Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    John Stuart Mill on Tyranny and Liberty: Wisdom from a Founder of Modern Freedom
    John Stuart Mill on Tyranny and Liberty: Wisdom from a Founder of Modern Freedom
    John Stuart Mill on Tyranny and Liberty: Wisdom from a Founder of Modern Freedom
    Ebook84 pages1 hour

    John Stuart Mill on Tyranny and Liberty: Wisdom from a Founder of Modern Freedom

    By Joseph B. Healy

    4/5

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    The United States was founded on the importance of civil libertiesprotections for the individual against the control of others, whether those are other people or the government. Freedom for each person is a cornerstone of Western society. John Stuart Mill’s thoughts on liberty and the concept of freedom are among the most important frameworks on which we’ve built so much of modern society; our very ideas of limited government and personal freedom are rooted in the writings of this great political philosopher.

    John Stuart Mill on Liberty is a collection of some of the most important of his statements on the ideas of liberty and freedom. This book showcases his firm belief that each person should have the right to live as he or she wants to, so long as it does not harm anyone else. Much of what we now take for granted or still fight to maintain or advance, such as freedom of speech, the abolition of slavery, and the rights of women, are things Mill argued for. As you read his passionate entreaties for liberty, you’ll be amazed at how relevant and important they remain today.

    In this age, the mere example of non-conformity, the mere refusal to bend the knee to custom, is itself a service.” John Stuart Mill
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherSkyhorse
    Release dateFeb 2, 2016
    ISBN9781510701380
    John Stuart Mill on Tyranny and Liberty: Wisdom from a Founder of Modern Freedom

    Read more from Joseph B. Healy

    Related to John Stuart Mill on Tyranny and Liberty

    Related ebooks

    American Government For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      Meritocracy and the History of the Science of Biological Differences

      Aug 25, 2017

      From the 'Google manifesto' to white-nationalist rallies, some scholars are concerned that fringe ideas of inherent superiority and inferiority may be making a comeback.

      10 min read

    • Article

      Reviving the Libertarian Interstate Federalist Tradition: The American Proposal

      Jan 4, 2022

      As we enter the third century of the American experiment it is essential to recognize that we can draw upon two quite distinct intellectual traditions in shaping future patterns of organization. One possibility is to draw upon the intellectual tradit

      35 min read

    • Article

      10 Greatest Kingmakers

      Oct 8, 2020

      10 Greatest Kingmakers
      9 min read

    • Article

      Death Of Democracy

      Jan 27, 2022

      Death Of Democracy
      8 min read

    • Article

      Ethics Or Welfare?

      Apr 16, 2020

      ONE potential downside to developments in medicine is that it can blur the ethics line. Are we getting to a point where vets are doing too much? “A vet’s intention should always be to enhance welfare and keep in mind that euthanasia is an option when

      1 min read

    • Article

      Nicomachean Ethics

      Dec 5, 2022

      Nicomachean Ethics
      11 min read

    • Article

      The Past

      Feb 25, 2021

      Karl Marx’s The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848 to little immediate fanfare. While Marx himself was in Paris on the invitation of the provincial government following the outbreak of the revolution in 1848, and sporadic revolutions occurred

      1 min read

    • Article

      ‘Strategic Empathy’: H.R. McMaster On Foreign Policy And China

      Sep 22, 2020

      H.R. McMaster, former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, discusses new book “Battlegrounds” and U.S.-China policy with the Monitor.

      4 min read

    • Article

      Beyond Originalism

      Mar 31, 2020

      Beyond Originalism
      9 min read

    • Article

      Just War Criteria

      Jul 30, 2019

      Jus ad bellum (moral justifications for going to war, why a war is fought) 1. Legitimate authority: Supreme political authorities are morally responsible for the security of their constituents and therefore are obligated to make decisions about war a

      1 min read

    • Article

      What If Man Is a Killer Ape Beset by Original Sin?

