John Stewart Mill's Essay On Liberty
John Stewart Mill, in his essay On Liberty (1859), is concerned with the question of ‘the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual’ . Thus, in this excerpt Mill discusses limited government and personal liberty.
Mill argues ‘the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others’ . Here Mill presents his ‘harm principle’, which classifies all harmful behaviour. He writes that there are two types of harm – self-regarding (causing harm to oneself) and other regarding (causing harm to others). Mill was of the belief that the state should only have the authority to interfere in cases involving …show more content…
Whilst Mill claimed that order was the ‘twin of liberty’, he, Locke and Voltaire all agreed that only in the ‘state of nature’ could there be total freedom - as in reality total freedom produced anarchy. Similarly Mill and Locke both admitted a tension between freedom and equality – state enforcement being necessary to prevent inequality. Classical liberals (like Mill) may have seen that all three cannot exist at their ideals in harmony, but still believed individual freedom to be of the highest importance. Modern liberals moved away from such extremes, attempting to find more …show more content…
This is evident in his line ‘over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign’ . Mill once again proposes an extension of personal liberty, thus limiting government. This contrasts with the ideas of Thomas Hobbes, whose primary goal is security. Hobbes believes ‘worst of all’ was the ‘continuall feare, and danger of a violent death’ arguing that security stems from a strong leader. Therefore Mill’s form of government does not provide people with the level of safety that they desire. Another criticism comes from Communitarians, who claim that people are social beings - our sense of identity being bound up in our community. Mill even acknowledges this writing ‘the social state is one so natural, so necessary to man’
Mill argues ‘the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others’ . Here Mill presents his ‘harm principle’, which classifies all harmful behaviour. He writes that there are two types of harm – self-regarding (causing harm to oneself) and other regarding (causing harm to others). Mill was of the belief that the state should only have the authority to interfere in cases involving …show more content…
Whilst Mill claimed that order was the ‘twin of liberty’, he, Locke and Voltaire all agreed that only in the ‘state of nature’ could there be total freedom - as in reality total freedom produced anarchy. Similarly Mill and Locke both admitted a tension between freedom and equality – state enforcement being necessary to prevent inequality. Classical liberals (like Mill) may have seen that all three cannot exist at their ideals in harmony, but still believed individual freedom to be of the highest importance. Modern liberals moved away from such extremes, attempting to find more …show more content…
This is evident in his line ‘over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign’ . Mill once again proposes an extension of personal liberty, thus limiting government. This contrasts with the ideas of Thomas Hobbes, whose primary goal is security. Hobbes believes ‘worst of all’ was the ‘continuall feare, and danger of a violent death’ arguing that security stems from a strong leader. Therefore Mill’s form of government does not provide people with the level of safety that they desire. Another criticism comes from Communitarians, who claim that people are social beings - our sense of identity being bound up in our community. Mill even acknowledges this writing ‘the social state is one so natural, so necessary to man’