On Liberty and Other Essays

October 10th, 2022

Utilitarianism Starting John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism. The first few pages are very verbose and don’t seem to say very much. I found it a little incoherent, though it was probably written for an audience who would’ve known what it meant. It’s a short section. The next section defines what Mill means by Utilitarianism. It is a sort of Epicureanism in which the achievement of pleasure and diminishment of pain is valued. Apparently, many people are opposed to living for pleasure. Mill says that this is not meant to be a sort of Hedonism or pursuit of physical pleasures, but an intelligent being will value intellectual pleasures, or pursuits of the mind. Then there are scales of quality and quantity of pleasure and pain, such that an individual will choose one pursuit over the other based on what it brings to them. It is also up to individual taste on whether a certain pleasure is worth its associated pain. Everything comes at some cost, which for one may be minimal and another unbearable. So far, I can’t argue with anything Mill has said.

October 13th, 2022

Utilitarianism I don’t know if my mind was elsewhere, but I didn’t really follow the rest of this second section. Mill continued with the topic by discussing how when one makes a self-sacrifice, sure it is a virtuous act, but the end is not to spread virtue, but happiness. One goes without their happiness (or maximum level at least) so that others can achieve happiness. This is classically seen in everyday life when a parent sacrifices their happiness by working, etc., so that their children may have an acceptable life. He mentions that some view utilitarianism as immoral, but claims that God/Jesus are pro-happiness or some outdated nonsense. The he says morality or the use of utility to achieve happiness is constantly changing with time, which makes sense. The philosophy of utilitarianism is to create the road to the end goal of happiness, not just blindly state the goal in itself. Maybe it wasn’t that confusing, just very verbose and a bit long-winded. Regardless, we’ll see what he says further in the book. Everything sounds reasonable thus far, though it has to be acknowledged that all of the arguments against utilitarianism have been provided by the author. I don’t know what a proper opponent against it would say, though the way utilitarianism has been defined, I can’t imagine the arguments would be very convincing.

October 14th, 2022

Utilitarianism The third chapter is about what Mill calls the sanction behind utilitarianism, which seems to be the reason or motive to follow it. Mill answers this by saying it has the same as any other moral philosophy. There are external reasons, e.g., the reaction of other people to your actions or the wrath of God, or internal, e.g., the internal senses. A sense of duty, what is required by the wiring of your brain, is a driving force for moral choices. This sense of duty can be derived from many sources, not just the Stoic concept of “duty”. Sympathy for hungry drives someone to provide food, love for one’s family drives them to work and provide, fear of the law prevents one from stealing, etc. Not all agree with the idea that morality is cultural and based on one’s upbringing, but assuming it is (as I do), then these senses of duty are subjective and highly variable. He then repeats that these driving forces are behind any ethical philosophy. Mill then defends the idea that morals being acquired does not make them less powerful or important than as if they were “God given” or encoded. Mill wants the increasing of the general happiness to be recognized as the standard for ethics and then, once taught as such, would not seem so strange or disgusting to some. Unity with one’s fellow man is already an powerful human instinct. Cooperation is necessary to survival. The struggle is to dimmish the natural selfishness in man’s instinct.

October 18th, 2022

Utilitarianism The fourth section is a short one that essentially just says that all actions by humans are meant to increase happiness. This is a first principle, meaning there is no proof other than its recognition. He compares to a sound, which is proven to exist only by being heard. There are means to happiness and things that are happiness in themselves. Something like money was once a means to achieve happiness is now for many something that brings happiness, regardless of what it could buy. Desire of other things, e.g. music or health, are a part of happiness in itself. Desire leads to a “will”. One cannot will what is not desired. Mill uses virtue as an example. Virtue is not in itself pleasurable, one has to convince themselves that its outcomes will bring pleasure/happiness. This will leads to a habit, where actions are performed. The main point is that this is how Mill attempts to prove that happiness is the only end in human actions. It’s a fair point and is logical.

