Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion.
The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Without going into a detailed thesis of my political beliefs, I am going to share a few basic beliefs so that you will understand where I am coming from in relation to the theories that Mill argues in favor of in this book.
The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. Now I certainly understand that for a lot of people this is just too limited a governmental role and they feel like there are things the government NEEDS to do.
Rather, he argues that this liberal system will bring people to the good more effectively than physical or emotional coercion. They consisted of a governing One, or a governing tribe or caste, who derived their authority from inheritance or conquest; who, at all events, did not hold it at the pleasure of the governed, and whose supremacy men did not venture, perhaps did not desire, to contest, whatever precautions might be taken against its oppressive exercise.
The only case in which the higher ground has been taken on principle and maintained with consistency, by any but an individual here and there, is that of religious belief: His fifth chapter looks at particular examples and applications of the theory, to clarify the meaning of his claims.
A few years ago, if you were to line up everyone on goodreads according to political beliefs, I would guess that I would be found at the more conservative end of the spectrum. For example, if a scientist discovered a comet about to kill the planet in a matter of weeks, it may cause more happiness to suppress the truth than to allow society to discover the impending danger.
The nation did not need to be protected against its own will. In all things which regard the external relations of the individual, he is de jure amenable to those whose interests are concerned, and if need be, to society as their protector.
Mill states that On Liberty "was more directly and literally our joint production than anything else which bears my name. And men range themselves on one or the other side in any particular case, according to this general direction of their sentiments; or according to the degree of interest which they feel in the particular thing which it is proposed that the government should do; or according to the belief they entertain that the government would, or would not, do it in the manner they prefer; but very rarely on account of any opinion to which they consistently adhere, as to what things are fit to be done by a government.
Being consistent and applying the same reasoning as above to economic issues will probably make me sound very conservative, but it is really just a consistent application of the concept of individual freedom.
Neither was that notion necessarily disturbed by such temporary aberrations as those of the French Revolution, the worst of which were the work of an usurping few, and which, in any case, belonged, not to the permanent working of popular institutions, but to a sudden and convulsive outbreak against monarchical and aristocratic despotism.
First, by obtaining a recognition of certain immunities, called political liberties or rights, which it was to be regarded as a breach of duty in the ruler to infringe, and which, if he did infringe, specific resistance, or general rebellion, was held to be justifiable.
I had to step away for a bit. He states that the purpose of liberty is to allow a person to pursue their interest. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.
In the book, Mill takes the position that, with certain limited exceptions, people should be free to think what they want, believe what they want, worship or not worship as they want, speak and write freely and conduct their own personal lives without interference from the government.
As the struggle proceeded for making the ruling power emanate from the periodical choice of the ruled, some persons began to think that too much importance had been attached to the limitation of the power itself. Mill attempts to prove his claim from the first chapter that opinions ought never to be suppressed.
Some religions believe that they have a God given duty to enforce religious norms. It was now perceived that such phrases as "self-government," and "the power of the people over themselves," do not express the true state of the case.
Mill's essay has been criticized for being overly vague about the limits of liberty, for placing too much of an emphasis on the individual, and for not making a useful distinction between actions that only harm oneself, and actions that harm others.
Thus, those who suppress it are worthy of punishment. When we gather to give thanks, we should remember the extraordinarily courageous John F. Mill spends the rest of the chapter responding to objections to his maxim. by John Stuart Mill () CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY.
THE subject of this Essay is not the so-called Liberty of the Will, so unfortunately opposed to the misnamed doctrine of Philosophical Necessity; but Civil, or Social Liberty: the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.
by John Stuart Mill () CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY. THE subject of this Essay is not the so-called Liberty of the Will, so unfortunately opposed to the misnamed doctrine of Philosophical Necessity; but Civil, or Social Liberty: the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.
On Liberty: John Stuart Mill: John Stuart Mill explains “The subject of this Essay is not the so-called Liberty of the Will, so unfortunately opposed to the misnamed doctrine of Philosophical Necessity; but Civil, or Social Liberty: the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.”.
Liberty John Stuart Mill 1: Introduction another ·enemy·, and to be ruled by a master on condition that they had a fairly effective guarantee against his tyranny, they didn’t try for anything more than this. Reading Mill at this particular moment in our history is to be reminded not only of the source of our most cherished ideals of liberty and political liberalism but also of the powerful logical and moral reasons supporting our idea of /5().
“In this age, the mere example of non-conformity, the mere refusal to bend the knee to custom, is itself a service. Precisely because the tyranny of opinion is such as to make eccentricity a reproach, it is desirable, in order to break through that tyranny, that people should be eccentric.On liberty by mill