of everyone can be allowed. The author may reply to this criticism by arguing that adequate discussions must well shape a valid opinion. However, the question pertains to the bulk and validity of any blame. Nevertheless, the author is quite in order in arguing that criticism should be allowed. The fact is that he has not been able to give whether there should be a limit to the objection to be given. This criticism does not, however, change the reality that most, freedoms and liberties are necessities of a valid opinion although they have to be regulated.

 
Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?