October 20th, 2022

Utilitarianism Finished reading the final chapter. Its main topic is justice, which at first seems to be a tangent. Mill spends 10 pages trying to define justice, since justice is not innate and can mean different things to different people in different contexts. Justice involves a wrong and a person that can claimed being wronged. Justice involves some sort of desire for punishments for the supposed wrong, whether by the injured or out of sympathy for the injured. Moral rules of conduct exist for the general good of all. The claim is then that the fluidity of justice is tied to utility. A tax system that taxes each person the same amount can be considered just because it is fair and equal, but it does not seem just because it does not increase the utility of society. It feels just to tax more the people who have more, even though they do not get more from the state. Mill goes on for more examples and then it just kind of ends. No big finish. Everything he said is interesting, though a bit of a slog. I don’t really find anything he said objectionable. I agree that people should do more to help others, which, due to human nature, must involve government involvement and taxation, to increase the general happiness and condition of society. Not gonna find a critic in me.

October 25th, 2022

On the Subjugation of Women Started Mill’s on the subjugation of women. It specific premise is a bit outdated, here at least, where women have had equal rights for a century. Though maybe it is not as outdated as I thought. I just read this morning that the Swiss did not allow women to vote until 1972. That is absurd and puts much more relevance on this topic. The first part is mostly Mill describing how to argue with such an idea. Normally, one has to prove their argument. If I say there are men on the moon, I need evidence. The subjugation of women is the opposite. They are subjugated without proof that they are not capable of holding certain jobs or making certain decisions. This is not an appeal to logic but emotion. People “feel” that this is the way things have to be because that’s the way they are. Slavery was the same, but people would not justify slavery in a modern society. He compares it to an absolute monarchy. In the English speaking world, an absolute monarchy is disgusting to us, yet (at the time) many European nations had absolute monarchs whose will was law. Over centuries, the English monarchy was weakened until the Commons reigned supreme. Yet absolute authority is still allowed over half the population.

October 29th, 2022

On the Subjugation of Women The first part continues with Mill comparing the subjugation of women to other unequal relationships, such as parent and child. A parent never truly knows their child, and a child likely their parent, because the imbalance of the relationship leads them to only show certain sides. This is the same between a husband and wife in an instance where the woman is forced to feel inferior. Mill makes some other good points on how women are groomed to this situation and thus cannot be properly judged for their merits, given no opportunities to properly grow.

October 31st, 2022

On the Subjugation of Women The second section opens with Mill describing marriage how it is legally allowed to be, total despotism. Then he acknowledges that this worst case scenario is not how most marriages are, but it does that the situation can and does occur where a man completely abuses his wife. A wife has no respite, not even that of the slave girl who can refuse sex. He makes other comparisons with instances where a slave has it better. The woman does not have many defenses. He then compares it to a business partnership, where two partners can have a relationship where one is not the master and the partnership can be dissolved.

November 13th, 2022

On the Subjugation of Women It’s been a while since I picked this up. I’m kind of just reading it for the sake of reading it. It doesn’t have much relevance in my life. I read the other day that women were not allowed to own property in England until something like 1882, which puts another perspective on the piece. Mill is now talking about suffrage and why women are just as capable as the worst man. Then he makes some points about historical women, queens and whatnot.

November 14th ,2022

On the Subjugation of Women This isn’t very interesting. I’ll finish it because there’s like 25 pages left. I guess it’s meant for an audience that thinks men and women are so different that it would be absurd if one could write a good book or be a lawyer or something. The arguments against this are so basic that they are boring. I guess it takes some balls to write this at the time of its writing. I wonder how many people read this and were outraged.

November 16th, 2022

On the Subjugation of Women The final section is about how society would change if the laws were changed to give women equality. Mill argues, other than that amorality of subjugation, that it would increase the odds of putting the right person in the right place. If 1 in 1000 people (men) are fit to run a factory, allowing women should double the chances of getting a competent person. Allowing women to vote will allow democracy to represent an unrepresented part of the population. Then he talks about other stuff about the affect wives and mothers have on men/boys, but it seems irrelevant and generalized.

