Mill Vs Rousseau

Mill’s notions of government also do not always stand firm as choice should not be left entirely to individuals is on account of their potential lack of knowledge or inability to properly judge what is best for themselves. For example, subjects tend to think in the short term and might not understand the long-term implications of their actions. Similarly, they might not have access to vast amounts of data. As such, their perception and decision-making skills may be slightly skewed. Therefore, they may act in such a way that appears correct but has a net negative effect on them. As a result, there must be a synthesis of Rousseau and Mill’s ideas on the role of government: Governments may provide paternalistic guidelines which citizens follow,

In this case, it is true that it is in each citizen’s best interest to further their life. Kant defends this notion in Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals, writing that if everyone were to not focus on furthering their life, humanity would cease to exist; therefore, each and every person should try to prolong and better their time on earth (Kant, 1785 pg. 31). Therefore, the government has a right to act in a paternalistic way along the lines of Rousseau’s ideas to defend the lives of its subjects when regarding decisions in which citizens might not fully comprehend the extent of their actions. In fact, it has a duty to prolong and better its citizens’ lives. One way to further the lives of its citizens is to better their health, as there is a direct correlation between increased health quality with better living standards and longer life (Jaba, Balan, & Robu, 2014). Similarly, individuals might not foresee themselves becoming ill or injured on account of a lack of information or may choose to spend current income instead of insuring their future. Consequently, the sovereign may act in such a way to better the health of its subjects and therefore protect the lives of its citizens as it is in the best interest of the general populace and also each citizen

The overarching idea behind the program is that good nutrition prolongs and enhances the lives of its citizens, therefore accomplishing the general will of the people. As a result, the government must act in such a way to better nourish its citizens. However, the state also recognizes that individuals know themselves and their preferences best, so the government, therefore, provides a stipend to subsidize the purchase of healthy, unprepared foods so that its citizens have enough to feed themselves (USDA, 2014). In the program, individuals purchase unprepared food from local grocery stores with the government subsidy (USDA, 2014). This mode of implementation resulted in an efficient program that helped millions. Consequently, the SNAP program is an enduring example of how a federal program accomplishing the general will can be carried out on an individual