Rating: 
Summary: Liberty for all!
Review: It is surprising to me how many people assume that 'On Liberty' was written before or during the American Revolution - Mill was certainly influenced by the spirit of American liberty, which was variously romanticised and adapted in Britain and Europe during the nineteenth century. Published in 1859, 'On Liberty' is one of the primary political texts of the nineteenth century; perhaps only the writings of Marx had a similar impact, and of the two, in today's world, Mill's philosophy seems the one that is triumphant. One of the interesting ideas behind 'On Liberty' is that this may in fact be more the inspiration of Harriet Taylor (later Mrs. J.S. Mill) than of Mill himself; Taylor wrote an essay on Toleration, most likely in 1832, but it remained unpublished until after her death. F.A. Hayek (free-market economist and philosopher) noticed this connection. Whether this was the direct inspiration or not, the principles are similar, and the Mills were rather united in their views about liberty. 'On Liberty' is more of an extended essay than a book - it isn't very long (104 pages of the text in the Norton Critical Edition, edited by David Spitz). It relates as a political piece to his general Utilitarianism and political reform ideology. A laissez faire capitalist in political economy, his writing has been described as 'improved Adam Smith' and 'popularised Ricardo'. Perhaps it is in part the brevity of 'On Liberty' that gives it an enduring quality. There are five primary sections to the text. The introduction sets the stage philosophically and historically. He equates the histories of classical civilisations (Greece and Rome) with his contemporary England, stating that the struggle between liberty and authority is ever present and a primary feature of society. He does not hold with unbridled or unfettered democracy, either (contrary to some popular readings of his text) - he warns that the tyranny of the majority can be just as dangerous and damaging toward a society as any individual or oligarchic despotism. Mill looks for a liberty that permits individualism; thus, while democracy is an important feature for Mill, there must be a system of checks and balances that ensures individual liberties over and against this kind of system. All of these elements receive further development in subsequent sections. The second section of the text is 'Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion'. Freedom of speech and expression is an important aspect here. Mill presents a somewhat radical proposition that even should the government and the people be in complete agreement with regard to coercive action, it would still be an illegitimate power. This is an important consideration in today's world, as governments and people contemplate the curtailment of civil liberties in favour of increased security needs. The possibility of fallibility, according to Mill, makes the power illegitimate, and (again according to Mill) it doesn't matter if it affects many or only a few, people today or posterity. It is still wrong. Mill develops this argument largely by using the history of religious ideas and religious institutions, in addition to the political (since the two were so often inter-related). The third section is perhaps the best known and most quoted, 'Of Individuality, as One of the Elements of Well-Being'. It is perhaps a natural consequence of Enlightenment thinking that individuality over communal and corporate identity would dominate. Our world today goes back and forth between individual and communal identities (nationality, regionality, employment, church affiliation, school affiliation, sports teams, etc.). Mill's ideas of individual are very modern, quite at home with the ideas of modern political and civil individuality, with all of the responsibilities. Mill states, 'No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions.' He recognises the increased limitations on individual liberty given that we do live in communal settings, but this does not hinder the idea of individuality and individual liberty, particularly as it pertains to thoughts and speech. Mill explores various ideas of personal identity and action (medieval, Calvinist, etc.) to come up with an idea of individuality that is rather modern; of course, this is political personhood that pre-dates the advent of psychology/psychoanalytic theory that will give rise to a lot more confusion for the role of identity and personhood in society. The fourth primary section looks theoretically at the individual in community, 'Of the Limits to the Authority of Society Over the Individual'; the final section looks at specific applications. Mill discounts the idea of social contract while maintain that there is a mutual responsibility between individuals and community. Mill looks at the Temperance movements and laws as an example of bad laws (not only from the aspect of curtailment of liberty, but also for impractical aspects of enforcement); in similar examples, Mill looks at the role of society in regulating the life of the individual, calling on good government to always err on the side of the individual. Mill puts it very directly -- Individuals are accountable only to themselves, unless their actions concern the interests of society at large. Few in the Western world would argue with this today; however, we still live in a world where 'thought police' are feared, and 'political correctness' is debated as appropriate or not with regard to individual liberties. Mill wrote extensively beyond this text, in areas of philosophy (logic, religion, ethics). The particular text I use here, the Norton Critical Edition, has a good annotated text of 'On Liberty', a copy of Harriet Taylor's essay, 'On Tolerance', and a criticism section, including five essays written against Mill's ideas and constructions, and four essays in favour. There is also a useful bibliography and index. This should probably be required reading in civics classes, if not in the pre-university years for students, then certainly in the early university years.
