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
the latter. Mill further described two forms of other regarding - hurt and harm. Hurt referenced emotional pain; harm the more severe being actual physical pain. According to Mill, hurt was permissible but harm was not. Thus it was Mill’s belief that only in situations involving ‘other regarding harm’ could personal liberty be infringed upon. Mill here attempts to extend personal liberty.

In his expansion of individual liberty Mill very much exemplifies liberal democratic thought. In this excerpt Mill writes ‘his independence is, of right, absolute’ , believing the freedoms of the individual to be of the utmost importance. Personal freedom is paramount to liberal thought – the term liberal coming from the Latin word for freedom. Voltaire, a key contributor to much a liberal democratic thought, displayed its importance in his words, ‘I disagree with what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it’ . Personal liberty is therefore seen to be the foundation of liberalism - the focus that of protecting the rights of the individual. In this sense Mill is seen to illustrate liberal democratic thought well.

Mill’s ties to liberal democratic thinking is further demonstrated in Adam Smith’s work. Smith, David Ricardo and Richard Cobden being among those who put forward the theory of classical liberalism. This was the belief that ‘the wealth of the nations’ could be increased in the self-reliance and enterprise of the individuals. According to Smith; ‘It is the highest impertinence and presumption… in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people… Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs’ . Here in the free market economy instead of the state controlling the market, the ‘invisible hand’ leads to the optima. Smith’s theory was known as the ‘laissez faire’ - leave alone - policy and was commonly supported by liberal democratic thinkers. This, like Mill, pushes the idea of personal liberty.

However modern liberals are more aware of the need for balance between freedom, equality and order.
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
balance.

This was evident in the liberal democratic adoption of Keynesianism - a macroeconomic theory by John Keynes involving a set of interventionist policies that rejected a self-regulated market. Keynes argued instead that money should be injected into the economy to maintain employment. This line of thinking went hand in hand with new liberal democratic policies on the welfare state. Here a pause in the importance of the personal liberty is evident, the focus shifting towards equality – the belief being that equality helps to extend one’s personal liberty (as seen in equality of opportunity). Therefore, though Mill’s excerpt fits well with classical liberal democratic thought, his main focus on limited government and individual liberty jars with new liberal democratic thinking.

Mill’s belief in the moral worth of the individual presents his view of human nature as individualist.
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’
.

These are not the only criticisms of Mill. A major concern with Mill’s work is that his ideas are rather difficult to apply. This can be seen using the example of taxes. Taxes are necessary to provide positive externalities, but the government must forcefully intervene to claim them, which to Mill would be damaging, despite the fact that taxes would work to prevent harm (removing negative externalities). James Fitzjames Stephen also criticises Mill. He argues that it is absurd to claim that liberty acts as an intrinsic good. Instead, he compares it to fire – being dependent upon ‘according to time, place, and circumstance’ . Therefore, for Stephen, liberty must be curbed. Lord Devlin raises another issue. He questions how the term ‘other regarding’ can be applied in society. Devlin comments ‘suicide pacts, duelling, abortion, incest… are all acts which can be done in private without offense to others’ . Here he highlights that certain acts which are not ‘other regarding’, are still unacceptable to allow.

These critiques demonstrate that Mill’s ideas are not easily applicable to today’s society. The concept of individual liberty as an ideal is attractive. However, when employed in society today, it seems flawed. It withdraws importance from equality – a universal consideration in most modern westernised countries. In addition to this the level of order necessary to sustain a country contradicts Mill’s need for personal liberty. Thus it can be surmised that though Mill’s concept is appealing, in practical terms within modern times, it is not applicable in its purest form.