John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) on individual freedom and state
A little more than 100 years later, John Stuart Mill articulated his theories on government and liberty in a very different fashion. Mill, being a philosophical radical and a utilitarian, was to some extent inspired by Bentham and would advocate the maximisation of happiness with individual freedom in the high seat. The basic notion of Mill’s highest normative principle of morals can be formulated: actions are right as they promote happiness and wrong as they do the opposite. Individuals are best left to their own and should (more or less) be left to their own choosing of what makes them happy and what does not. This may also be summarised in Mill’s harm principle : as long as an individual cause no harm onto another, it should be left to its own doing. It is important to note that Mill does not defend the fundamental principles of right and wrong, but simply judgement from one’s own personal measure of utility. This includes the belief that, most of the time; man is rational enough to make his own decisions.
Yet, there are questions that must be answered on a society-wide level and this is where Mill’s perception of government strongly relates to that of liberty. For instance, Mill would emphasise the importance of free speech and discussion, even in the case where the chosen argument is wrong (and potentially toxic for society), as it will ultimately increase our knowledge as we correct the error and thus leaves us better off. Intellectual and social progress necessitates the freedom of speech and discussion. Policy should also enable people the freedom to choose their own religion. Another way to articulate this relationship is to say that government must be based on certain inalienable individual freedoms. The state must provide the individual with liberty in the form of free speech, free religion, a judiciary system, and so on. But apart from that, liberty can be defined in the absence of intervention from government, and government should as such be minimal
Yet, there are questions that must be answered on a society-wide level and this is where Mill’s perception of government strongly relates to that of liberty. For instance, Mill would emphasise the importance of free speech and discussion, even in the case where the chosen argument is wrong (and potentially toxic for society), as it will ultimately increase our knowledge as we correct the error and thus leaves us better off. Intellectual and social progress necessitates the freedom of speech and discussion. Policy should also enable people the freedom to choose their own religion. Another way to articulate this relationship is to say that government must be based on certain inalienable individual freedoms. The state must provide the individual with liberty in the form of free speech, free religion, a judiciary system, and so on. But apart from that, liberty can be defined in the absence of intervention from government, and government should as such be minimal