Rating:
Summary: Liberty for all!
Review: It is surprising to me how many people assume that `On Liberty' was written before or during the American Revolution - Mill was certainly influenced by the spirit of American liberty, which was variously romanticised and adapted in Britain and Europe during the nineteenth century. Published in 1859, `On Liberty' is one of the primary political texts of the nineteenth century; perhaps only the writings of Marx had a similar impact, and of the two, in today's world, Mill's philosophy seems the one that is triumphant. One of the interesting ideas behind `On Liberty' is that this may in fact be more the inspiration of Harriet Taylor (later Mrs. J.S. Mill) than of Mill himself; Taylor wrote an essay on Toleration, most likely in 1832, but it remained unpublished until after her death. F.A. Hayek (free-market economist and philosopher) noticed this connection. Whether this was the direct inspiration or not, the principles are similar, and the Mills were rather united in their views about liberty. `On Liberty' is more of an extended essay than a book - it isn't very long (104 pages of the text in the Norton Critical Edition, edited by David Spitz). It relates as a political piece to his general Utilitarianism and political reform ideology. A laissez faire capitalist in political economy, his writing has been described as `improved Adam Smith' and `popularised Ricardo'. Perhaps it is in part the brevity of `On Liberty' that gives it an enduring quality. There are five primary sections to the text. The introduction sets the stage philosophically and historically. He equates the histories of classical civilisations (Greece and Rome) with his contemporary England, stating that the struggle between liberty and authority is ever present and a primary feature of society. He does not hold with unbridled or unfettered democracy, either (contrary to some popular readings of his text) - he warns that the tyranny of the majority can be just as dangerous and damaging toward a society as any individual or oligarchic despotism. Mill looks for a liberty that permits individualism; thus, while democracy is an important feature for Mill, there must be a system of checks and balances that ensures individual liberties over and against this kind of system. All of these elements receive further development in subsequent sections. The second section of the text is `Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion'. Freedom of speech and expression is an important aspect here. Mill presents a somewhat radical proposition that even should the government and the people be in complete agreement with regard to coercive action, it would still be an illegitimate power. This is an important consideration in today's world, as governments and people contemplate the curtailment of civil liberties in favour of increased security needs. The possibility of fallibility, according to Mill, makes the power illegitimate, and (again according to Mill) it doesn't matter if it affects many or only a few, people today or posterity. It is still wrong. Mill develops this argument largely by using the history of religious ideas and religious institutions, in addition to the political (since the two were so often inter-related). The third section is perhaps the best known and most quoted, `Of Individuality, as One of the Elements of Well-Being'. It is perhaps a natural consequence of Enlightenment thinking that individuality over communal and corporate identity would dominate. Our world today goes back and forth between individual and communal identities (nationality, regionality, employment, church affiliation, school affiliation, sports teams, etc.). Mill's ideas of individual are very modern, quite at home with the ideas of modern political and civil individuality, with all of the responsibilities. Mill states, `No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions.' He recognises the increased limitations on individual liberty given that we do live in communal settings, but this does not hinder the idea of individuality and individual liberty, particularly as it pertains to thoughts and speech. Mill explores various ideas of personal identity and action (medieval, Calvinist, etc.) to come up with an idea of individuality that is rather modern; of course, this is political personhood that pre-dates the advent of psychology/psychoanalytic theory that will give rise to a lot more confusion for the role of identity and personhood in society. The fourth primary section looks theoretically at the individual in community, `Of the Limits to the Authority of Society Over the Individual'; the final section looks at specific applications. Mill discounts the idea of social contract while maintain that there is a mutual responsibility between individuals and community. Mill looks at the Temperance movements and laws as an example of bad laws (not only from the aspect of curtailment of liberty, but also for impractical aspects of enforcement); in similar examples, Mill looks at the role of society in regulating the life of the individual, calling on good government to always err on the side of the individual. Mill puts it very directly -- Individuals are accountable only to themselves, unless their actions concern the interests of society at large. Few in the Western world would argue with this today; however, we still live in a world where `thought police' are feared, and `political correctness' is debated as appropriate or not with regard to individual liberties. Mill wrote extensively beyond this text, in areas of philosophy (logic, religion, ethics). The particular text I use here, the Norton Critical Edition, has a good annotated text of `On Liberty', a copy of Harriet Taylor's essay, `On Tolerance', and a criticism section, including five essays written against Mill's ideas and constructions, and four essays in favour. There is also a useful bibliography and index. This should probably be required reading in civics classes, if not in the pre-university years for students, then certainly in the early university years.
