Individuality and the State

In the first chapter of The Ethics of Identity revolves around john Stuart Mill's views on identity or more specifically individuality.
Appiah talks about how Mill's ideas of how government should interconnect with individuality.
In the section Individuality and the State he believes that Mills has been understood very differently even by liberal theorist. Appiah uses many quotes from mill to get his point across.

here is his argument through quotation.





"the first element of a good government, being the virtue and intelligence of the human beings composing the community, the most important point of excellence which any form of government can possess is to promote the virtue and intelligence of its people" (26).

"What more or better can be said of any condition of human affairs, than it brings humans being themselves nearer to the best thing they can be? or what worse can be said of any obstruction to good, than that it prevents this?" (27).

It is not a reclusive government or a restrictive one. The term used is positive support. It is trying to give advice and spread information so that people can come to a greater fulfillment.

"A government, instead of issuing a command and enforcing it by penalties, adopts the course so seldom reverted to by government, and of which such important use might be made, that of giving advice or promulgating information; and when, leaving individuals free to use their own means of pursuing any object of general interest, the government, not meddling with them, but not trusting the object solely to their care, establishes, side by side with their arrangements, an agency of its own for a like purpose" (31, 32).

I just realized that it is probably one of the longest sentences i have ever read that still makes sense. Way to go Mills!!!

ok... back to the topic at hand. The idea is that a government should not tell you what is good and what is bad but it should have your best interests in mind. By having your best interests in mind it should look to what you are doing so that you are safe. It should, if i am correct in my understanding, support the endeavor and get involved, not to the point of control but say giving grants or providing workspace. I believe that this is not toward the individual but more toward the public in general. If people start becoming really interested in saving the forests then the government should find some way to help save the forest.

This sort of positive support is an interesting conception of government, but I think it takes government out of its context. I might be wrong on my history here, but just by thinking it out it would seem that government was created initially for only two reasons.

1. to protect us from external forces or threats: wars, global warming, etc...

2. To protect us from ourselves: justice, law etc...

These to things both do one essential thing, take our worry away. It gives us structure and a faith so that we can focus on other things.

I would think that this would still apply today. We have added many things to the American constitution but i think most of them fall under one of the two categories. The definition of what exactly we need protection from is a completely different discussion.
I just believe that the first role of a government is not to enhance the well-being of its people but to manipulate the world in a way that makes well-being possible.

Establishing the two things initial roles of government I believe are the first roles of government.
I think that part of protecting people from each other is to tell them what to do.