November 17th, 2022

On the Subjugation of Women Mill then makes some insights on marriage that were interesting. He laments the effect that a poorly matched couple has on each other. A highly focused individual is help back by a poor match and their talents are wasted. The end of the piece comes to Mill’s main philosophy. Women should be liberated because it is wrong to deprive people of liberty (On Liberty). Women should be liberated because it will make them happy and reduce the general misery of the population (Utilitarianism). There is a nice quote: “There is nothing, after disease, indigence, and guilt, so fatal to the pleasurable enjoyment of life as the want of a worthy outlet for the active faculties.” I think many people have experienced this feeling first hand. I summarize it as “stagnation is death”. Overall, the book makes good points that are not really relevant in modern America, but it is interesting historically.

January 4th, 2023

Considerations on Representative Government Moving back to John Stuart Mill. I'm not going to reread On Liberty, so this will be the last book. The topic is, obviously, on representative government. Knowing JSM, he will be for a fair, representative system. Probably one similar to the English Parliament, but, I hope, more representative. Also, this will be a bit dry and long-winded. That’s just Mill’s way of writing. I read the first chapter, and Mill considers two views of government. One, that it is a man-made institution and thus it is chosen by man for the situation they are in. The second is that government is a natural growth of a nation and thus one cannot transplant it elsewhere or significantly change it. Mill says both are extreme for the sake of contrarianism and nobody truly believes either, but that somewhere in the middle lies reality and their beliefs. That’s kind of all I remember. He goes on for another 10 page on the subject, but it wasn’t that interesting. Surely government has a “natural” start and grows based on the conditions of the culture, the region, and the people. But man surely can choose how he is governed. There was another bit about maintaining a representative government. People have to want it. For example, the Native Americans had no interest in being under the US government and fought to the death to be separate. Then people have to do what is necessary to maintain it. Things like follow the laws and pay taxes etc. Similar to this was the need to not misuse the system. Don’t sell your vote, participate in elections so that people can take over the country, stuff like that. Good points, John. I also liked this quote: “One person with a belief, is a social power equal to ninety-nine who have only interests.” Essentially, this is the person to make men move and to have power. Hence why one man can sway so many others, and we didn’t have democracies and republics for all history.

January 7th, 2023

Considerations on Representative Government Given that man is able to choose government, the next chapter is on what makes a good government. First, we need to know why a government exists. It is an actor to achieve something, not an end in itself. He uses someone else’s terms of Order and Progress, though Mill considers Order a subset of Progress. Order being related to safety and the submission to law, rather than using private means of settling disputes. Progress being advancement, though Mill adds something to it that his contemporatres do not. Mill claims that without active effort, society not only fails to advance, but decays. Without active effort of the citizenry, we will go to a lower state. Active effort means participation, not allowing politicians or judges to be amoral and take bribes, etc. Though, as Mill says, Progress and Order and not necessarily tied to representative government. A monarch could, and some have, created governements that act in this way. The problem is a monarch is less incline to work for the citizenry and thus leads to corruption, lack of progress, and decline. Selfishness is encouraged. Then Mill talks about savages and slavery and it seems out of place and archaic.

January 8th, 2023

Considerations on Representative Government The third chapter has Mill explain why representative government is the best form. Mill believes that a government exists for the betterment, or to maintain conditions to allow the betterment, of man. He argues against the classic “benevolent dictator” concept. Mill does not believe such a thing can exist. Not because of the malice of a dictator, but because of the inability of any human to have all the information on all regions of a country and all public opinion, while making the correct decisions and choosing the correct people to fill the government. It would take god-like abilities and omnipresence. Man under such a system would be a passive cog of the economy and take no interest or have any responsibility outside of his own life. It would be a sad state for man, a pathetic shell. Once a man has the ability to alter his own course, he will (hopefully) take an active role. Even if he chooses not to, it may create a certain mindset in the citizens regardless. A man may not want to get involved in bettering his country, but maybe still his town, his home, or himself. There is less resignation to fate. I don’t know how true this all is, but it is an interesting point. I guess feeling that you can make a difference has a significant impact on one’s mental health and energy. I often wonder what I can do to make a difference, which is different than wondering how one can make a difference. I already am in a mindset that change is possible. It is hard to imagine otherwise.