Rating: 
Summary: Profound, if not perfect
Review: It was not Socialism itself that is an evil, but the way it was implemented in some countries, in response to white-anglo-whatever's totally value-less review. Mill's book about liberty was of vast importance in freeing the individual from the tyranny of communal opinion. Someone may dislike homosexuals, but has no right to harass them or pass ethical judgements on them for what is their choice, of no harm to anyone else. Those are opinions of an indeterminate validity. Socal intervention may only be used to protect someone from restriction of their liberties. What Mill lacks in rigour, he makes up for in persuasiveness. He has some great lines in defense of liberty, a pre-dominant value of human life. Although, it is to be noted that the book can be somewhat tedious in areas which it is repetitive. This book also illustrates what can be seen as a fault in utilitarianism. Utilitarianism takes no notice of other values, or of a conflict of values, such as liberty of existence over the majorities happiness, in which ethics slides into absurdity.
Rating:
Summary: More relevant today than in 1859 :(
Review: John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was interested in the nature of Civil Liberty, and the limits to the power that a Government can legitimately exercise upon its citizens. He believed that some worrying tendencies could be observed in the England society of his time, and tried to warn others about them. The author basically explains his ideas regarding the preservation of individual liberties, not only due to the fact that they are rights owed to everyone, but also because they benefit society as a whole. For example, when he says that liberty of thought and of discussion must be preserved, he tells us that "Wrong opinions and practices gradually yield to fact and argument: but fact and arguments, to produce any effect on the mind, must be brought before it". How can mistaken beliefs or actions be proven wrong, if dissent is forbidden?. The loss for society is clear: "If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error". In order to preserve the liberties included in the concept of Civil Liberty, the author points out that there must be limits to the action of the Government. He says that "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others". Any other reason is simply not good enough. Thus, Stuart Mill highlights the rights of the individual, but also the limit to those rights: the well-being of others. "On Liberty" is not too long, and I think you are highly likely to enjoy it, if you can get past the first few pages. The problem is that even though the ideas in this book are quite modern, the language is somehow dated. But then, we must remember that "On Liberty" was written a long time ago... Notwithstanding that, do your best to read the first pages, and you will realize that after a while it will be much easier. This book is well-worth the effort you need to make at the beginning, because it is even more relevant today than when it was first published, in 1859. Are individual rights important?. Why?. Do they have a limit?. You will found the answer for these questions, and much more, in "On Liberty". What else can I say?. I believe this is a book that will help you to reflect on many important issues... I certainly can't think of a better reason to read it. All in all, recommended :) Belen Alcat
Rating:
Summary: Limits of Liberty and Society
Review: John Stuart Mill, author of On Liberty, defines the nature of civil liberty, and most importantly, the harm principl. He aims to give readers a better understanding of the nature and limits of power that can be exercised by society over individuals. The purpose of this book is to inform interested individuals about the rights of individuals and the limitations of the government. This book of philosophy was written almost 150 years ago. By reading the book, the reader is able to apply Mill's message and examples to our lives in America today. The ahead-of-the-times ideas that are in On Liberty can be related to our world because it discusses controversies that are still seen in our courtrooms today. Mill is able to accomplish his purpose because he uses many examples, thoughts, and theories about individual and social rights. He works through each of his ideas, looking at both sides of the issue to enable the reader to make their own informed decision about each matter. This book has a practical meaning because it allows the reader to develop and reason ideas about government power and when that power should be exercised over the people. Unfortunately, this book does have one draw back. Mill was a very educated man and wrote very well for his time. Yet today, our style and writing techniques are not the same as they were in the nineteenth century. This makes On Liberty a difficult book to read. His book is very decriptive, yet his wording is not easily understadable and some paragraphs have to be read two or three times to fully understand what he is writing about. Aside from his writing style, John Stuart Mill has put together an essay full of educated ideas about society and individuals. John Stuart Mill wrote an informative book geared towards an educated audience. He has achieved his purpose for the essay through the use of situations and examples that can be applied to real life cases still today. He managed to keep the readers interested and I look forward to reading other books he has written.
