Talk:On Liberty

Cleanup
I get a mighty headache attempting to read this. Can any brave souls assist in grammar cleanup and style edits? Wordiness, clarity errors, grammar errors, tense errors, missing citations, etc. throughout here. Please feel free to revert anything you think I screw up, but please look at what I'm trying to do and try to fix the problem. I shall try not to mess with the content here really...

70.127.17.241 (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of Mill, regarding contradiction to utilitarianism
In 3.1, Contradiction to utilitarianism, the following quote is given:

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.[72] "

Which is then followed by this claim:

"This claim seems to go against the principle of utilitarianism, that it is permissible that one should be harmed so that the majority could benefit.[71] "

This is a misinterpretation of Mill. When read in context, it's clear that he believes that silencing that one person will always be a a loss for mankind, because: 1) That one person might be right 2) If he is wrong and we are right, refuting him will still strengthen our understanding of our truth, and improve our confidence  3) Even if he is wrong and has nothing to teach us, silencing that one person will set a precedent for silencing individuals in the future, and we won't get to inspect the conditions in which that silencing occurs, and so it might violate 1 or 2.

I looked up reference 71, and it points to a podcast episode, which I doubt holds sufficient authority on the subject. Although the speaker wrote books on basic philosophy for the masses, I couldn't find evidence that he's considered a qualified interpreter of Mills (or in general).

Any other criticisms to add
I added the criticism of the contradiction to util, but it would look less awkward with a nice extra few criticisms. Are there any other big ones thrown about in academia of which you can add. Also, I'm working my way through writing sections of the book. I should finish up the summary of the last few chapters by tomorrow. --Polsky215 (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"Tyranny of the Majority"?
I thought "tyranny of the majority" was quoted from Alexis de Tocqueville and Democracy in America?

I'm almost certain the term "tyranny of the majority" was coined by on of the United States' "Founding Fathers." I'm leaning toward Thomas Jefferson but I'm not absolutely sure.207.157.121.50 08:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

In any case, is there a reason tyranny of the majority links here and not to de Tocqueville's work? Commander Nemet 04:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm almost certain that the phrase "tyranny of the majority" does not appear anywhere in Mill's On Liberty; although he does make several references to the idea itself, if not to that particular phrase. Nevertheless, I also remain unclear as to why the phrase should link to this specific article. I would suggest either (a) redirecting it to some other work that more explicitly focuses on the problem of the tyranny of the majority; or (b) making a new article altogether that could synthesize in one place the ideas of a number of thinkers, including Mill, on this important concept. --Todeswalzer 23:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is long over, but I would just like to state for the record that Mill directly mentions "tyranny of the majority" very, very early on in his work -- to the tune of the first section (Chapter 1, Introductory). I don't know the origins of the phrase, but it seems to be very shoddy work when this work's copyright has long since expired and been available publicly and people are too lazy to check. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 17:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Todeswalzer, how can you be sure it doesn't contain the phrase "tyranny of the majority" if you didn't even read it? It's like 4 pages into the book. Are you fucking retarded? Do you always give your opinion on things you know nothing about? it's fucking astonishing.--98.223.118.125 (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

why was it a failure?
Why was Mill's argument in On Liberty a failure? and why would someone hold this view if it was a failure?
 * Two words: Cliffs notes. Rhobite 05:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Who suggested that Mill's arguments in On Liberty were failures? Although there are a couple of points with which I disagree, the majority of the book seems to me like common sense, although I'm sure it didn't seem that way to most people when the book was first published. 207.157.121.50 08:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

A failure? (!) I would very much like to see someone seriously defend that point of view. Mill's essay, and the ideas contained therein, have become a cornerstone in modern liberalism. --Todeswalzer 23:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

removed "effects" stuff...
I removed the following:

This paper's outline of libertarian concepts has earned it a secure place in history. Though it is certainly debatable, most nations are founded on the fundamental principal of human liberty. Some popular actions of states that go against Mill's beliefs on liberty are:
 * the banning of gang membership
 * the mandatory use of seatbelts
 * the heavy taxation of alcohol as a result of drunk driving
 * the heavy taxation of tobacco as a result of lung cancer
 * the criminalisation of hate speech

While there is certainly room for an analysis of how closely Mill's ideas are paralleled in contemporary society, this is horribly unbalanced (for one; it doesn't quote examples where liberal principles *have* been the basis of government policy, perhaps because there are too many to list). Moreover, there is a question as to how much should be placed in a discussin of Mill's specific book, and how much should be placed within articles on liberalism and libertarianism more generally. --Robert Merkel 23:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * cool robert, i put the list on the Libertarianism page. Spencerk 05:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sure some people interpret Mill that way... but not all by any means. gren グレン 09:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Other Crud
Guess what? This text made Judith Reisman's list of hamful books. I realize that she herself may or may not have chosen the list that was reviewed by these 15 "scholars", but it figures all the same. Sweetfreek 07:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I was quite surprised in this 'survey' of Mill's ideas to Not find what is arguably, his most famous quotation, which I offer here:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -- John Stuart Mill

Bat 06:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional Resources
Why is there commentary on utility and human nature under this section? 128.239.152.92 08:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on On Liberty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090212163128/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au:80/m/mill/john_stuart/m645o/ to http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645o/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

First sentence
Cited-referenced the phrase "philosophical work" towards "in the pursuit of Truth" as fundamental to "On Liberty". Please read and go for the consensus.Arnlodg (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)