From the Internet, research and select a government contract that interests you. Provide a link to the contract in your discussion. Examine the contract and evaluate the effectiveness of the contract.
If you believe it is an outstanding government contract, what are the specific parts of the contract that make it such an outstanding government contract?
If it is a “bad” contract, what would you have changed and why?
capable of living by the Harm Principle and valuing individual liberty. This is because firstly, the Harm Principle depends on reciprocity and he believes that “barbarians”, the people of these “uncivilised” societies, are not capable of this (Mill 2006: 259). Secondly, they are not past a point in their development where they would not benefit from being conquered by foreigners. (Mill 2006: 259). Despite these things, however, Mill still only advocated for colonialism and governing these uncivilised people against their will where “the end” is the “improvement” of these people by pedagogical coercion. (Mill 2011:19) This means nurturing them to understand the rule of law and enforcing a British style education system and hence helping to prepare them for their struggle to gain self-rule and individual liberty. However, the British imperialism that Mill defends is far from the imperialism advanced by most historians, as Britain was not nurturing societies to prepare them for self-rule and to adopt individual liberty. (Tunick 2006: 587) Although we cannot expect Mill to apply the norms of today, his ideas clearly lack a greater perspective as he didn’t consider that civilised people like the British might actually be barbaric, and capable of massacres and corruption. For example, the East India Company enforced obdurate monopolies over rice that led to a famine in 1770 that killed a third of the population of Bengal. (Ryan 2014: 1-14) Sullivan claims that Mill acknowledged the brutality of the British, but continued to maintain that their presence would still lead to a better civilisation that valued individual liberty. (Sullivan 1983: 611) However, this seems very unlikely as clearly the people were not being nurtured as he intended. Therefore, since the local people are not being improved to the extent that they are ready to adopt the principle of individual liberty and Mill believes intervention is unacceptable if it did not lead to the improvement of the local people, based on his own view he should disapprove of, rather than support, British colonialism. It must also be highlighted that Mill does not consistently sustain his argument that colonialism leads to other societies valuing individual liberty. For example, in “Considerations on Representative Government” he merely talks of the prestige that colonialism brings to the colonising power and does not mention preparing the people for individual liberty through pedagogical coercion. (Mill 1963) (Ryan 2014: 11). It is possible that Mill’s opinions evolved over time to value the improvement of the local people, however this is unlikely given that “Considerations”, in which he talks of prestige, was published two years after “A Few Words on Non-Intervention” where he highlights how the colonised people must be improved. (Mill 2006: 259) His justification for colonialism in “Considerations” is therefore a great contradiction to his commitment to individual liberty. This suggests that his view that colonialism led to more individual liberty for the people was an idea rather than a definitive policy. (Isak 2007: 359-400). Mill’s justification that colonialism will nurture the people to adopt the principle>GET ANSWER