Rating:
Summary: Limits of Liberty and Society
Review: John Stuart Mill, author of On Liberty, defines the nature of civil liberty, and most importantly, the harm principl. He aims to give readers a better understanding of the nature and limits of power that can be exercised by society over individuals. The purpose of this book is to inform interested individuals about the rights of individuals and the limitations of the government. This book of philosophy was written almost 150 years ago. By reading the book, the reader is able to apply Mill's message and examples to our lives in America today. The ahead-of-the-times ideas that are in On Liberty can be related to our world because it discusses controversies that are still seen in our courtrooms today. Mill is able to accomplish his purpose because he uses many examples, thoughts, and theories about individual and social rights. He works through each of his ideas, looking at both sides of the issue to enable the reader to make their own informed decision about each matter. This book has a practical meaning because it allows the reader to develop and reason ideas about government power and when that power should be exercised over the people. Unfortunately, this book does have one draw back. Mill was a very educated man and wrote very well for his time. Yet today, our style and writing techniques are not the same as they were in the nineteenth century. This makes On Liberty a difficult book to read. His book is very decriptive, yet his wording is not easily understadable and some paragraphs have to be read two or three times to fully understand what he is writing about. Aside from his writing style, John Stuart Mill has put together an essay full of educated ideas about society and individuals. John Stuart Mill wrote an informative book geared towards an educated audience. He has achieved his purpose for the essay through the use of situations and examples that can be applied to real life cases still today. He managed to keep the readers interested and I look forward to reading other books he has written.
Rating:
Summary: A Bright Star of Secular Humanist Dogma
Review: JSM's On Liberty certainly stands among the classic works of the Age of Reason. Mill's encyclical is a perfect example of the tendency of the Enlightenment to believe something to be reasonable if it is couched in the proper language. Mill walks a tenuous path between Locke & Bentham, taking up a defense of liberty, but unwilling to risk his utilitarian street cred. Thus, we have beautiful assertions such as "the unchallenged idea is that which is in most danger", along side a perverse and logically twisted injection of "duty" into what is otherwise a syllogistic approach. Mill insists on a Lockian sphere of rights approach, then qualifies it in the cases of children (up to whatever age the law defines them), as well as in those societies that aren't developed enough for liberty (by Mill's definition?). Liberty is also to be restricted in such cases as a man might "sin by omission" and "fail to help his Brother." These wonderful sentiments are followed by more cognitive dissonance, various ad hominem attacks on Christianity (particularly those sinister Catholics), and a lot of hand-waving about polygamy. As an aside, I imagine that G.K. Chesteron had Mill in mind when he wrote "The worst judge of all is the man now most ready with his judgements; the ill-educated Christian turning gradually into the ill-tempered agnostic, entangled in the end of a feud of which he never understood the beginning, blighted with a sort of hereditary boredom with he knows not what, and already weary of hearing what he has never heard" Throughout the work, Mill's passions and prejudices skew his arguments. It is a fascinating display of intellectual agility, to watch him extolling freedom while restraining it; to see him preach tolerance, and even go so far as to tolerate intolerance. Note that this last feat reminds me of the Kobyashi Maru Strategy - win the unwinnable game by changing the rules. The typical cultural relativist will divide by zero when approached with the self-contradiction of the tolerant society. Mill side-steps the issue and goes along his merry way, proclaiming not a full page later that "there is always hope when people are forced to listen to both sides." It's refreshing to hear a champion of responsible liberty who's ready to practice coercion. Ultimately, Mill produces a monumental work that speaks volumes about more than its subject. His observations are supremely valuable, even when they are irrational, but most of the time he manages to define a system in which the interests of the state and the interests of the individual are balanced to his particular tastes. As a final note, unlike the introduction for Clausewitz' On War (another Penguin Classic), the Introduction here has value. Gertrude Himmelfarb thoroughly ties together Mill, his physical and intellectual parents, Mill's wife, his society, and peers, and manages to wrap the whole thing up in 42 pages.
