To illustrate Mill's concern with the uncultivated making poor decisions, consider the following example. Your state government determines that it has a budget surplus of $5 billion that it must spend before the end of the fiscal year. So, the legislature puts the following to a popular vote: ALL citizens currently residing in the state are entitled to either (1) a free college education; or (2) a free lifetime supply of beer. Because the "uncultivated" among you may not be able to distinguish between the "lower" good of free beer and the "higher" good of free education, do you believe that the majority of citizens would choose the beer? In what, if any, ways might decisions such as this led to the eventual decline of the cultural and intellectual life of your state? Mill argued that we should implement a requirement that people be "competent" judges, familiar with differences, before they could vote. Do you agree? IF so, how should we determine who is competent or who is not?

Because the "uncultivated" among you may not be able to distinguish between the "lower" good of free beer and the "higher" good of free education, do you believe that the majority of citizens would choose the beer?

Mill believed that a proper utilitarian behavior would favor nobler and higher pleasures, e.g. education, arts, while it will rejects voluptuary or low level pleasures, e.g. free beer for life. That is why he separates people between those who only seek low level pursuits and those that actually seek higher ones.

I would really feel disappointed if the majority of the state's residents voted for free beer, but actually I really believe that it would be the winning option. Sadly, it is like watching Titanic and still hope that Leo will not die. You know its inevitable, but until the last moment you will not accept it.

In what, if any, ways might decisions such as this led to the eventual decline of the cultural and intellectual life of your state?

When I was little (on kindergarten), my teacher taught us 3 things:

I hope that other teachers still do the same and keep teaching these things, but I'm not so sure about the third one. Sadfully, as a society becomes less educated and less intellectual, they start to decline. That decline not only represents being dumber, but it also means that every time it will be harder for someone to do the right thing and to be able to succeed.

Mill argued that we should implement a requirement that people be "competent" judges, familiar with differences, before they could vote. Do you agree? IF so, how should we determine who is competent or who is not?

I do not agree with him since the basic premise of democracy is that everyone should be allowed to vote. No one has the right to determine who is competent enough to vote.

E.g. I do not like President Trump, and if I could determine who could vote or not, I would dictate that only people living in large urban areas should be allowed to vote. Why? Because according to me, urban life is better than rural life. This way I would make sure that the Republican party never wins an election again, but is that fair? Of course not. People living in rural areas or small towns have the same right to vote than people living on cities.

The same logic would apply to only allowing people living on wealthy states to vote, or only allowing people of certain race to vote. Whenever someone tries to limit other people's rights, bad things will happen.

answer loneliness;

consumer credit. an advantage is that it allows consumers to afford expensive goods and services now, increasing their standard of living. however, a disadvantage is that it creates a trap for debt, if people do not have self control, they may see themselves filing personal bankruptcy.