January 9th, 2023

Considerations on Representative Government Mill gives us a short chapter on when representative government is not appropriate. It was sort of covered in chapter one. First, if a people are unwilling to submit to any authority, then it will not work. They are unwilling to be governed. Second, if a people are too passive, it will lead to despotism. They are unwilling to preserve it. Third, is when people are not willing to do as the government requires, such as participate in elections or pay appropriate taxes. Another is when people are unwilling to join with others. A village or group of villages may be completely used to voting or representative governments, but have no sympathy or interest in a neighboring region. They would not give one cent if it leaves their region. Mill says that most of this type of problem has been overcome, historically, but being subjected to a common central authority. For example, the Welsh and English can today live under one government, despite the history of different cultures. Even England itself was once many kingdoms. He also mentions people who sacrifice freedom for the ability to conquer, like a Prussian, and people who have no interest in governing but will fight to the death if someone tries to govern them, like a Frenchman. The second to last paragraph is very good and I will reprint it here. It is essentially akin to what I was trying to say in regards to the neoreactionary book, but much better written. A hundred other infirmities or shortcomings in a people might be pointed out which pro tanto disqualify them from making the best use of representative government; but in regard to these it is not equally obvious that the government of One or a Few would have any tendency to cure or alleviate the evil. Strong prejudices of any kind; obstinate adherence to old habits; positive defects of national character, or mere ignorance, and deficiency of mental cultivation, if prevalent in a people, will be in general faithfully reflected in their representative assemblies; and should it happen that the executive administration, the direct management of public affairs, is in the hands of persons comparatively free from these defects, more good would frequently be done by them when not hampered by the necessity of carrying with them the voluntary assent of such bodies. But the mere position of the rulers does not in these, as it does in the other cases which we have examined, of itself invest them with interests and tendencies operating in the beneficial direction. From the general weaknesses of the people or of the state of civilization, the One and his councillors, or the Few, are not likely to be habitually exempt; except in the case of their being foreigners, belonging to a superior people or a more advanced state of society. Then, indeed, the rulers may be, to almost any extent, superior in civilization to those over whom they rule; and subjection to a foreign government of this description, notwithstanding its inevitable evils, is often of the greatest advantage to a people, carrying them rapidly through several stages of progress, and clearing away obstacles to improvement which might have lasted indefinitely if the subject population had been left unassisted to its native tendencies and chances. In a country not under the dominion of foreigners, the only cause adequate to producing similar benefits is the rare accident of a monarch of extraordinary genius. There have been in history a few of these who, happily for humanity, have reigned long enough to render some of their improvements permanent, by leaving them under the guardianship of a generation which had grown up under their influence. Charlemagne may be cited as one instance; Peter the Great is another. Such examples however are so unfrequent that they can only be classed with the happy accidents which have so often decided at a critical moment whether some leading portion of humanity should make a sudden start, or sink back towards barbarism—chances like the existence of Themistocles at the time of the Persian invasion, or of the first or third William of Orange. It would be absurd to construct institutions for the mere purpose of taking advantage of such possibilities, especially as men of this calibre, in any distinguished position, do not require despotic power to enable them to exert great influence, as is evidenced by the three last mentioned. The case most requiring consideration in reference to institutions is the not very uncommon one in which a small but leading portion of the population, from difference of race, more civilized origin, or other peculiarities of circumstance, are markedly superior in civilization and general character to the remainder. Under those conditions, government by the representatives of the mass would stand a chance of depriving them of much of the benefit they might derive from the greater civilization of the superior ranks, while government by the representatives of those ranks would probably rivet the degradation of the multitude, and leave them no hope of decent treatment except by ridding themselves of one of the most valuable elements of future advancement. The best prospect of improvement for a people thus composed lies in the existence of a constitutionally unlimited, or at least a practically preponderant authority in the chief ruler of the dominant class. He alone has by his position an interest in raising and improving the mass, of whom he is not jealous, as a counterpoise to his associates, of whom he is; and if fortunate circumstances place beside him, not as controllers but as subordinates, a body representative of the superior caste, which, by its objections and questionings, and by its occasional outbreaks of spirit, keeps alive habits of collective resistance, and may admit of being, in time and by degrees, expanded into a really national representation (which is in substance the history of the English Parliament), the nation has then the most favorable prospects of improvement which can well occur to a community thus circumstanced and constituted.