Rating:
Summary: Important for political philosophy and ethics
Review: So many people in our modern political discourse will say, "I'm not hurting anybody," or, "We both consented to do this and we're not hurting anybody, you cannot interfere." These ideas stem from an essay written in 1859, probably not one of the most brilliant or original but an important statement in the history of political philosophy. Background I think Isaiah Berlin's Introduction is very helpful and helps one to understand the underlying philosophy that informed Mill. Mill was a major advocate of tolerance; but in nearly a century and a half since Mill's time, the meaning of this term has changed a great deal. "Toleration, Professor Butterfield has told us, implies a certain disrespect. I tolerate your absurd beliefs and your foolish acts, though I know them to be absurd and foolish. Mill would, I think, have agreed. He believed that to hold an opinion deeply is to throw our feelings into it. He once declared that when we deeply care, we must dislike those who hold the opposite views." (xvii) Mill was, "... a Victorian agnostic who was uncomfortable with atheism and regard religion as something that was exclusively the individual's own affair. " (xxxvii) Mill looks at the question of how far the State or society can limit the liberty of its citizens. Mill's answer is that the only limit that can be allowed is when an individual harms another; aside from this, the individual can do whatever s/he wants. In the late 1950's, Mill's thought was revived to justify the repeal of anti-homosexuality laws in Great Britain and recently the magazine, "The Economist," applied Mill's thought to say that "recreational" drugs should be legalized. Mill thought that the only possible rational reason that could be given to restrict individual liberties is that there is only one way to live life and all opposing views are spreading falsehoods (this is what Mill is arguing against). Mill's response is simply that people are fallible and therefore cannot have the whole truth. Thus, society has to allow differing viewpoints, diversity and people to exercise their liberty (with the restriction that it not harm other people). On Liberty Chapter 1: Introduction Mill outlines his thesis and explains what the issues are. His point in brief is, "That 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. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient reason." (pages 12-13) Chapter 2: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion Here, Mill defends the ABSOLUTE right of freedom of belief and expression. Mill discusses the idea that society's beliefs are often (i.e. 99% of the time) fallible and thus opposing views must be allowed. I liked Mill's view on conflicting ideas; if an idea is shown to be true because it has defeated all its rivals, one can be much more confident of it than if one were to suppress all other rivals. Chapter 3: Of Individuality, as one of the Elements of Well-being In this chapter, Mill encourages diversity; it is good for society that there be many lifestyles. Chapter 4: Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual Mill's defends the idea he explained in the Introduction. He rests the idea on a distinction of "other-regarding actions" vs. "self-regarding actions." I doubt that such a distinction can easily be made and if it could be made, I think, the "self-regarding actions," would be surprising small. Chapter 5: Applications Mill discusses some of the possible applications of his political philosophy; some of his examples are alcohol regulation, the sale of poisons and education. One of the most interesting points he makes is between two common ways politics govern a problematic issue; either an outright ban or regulation and taxes to make the acquiring the good or service difficult. Mill makes the point that the difference is only one of degree and not of kind; if an outright ban cannot be supported in principle, then the support for regulation/taxation to limit availability likewise loses support. Utilitarianism This is an ethical philosophy based on consequences; in Mill's formulation, whatever produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people is moral or morally desirable. He spends much of his essay defending the philosophy against opponents and makes some legitimate points. Mill's utilitarianism is a collective theory, not an