      Jun 21, 2019

      TODAY, SELF-HELP BOOKS and relationship gurus invoke evolution to explain everything from marital infidelity to the paleo diet. Our early ancestors’ survival needs echo through our ideas today. But this is not the first time our hominid ancestry’s ro

      5 min read

    • Article

      Divided We Stand

      Dec 4, 2018

      Divided We Stand
      13 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for John Stuart Mill on Tyranny and Liberty

    4/5

    570 ratings13 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

    • 5/5
      How did I get a college degree without reading this book? How did I even get a high school diploma? John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty”, written just before the US Civil War, is an amazing look at the concept of liberty, what we in the modern United States would call freedom. Although the book is a century and a half old the language is only slightly dusty and the issues are depressingly current. What is the proper role of government, should women have rights equal to men, should majority opinion create rules for the minority?Mills’ believed that, as long an individual’s actions do not cause harm someone else, those individuals, those adult individuals, should be allowed to do whatever they please. His argument on the Temperance Movement of his era is directly applicable to the question of recreational drugs today, as are his comments on freedom of religion.This book, along with Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” are the most important works I have read on the subject of freedom and the proper role of government, both are old enough that I doubt anyone could accuse the authors of these books of “partisan politics” unless, that is, they consider freedom and liberty of interest only the “other side”.
    • 5/5
      The seminal work on utilitarianism by it's intellectual founder. JSM's take on macro and micro economics (as we know them now) is critical to understanding our freedoms as tied to a economized society.A must read for all libertarians and socialists.
    • 4/5
      A classic exposition of the idea that man should generally be free of interference from the government except as needed to protect the liberty of others. It's written from a decidedly utilitarian perspective, making the conclusions both stronger and weaker - stronger because Mill shows that liberty has significant practical advantages, but weaker because it places liberty as a good less valuable than other goods, and makes it difficult to defend liberty against the argument that some infringement on liberty will leave people "better off".
    • 5/5
      A core writing about political philosophy, this is the one that, more than any other, activated my thinking about politics and freedom. Mill describes the object of his essay to be: "That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. 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."
    • 5/5
      Wouldn't it be great if life were like these philosopher chappies thought? You know, one great idea; we all conform to it, and universal happiness is guaranteed! Mill, of course came up with the idea that individual liberty was that one concept. The only rider which he was willing to put upon liberty, was that one's liberty must not harm another.The best thing about this Pelican edition, is the forward which, gives the uninitiated, such as myself, a background to the writing thereof. The partial biography tells us that John Stuart never attended school, but was hothoused by his father, James, and Jeremy Bentham, to such an extent that JS was reading ancient Greek manuscripts at the age of three! Needless to say, such pressure caused the poor might to suffer a nervous breakdown and he eventually rebelled to the extent of a most curious affair at age 23 with a married woman, Harriet Taylor. When Mr Taylor turned up his heels (some twenty years later), they, eventually, wed and, whilst working together on several tracts, one of which was 'On Liberty', published nothing until such time as Mrs. Mill went to meet her first husband once more.The biography certainly helps one to understand from whence came this seemingly simple and humanitarian philosophy and also gives an inkling as to why it, like all unidimensional solutions to the human state, is bound to disappoint its followers. This little book is a very readable insight into John Stuart's (and Harriet's) thinking. Fascinating, but I shall not become a devotee.
    • 5/5
      Nice long Victorian sentences. Five stars for the scorn and contempt.
    • 5/5
      Revisiting On Liberty was an interesting exercise. It is little wonder that it was, and, according to the introduction, is ever more so, a gospel for living as an individual. What was most challenging was to find that so much of my education has led me to read Mill as if it were gospel, agreeing at every turn with almost everything. Its simplicity may be a reason for this, but it is also evident that a liberal education cannot be anything less than based on Mill's philosophy. Ideas affecting liberty, such as the after-hours lock-out laws in Sydney, are covered by Mill. Yet contemporary ideas of libertarianism seem to deny Mill's authority on the matter. But finding my own philosophy so closely aligned with Mill's is something worthy of further challenge and reflection. That this "little book" has since become a program for governments throughout the Anglo world appears to have reached its peak, with issues such as national security throwing into conflict the ideas of Hobbes and Mill on the nature of the "good society". Yet this gospel of the liberal tradition, in my mind, at least, wins again and again when read from the lofty heights of experience which I could neither conjure nor comprehend all those years ago. Mill really is the "godfather" of the liberal tradition and, like any gospel, rewards one with each subsequent reading.
    • 3/5
      I liked this one, but it was not as profound or as memorable as my friends told me it was, so I was a bit disappointed. Reading this book was not particularly entertaining, but gave me some background for reading other, more modern arguments related to liberty and society.
    • 4/5
      Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of character has abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigor, and moral courage which it contained.

