weel 11
Classical liberals like Mill usually argue that so long as you aren't being coerced or forced to do something by the state, then you are free. People sympathetic to Marx are likely to argue that freedom requires that we are protected from forms of coercion that stem from economic disparities, and that this perhaps requires some kind of active state intervention to make sure that we are free to make our own economic choices.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree with Mill or Marx? Or perhaps a little with both?


I would say that in order to have an equilibrium between the individual and the state we have to have some of the both sides. Even though I think Marx is a little extremist, I agree with him "that a society that's run by and for the people and that guarantees everyone a living wage, education, health care, and cultural enrichment is a society in which there is true freedom for the masses". On the other hand I have to agree more with Mills and his statement on liberalism where he defends the freedom of speech and the individual autonomy where he says " the state cannot intrude on the sphere of your personal life." We see that going on today with gay marriage.