On liberty (original 1859; edition 1978)

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. ( )

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”. ( )

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. ( )

Chapter III ("Of Individuality, as One of the Elements of Well-Being") is an island of adventure in a sea of commas. I wish that I'd read it at the right age, but better late than never. I also liked his idea of governments as curators of publicly-available policy data: what works, what doesn't, under what conditions, etc.

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. ( )