      It would be pretentious to suggest I dedicated my reading to Ahmed Merabet, yet it would be untrue to exclaim otherwise. We've drowned in debate about liberty this last week. Somehow I regard that as most encouraging. I found Mill’s treatise riveting and incisive along a number of axes which inform our means of government and private life. Mill was a shrewd historian and a brilliant writer. I gasped audibly at his conclusions and deft references. Too often Utilitarianism is wedged into confined spaces for politically conservative purposes. I have no problem with that. I suspect J.S. Mill wouldn't either. His moral remains, we should all disagree, question custom and exercise our faculties at every turn.
    • 4/5
      After finishing this book, I'm of the opinion it should be required reading in high school. It is not that I agree with Mill on all points—I certainly don't—it's that he's asking the right questions. Essentially, he starts a discussion on what it means to be a citizen of a community and what it means to be a just government. He highlights the often-overlooked distinction between the premise that, in a democracy, power should be in the hands of the majority and the very different premise that the majority, having that power, should be free to do as it chooses.Of course, he reaches certain conclusions: "…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." These conclusions can be attacked from both directions. From a more conservative position, one can question what appears to be his assumption that a society is nothing more than a collection of individuals, that no concept of shared values has a place in it. One might also question his delineations of "harm to others"…they seem somewhat shallow and limited to direct causality. From a more liberal position, one might take issue with his statements that backward societies should not enjoy full privileges because they are not "capable". One might question whether he is really trying to protect individuality or whether he is trying to protect the intellectual elite from the "despotism of collective mediocrity."It does not matter. These questions are certainly as relevant today as they were just before the Civil War, and the attempt to answer them seems important to me.
    • 5/5
      A must read for anybody interested in freedom of expression
    • 4/5
      Apart from the small print and huge paragraphs, this is a supremely readable and insightful tome of political philosophy. I can agree in general with his ideas, but in response to all of those free market neo-liberals worshipping at his feet I would point to page 80:

      Whoever succeeds in an overcrowded profession, or in a competitive examination; whoever is preferred to another in any contest for an object which both desire, reaps benefit rom the loss of others, from their wasted exertion and their disappointment. But it is, by common admission, better for the general interest of mankind, that persons should pursue their objects undeterred by this sort of consequences. In other words, society admits no right, either legal or moral, in the disappointed competitors, to immunity from this kind of suffering; and feels called on to interfere, only when means of success have been employed which it is contrary to the general interest to permit -- namely, fraud or treachery, and force.

      That seems to succinctly condemn any of the hanky panky going on up there Wall Street-ward, and even allow for society (i.e. state) intervention to prevent it. Admittedly, it leaves the definition of "treachery" and "force" rather fuzzy.

      I found deeply engaging his elegant conversation about freedom of opinion and expression in chapters 2 and 3. Among many memorable points, he proclaims the importance of keeping our beliefs alive and honed through honest and vigorous debate with opposing opinions. Also very interesting were his ideas about the school system in chapter 5. I´d be interested to hear what he had to say about universal health care.
    • 5/5
      This is a lucid, powerful, and extremely influential defense of individual liberty. It's short, too, less than 150 paperback pages, very accessible and worth knowing whatever your beliefs. After all, as Mill himself says, if something is true, we should learn it--if something is false, it can still illuminate truth through its errors. Although I think there are some fatal defects, I also find much that is persuasive and wise. I like his arguments for the utility of freedom of speech and opinion and the dangers of conformity. Mill states his object from the start: The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. 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.For me so far, so good. I see two major problems with his arguments though, defects that are undermine the above. First, there is his insistence in grounding his argument on Utilitarianism:It is proper to state that I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility. I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being.And then Mill makes a curious move. He states his arguments don't apply to children that those "who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury." Fair enough. But then he goes on to say that:Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. 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.That in my opinion is what always lets the tyrant in the door. It's for their own good! Wasn't after all that the argument for everything from black chattel slavery to colonialism? If you don't ground individual liberty as a right, then the argument can always be made that a individual person or even the majority of the people don't know their own good. Who is to say when humankind has reached the age of majority? And indeed you can see that in Mill's own evolution. In this essay he argues for the free market--but eventually would become a socialist. So...

    Book preview

    John Stuart Mill on Tyranny and Liberty - Joseph B. Healy

    INTRODUCTION

    John Stuart Mill was an archetypal example of how a young human intellect can be groomed, shaped, and expanded into a learned powerhouse. He was a prodigy. At the age of three, he was reading Latin, coached along by his father, James Mill, an author and his tutor and mentor. In his pre-teen years, Mill studied the writings of Plato and Socrates in their native Greek. Later, in adulthood, he applied his learnedness for the good of society with insightful, even astounding, philosophical thinking. He was a savant.