January 15th, 2023

Considerations on Representative Government I read the fifth chapter but I don’t remember it much. The title is about proper functions of government, but it seemed all over the place. It railed against the spoils system for a while. It seems that in Mills ideal government, the legislative would solely vote on things. He believes that there is so much going on that the legislative could not very well be informed enough to draft laws as well as vote on them, even if drafted by small committees. His idea was a permanent law-making group, appointed by the executive for terms of a few years. Of course, an MP could still draft a law, but they would most likely favor using this group. It is an interesting idea and I wonder if it has ever been tried. Would he suggest the same concept in the US, where the executive leader is chosen by vote? I could see president’s trying to stack it like the Supreme Court, though it may be less effective if there are no life terms. Also, congress would still have to pass it through two houses. I imagine little would still get done.

January 17th, 2023

Considerations on Representative Government Chapter 6 is on the weaknesses of representative government. Mill mentions that ideas discussed earlier, such as an unwilling population. There were really two big problems that he goes over. The first I guess I’d summarize as the frozen government. A bureaucracy that moves like an iceberg gets nothing done, where a king with much power can accomplish much. Mill claims that no such kings exist except in ancient times when the king was in constant conflict with lords and the local populace. The modern king as the lead aristocrat is generally indolent and accomplishes little. These kings have their own bureaucratic system, which may or may not be any different than under a democracy. The other problem is the classic “two wolves and a sheep” democracy, which is a true problem. Often a group or class will only look after their own interests, whether king, aristocrat, capitalist, or laborer. At a minimum, they will favor their class interest. This is human nature. This is not to say that they will be ruthless and without empathy for others. We’ve seen the wealthy pass laws for the welfare of the poor. Who knows how much self-interest is involved, but it cannot be assumed to be solely from that. Mill, worried about the capitalist vs laborer tension in a representative government, suggests that care be taken so that each group is allotted half of the legislature. That way one cannot overpower the other and some of the more rational members can cross the boundary when necessary. This is interesting, but not necessarily fair. The wealthy would get an unproportional representation, while the lower classes would be underrepresented. I think even with proportional representation, you would have enough rational men who would not destroy the country just because some people have more than others. Even so, the executive still has a veto. I don’t agree with Mills on his solution. It feels wrong.

January 18th, 2023

Considerations on Representative Government I forgot that the other issue mentioned in the last chapter was about the election of unintelligent or incapable people. That goes without saying. The 7th chapter is about true representation as a way to combat these problems. I only read half of the chapter, but it’s really good stuff. Mill advocates the system created by Thomas Hare, which is a proportional ranked choice voting system. I guess it is also a transferable system, which is something I still don’t fully grasp. I’m amazed by this progressiveness. I probably shouldn’t be, since it is John Stuart Mill, but I didn’t realize such systems were 160 years old. And America STILL doesn’t use one. I’m a big proponent of ranked choice voting and proportional representation. Essentially what they advocate is turning all of Britain into a single district. People would be able to vote for anyone running in the country and rank their choices. Once someone reaches a threshold, the excess votes are divvied elsewhere (this is the part I struggle with. How?) This way, someone is not restricted to the few candidates that are running in their district. People who would be unrepresented by this system would be able to pool their votes across the country and get someone of their ilk elected. Will America ever wise up and abandon it’s archaic and undemocratic system? No, but we can fight for it anyway. Tell your congressman to support the Fair Representation Act.

