Freedom From Coercion And The Freedom Of Living A Thriving...

Based on two different definitions of liberty, the state and corporations each have different threats to individuals. There are two ways to define liberty, the freedom from coercion and the freedom to live a flourishing life. If solely based on the first definition, the state is more coercive than corporations and has more intrusion on individual liberty. It has rights to grant punishment of imprisonment while a corporation can hardly achieve that severity. For example, if a person is accused of committing a crime, he or she may be placed in jail and lose the basic liberty, for example, to see families whenever they want to. In comparison, the worst punishment by a corporation, being fired by the firm, cannot compare with that from the†¦show more content†¦These examples illustrate that corporations have the abilities to force individuals, especially those who live in poverty, to work in bad conditions or with below-average wages. In this way, corporations harm individual fr eedom to live flourishing lives because they could provide more just treatments to the employees. To summarize, the state takes away more individual freedom from coercion while corporations take away more freedom to live flourishing lives. While both harm individual liberty to a certain extent, the state has a stronger moral justification to intervene because it takes away liberty to increase individual well-being. According to Mill, individuals should have the ability to do what they freely want so long as they do not harm others (Mill, 945). Although Mill argues for less government intervention, he recognizes the role that the state plays to increase individual well-being in society (Mill, 970, 971). In other words, a state even though should not exercise its power over a society to govern, it is necessary and just to do so to prevent harm to others and to protect well-being. The government thus should step in sometimes to regulate and punish illegal behaviors in order to maintain the order of society. The state, according to Mill, can make decisions in some cases in order to best protect individuals while allowing informed people to make their own educated decisions with the exception