individual one; one must attack to produce consequences that maximize the happiness of all and minimize suffering and pain. The main problem with utilitarianism is that it seeks to reduce morality to non-moral ends; morality is an instrument to produce x non-moral quality (e.g. happiness, peace etc). Also, utilitarianism could justify acts that seem obviously immoral such as oppression of minorities (it would serve the interests of the greatest number, the majority, after all), punishing an innocent man (to provide a scapegoat for people) and that no act is wrong in of itself. In the essay, Mill does not, as far as I could tell, provide a clear definition of happiness, so it is somewhat difficult to follow him. If somebody can suggest a thoughtful critique of, "On Liberty,", other than Lord Devlin, I would be interested in that. Also, a more through critique of utilitarianism would be helpful as well.
Rating: 
Summary: On socialist tyranny.
Review: This book represents the beginning of the peversion of classical liberalism (Algernon Sidney, John Trenchard, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry) into the tyranny of modern day liberalism (socialism). Mill is the originator of the thoughtless confounding of liberal and socialist ideas that led to the decline of the living standards of the English people. Mill is the great advocate of Socialism. All the arguments that could be expounded in favour of socialism are expounded here. Marx, Lasalle and Engels are scarcely of importance. The blood of 100 million ultimately dripped from his pen (see the black book of communism). Liberty means freedom from taxes, too many laws and respect for property rights not the right to welfare or necessarily to vote. It is no surprise to see neo-con Himmelfarb enthusing over this book considering the Kristol family are fans of the tyrant Trotsky.
Of course as an agnostic he advocates that socially, individuals should be privately able to do whatever they like. Unfortunately in order for a society to be free from too many laws the people must abide by unwritten laws and that means the laws of the Abrahamic God. If a village does not want to tolerate homosexuals then they should be free not to and be able to drive them out, it's called the social contract. As George Washington wisely put it 'in order to be a truly free people,we must be a religious people'. J.S. Mill, not a very good thinker and an appalling one on the nature of liberty.
Rating:
Summary: Prescient, groundbreaking and very readable
Review: This is a wonderful classic text by a brilliant thinker - contrary to what a couple of misguided reviewers have asserted, it is essentially in the tradition of classical liberalism. Mill was not a socialist (in fact, he rejected progressive taxation, for example) - a proto-socialist would be somewhat like Rousseau writing in total opposition to this book with an entirely different conception of freedom. The fact that Mill was a utilitarian is misleading; as anyone worth their salt in ethics will know, Mill rejected Bentham's original, proto-socialiist utilitarianism and his own variant was very different. Mill attacked collectivism, custom, majoritarian dictatorship and conformity and thus was a very typical clasiscal liberal in opposition to socialism and conservatism. True, it isn't quite classical liberalism in the sense of Locke, but this is more historical evolution of a changing context and Mill was certainly not a socialist.
Anyway, the ideas in this book on most of what it covers are brilliant perceptive and, though many are common belief now, they were radical for their time. Mill advocates individualism and equal rights (not equality of outcome, but equal rights) and toleration in a very clever manner which remains readable today. His outline of self-regarding and other-regarding actions is a pillar of political philosophy and his case for evolution of ideas through challenge and engagement is genuine and never smugly Whiggish. The book is endlessly quotable and we could still learn a lot from it today. Admittedly some parts of it are inconsistent or, indeed, appear now less acceptable but this is true with almost any dated text and Mill remains startlingly relevent on many grounds.
Besides, even if you don't agree with Mill, this is a classic text which is really an essential read for anyone with even a vague interest in political philosophy...
|