January 22rd, 2023

Considerations on Representative Government Read the rest of the 7th chapter yesterday, and it mostly continues to talk about RCV. Apparently the Danish had started using it in the 1860s. The 8th chapter is about suffrage. From an era of universal suffrage, it is hard to take arguments against it seriously. Mill seems to advocate a universal suffrage for anyone who could read, write, and do basic math, with state-owned institutions for one to learn these things if they did not get an education. Seems fair. He then goes on and says only tax payers and people who do not received aid should have suffrage. That is a little harder to swallow, but I am unfamiliar with the tax and welfare systems of 1860s England, so I will let it slide. I don't know if there was an income tax; I don't think the US had one except during the war. Mill then talks about, and possibly favors, giving certain people more votes instead of giving universal suffrage. The educated elite would get more votes to somehow have a fair sized representation. This would keep an antagonist group in the chamber and prevent a majority from taking full control and allowing the country to stagnate and decline. Plural voting or whatever you want to call it sounds stupid, and Mill himself acknowledges that most would favor universal suffrage. There's a nice quote where Mill says property should have nothing to do with merit or voting. ...accident has so much more to do than merit with enabling men to rise in the world.
I think Mill's own quote should be an argument against his plurality and anti-welfare suffrage.
Every one has a right to feel insulted by being made a nobody, and stamped as of no account at all.
The chapter ends with Mill talking about how he didn't bring up women because they should by default be given suffrage. The 9th chapter was about multi-level elections, i.e., the nominal concept of the elector college. He thinks its mostly dumb to have someone vote for an elector and then that elector vote for the representative. Any person interested enough in voting already has a candidate in mind they want to vote for. That's why the electoral college fails, because we vote for “electors” who already pledged to vote for a candidate and are punished by law if they change. Abolish the dumb thing. Mill says it is only useful if the electors have other functions. Like in the early 19th century America where the state legislatures chose the US senators. In theory, a citizen votes for their state representative, who is then an elector for the senator. Clearly that wasn't satisfactory since that system is long dead.

January 25th, 2023

Considerations on Representative Government I forgot to write earlier in the week. I read the 10th and 11th chapters. The 10th was on the method of voting. It looks like Mill does not care for secret ballots. He has the fanciful notion that scorn from one's peers would force them to make good choices if they their vote was made public. I think it would do more harm than good. People have many reasons for voting for a certain candidate. A person can't always look at the big picture. This type of ostracizing would hurt the people who vote for minority candidates or “shameful” candidates, like socialists, or secular candidates in a religious region, etc. It could tear families apart or lead to targeted violence. You get the same terrorizing effects that secret ballots had in the 1800s. I'm going to have to strongly disagree with Mill on this. The 11th was on the duration of Parliaments. It was very short. I didn't really get it because I don't know all the rules of Parliament, but at least I agree with the US House of Representatives, where the slate is wiped clean annually. Abolish the Senate.

January 29th, 2023

Considerations on Representative Government The 12th chapter is on the job of a representative. Specifically, are they meant to represent the exact wishes of their constituents, or are they supposed to act independently and do what they think is right? Mill, in his standard verboseness, really in the classic philosophical “say a little in a lot of pages”, backs the latter. Of course Mill thinks that a intelligent and worthy individual should be elected and thus act in no one’s particular interests, but do what is right and best for the nation. Acting like a foreign minister and waiting for instructions from home is a possibility, but Mill does not endorse it. I mostly agree. If people do not like the choices or actions of their official, they can elect someone else next year. However, I personally wish my elected officials would ask for my opinion. I’m certainly smarter than them. The 13th chapter is on the 2 Chamber system. Mill thinks it unnecessary. He acknowledges the usefulness of a second chamber that is designed to check the power of the other chamber. One chamber is much more likely to become tyrannical if a majority can grab hold of power. It is human nature. He does not think two houses that are both just clones of each other would be useful. The second chamber should be, for lack of a better word, the “ideal” senate. It would be a house of seasoned and worthy individuals free from constituencies and given the office for life for their merit. Mill of course rejects something like the House of Lords, based on aristocracy and has no power to challenge the Commons if something were to happen. I’m not sure what is best. In America, I understand why some consider the Senate archaic and anti-democratic. It is not representative of the population and thus has an unfair control over their lives. But historically, would the Terror have happened if there was a second chamber to challenge Robespierre? Who knows? I find a second chamber comfortable, but it is also what I’m used to. Obviously multiple European nations function with single chambers without slaughter. I just looked up and saw that Denmark even abolished it’s second chamber in the 1950’s. All the Scandinavians are unicameral. Must be good then.