    Mill lived in the nineteenth century, from 1806 to 1873. He was a tour de force intellect at a time when civilization was being shaped by formative humanitarian ideas. His opinions—for example, arguing for abolition and suffrage for women—not only were ahead of their time; history also shows that he was right.

    He went to France in 1820, after the French Revolution, and writes in his autobiography of having breathed for a whole year the free and genial atmosphere of Continental life. He observed the frank sociability and amiability of French personal intercourse and melded his observations and experience with what he had learned from reading Plato and Socrates (again, most impressively, in their native tongue, without translations) and Jeremy Bentham. Mill wanted the best for humanity.

    Perhaps Mill’s most insightful writing was on the subject of liberty—a heady topic for a layman who only became institutionally political later in his life, entering the UK’s Parliament in 1865. However, politics and government for Mill were rooted in humanity and human inclinations, in the factors and functions that would strengthen the state. He applied all he had learned, with good thought and reason, in his opus on liberty—titled On Liberty and published in 1859. The depth of his learning qualified him to make statements such as this one in On Liberty: It may be better to be a John Knox than an Alcibiades, but it is better to be a Pericles than either; nor would a Pericles, if we had one in these days, be without anything good which belonged to John Knox. Enjoy the time on Google looking up those names.

    His ideas on liberty and self-determinism celebrated freedom and warned against the dangers of tyranny and aristocratic despotism. He strove for the greatest happiness; he was a champion of the everyman.

    He worked for decades for the East India Company and by all accounts was diplomatic in his professional responsibilities. He married, late in life, the widow Harriet Taylor Mill, with whose help he shaped On Liberty until her death in 1857.

    Mill was passionate with his ideas and had good intentions with his philosophy on life and liberty. He has bequeathed to human society a document of lasting virtue with On Liberty—much of which is reproduced in this volume.

    Joe Healy

    Waterford, Vermont

    Autumn 2015

    CHAPTER I

    INTRODUCTORY

    The struggle between Liberty and Authority is the most conspicuous feature in the portions of history with which we are earliest familiar, particularly in that of Greece, Rome, and England. But in old times this contest was between subjects, or some classes of subjects, and the government. By liberty, was meant protection against the tyranny of the political rulers. The rulers were conceived (except in some of the popular governments of Greece) as in a necessarily antagonistic position to the people whom they ruled. 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. Their power was regarded as necessary, but also as highly dangerous; as a weapon which they would attempt to use against their subjects, no less than against external enemies. To prevent the weaker members of the community from being preyed upon by innumerable vultures, it was needful that there should be an animal of prey stronger than the rest, commissioned to keep them down. But as the king of the vultures would be no less bent upon preying upon the flock than any of the minor harpies, it was indispensable to be in a perpetual attitude of defence against his beak and claws. The aim, therefore, of patriots, was to set limits to the power which the ruler should be suffered to exercise over the community; and this limitation was what they meant by liberty. It was attempted in two ways.

    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. A second, and generally a later expedient, was the establishment of constitutional checks; by which the consent of the community, or of a body of some sort supposed to represent its interests, was made a necessary condition to some of the more important acts of the governing power. To the first of these modes of limitation, the ruling power, in most European countries, was compelled, more or less, to submit. It was not so with the second; and to attain this, or when already in some degree possessed, to attain it more completely, became everywhere the principal object of the lovers of liberty. And so long as mankind were content to combat one enemy by another, and to be ruled by a master, on condition of being guaranteed more or less efficaciously against his tyranny, they did not carry their aspirations beyond this point.

    A time, however, came in the progress of human affairs, when men ceased to think it a necessity of nature that their governors should be an independent power, opposed in interest to themselves. It appeared to them much better that the various magistrates of the State should be their tenants or delegates, revocable at their pleasure. In that way alone, it seemed, could they have complete security that the powers of government would never be abused to their disadvantage. By degrees, this new demand for elective and temporary rulers became the prominent object of the exertions of the popular party, wherever any such party existed; and superseded, to a considerable extent, the previous efforts to limit the power of rulers. 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. That (it might seem) was a resource against rulers whose interests were habitually opposed to those of the people. What was now wanted was, that the rulers should be identified with the people; that their interest and will should be the interest and will of the nation. The nation did not need to be

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1