February 4th, 2023

Considerations on Representative Government I have been negligent in my reading. Chapter 14 takes an aside and discusses the executive. In short, Mill thinks that each responsibility to should belong to a single individual who can take all the credit or all the blame for his actions. This makes sense. He advocates advisory councils with no power, but a duty to speak their honest opinions, which would be public record. This system existed in British India, but was unfortunately considered by some to be a wasteful bureaucracy. Then Mill explains why he is opposed to the public election of the elective. In England, the PM is appointed by Parliament. The majority party chooses the best of their members and I guess can vote him out of office if need be. Mill believes the American system to be wrong because the candidates are usually the most unknown and least offensive candidate is chosen in order to avoid alienating the public. This may be so at the time, but it is certainly outdated. For the last century, presidents have been former senators, governors, or vice presidents, excluding Trump & Eisenhower. These are all experienced and well-known political individuals (or just well-known), and Trump proves that parties do not put forth the least offensive or most unknown. I also disagree with the appointing of the executive, a la the Royal Governors. They may be good individuals, but how can you get rid of a bad one, especially in a corrupt system? Public election is necessary. Same for judges. I allow that they may be appointed, but they should either be removable or impeachable by public vote. Only the public vote can stamp out corruption. The fifteenth chapter is about local representation and rather boring. I think the American system is good enough. Federal government for inter-state and foreign affairs, state government for state affairs, country government and town/city government for local affairs. Governors should be elected and then appoint their cronies, state should have a single house elected annually. Counties can have a board elected annually and towns should have their own government mostly independent from the county. Towns should follow the New England system of direct action. If you want to partake in governing your town, go to the town hall meetings.

February 6th, 2023

Considerations on Representative Government Coming to the end of things. The sixteenth chapter is about nationalism tied to a country. Essentially, Mill says it’s difficult to impossible for people who are too different to function under one government without turning on each other. It’s mainly language, culture, religion, etc, which I think becomes less true over time. He makes the point that federations are different, which is the next chapter. Quebec and the rest of Canada manage to make things work, while Spain struggles to keep a single identity. In America, there is obvious racial tension despite very similar cultures. In the seventeenth chapter, Mill talks about federations. He says there’s two types: one where the states are subordinate and one where the states have to give their consent to the federal laws. The latter, like the Articles of Confederation and pre-united Germany, are doomed to fail. The latter, like the US Constitution and Switzerland, can be successful. Especially so in Switzerland, which has diverse languages and religion, while the US’s common culture failed over the politics of slavery. I don’t consider the US a federation today, however. The federal government is much more powerful and the representation should be more democratic. Mill praised the House and Senate system, but it is outdated and gives small populations disproportional power. Mill prefers the single country to the federation, but whatever works in each scenario. I wonder how Mill would feel about the EU, which follows an Articles of Confederation type of system, I think. I guess the economic benefits make it worth it, and the halt to killing each other.

February 7th, 2023

Considerations on Representative Government The final chapter is more or less Mill’s opinions on colonialism. It’s not specifically relevant to the modern world, but some points may be. He seems to approve the type of colonialism which is seem between England and Canada or Australia, where people are of the same “type”. He acknowledges that the inferiority of the colonies is not very fair and that is could be considered a one-sided federalism. He thinks ultimately, it should be dissolved, I believe. He spends a lot time complaining about the type of colonialism like England and India, of different peoples. Mill does not call this a government but a despotism, since people cannot be governed unwillingly. Not a shocking opinion there. So ends the book. Mill does not summarize and it seems all the books end abruptly.