[ POLL ] "On Liberty", by John Stuart Mill.

Post Reply New Topic

John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873) was a British philosopher, political economist, and civil servant.  One of the most influential thinkers in the history of classical liberalism, he contributed widely to social theory, political theory, and political economy.  Dubbed "the most influential English-speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century", his conception of liberty justified the freedom of the individual in opposition to unlimited state and social control.

A paragraph from his essay "On Liberty" follows...

I have a few critiques of Mill’s ideas, he was definitely a man of his time. However, by the same token, he advanced greatly upon the norms of the time.

I consider On Liberty to be one of the foundational texts upon which I base my political views. However, I disagree with Mill on a few key areas.

For example, Mill believes that casinos should be illegal. I do not (although I can see the case for regulation to stop gambling addiction).

Mill does not believe the state should operate schools. I do not have a problem with it and think it helps with social integration.

Mill believes in divorce if it is mutually acceptable. I believe divorce should be possible if only one member of the marriage desires it. Similarly, Mill believes the state should be allowed to prohibit marriage if the couple cannot prove they have the resources to raise children. I believe the only reason to forbid a marriage is if one of the partners is too young.

Mill rejects Pigouvian taxes unless the funds are required by society. I do not.

I would also, broadly, prefer if Mill based his arguments for Liberty primarily on human rights, rather than utility.

So while in general Mill gets a from me, I selected “mostly agree” as I have significant disagreements with a few of the points put forward in On Liberty. I nonetheless support the broad thesis advocating for both social and economic liberalism.

I changed my vote.  It's been 30+ years since I did any in-depth study of Mill's work.  That was back when I was much less politically "refined" than I am now (e.g., the Reagan era).  It's amazing how one's perspective changes with age.

My next study is on Mill's Utilitarianism.  Maybe I should have read that one first.

Too out of date, too abstract for me.

Modern liberty is about being defensive from grabby hands, snoopy eyes, and those that want control our behaviors.

Like, what foreign country should one retire to -- to maximize freedoms (and minimize taxes)?

Some Libertarians suggest Argentina as a more freedom friendly English-speaking country.

"Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in Argentina are among the most advanced in the world"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Argentina

I think I would have to read more to really make a comprehensive picture. I have Jonathan Haidt's glowing review of Mill in my mind, I also have some of John Gray's critiques in my mind as well.

It sounds like for reifying what would be the social spirit of the Enlightenment project he was an incredibly lucid touchstone. We're in a place now though where even though fundamental human problems haven't changed a lot the landscape of technology and communication has changed considerably and what we have now seems like it's a problem of runaway feedback loops on all kinds of fronts. It seems like Darwinian game theory is fundamentally pragmatic, at very small levels, and the zero-sum games that groups play will always try to bury truth because it's a benefit to those who can use it well and an annoyance to others who quite often can whip up a lymbic narrative against it which serves some type of social purpose that can seem to have more strength or utility than truth itself.

I hear his notion that it will keep resurfacing in Sam Harris's concerns about the cover up on evolutionary biology and genetics research, ie. that we'd either need to just stop doing science in that area of we consider it too inflammatory (good luck getting China or anyone else to do the same) and this is part of why you can only jam a wrench in the wheels of progress (progress for good or ill) for so long before that information comes back around in some other way and being in a global information ecosystem there's really no way to stop all of 8 billion people in over 200 countries to agree not to do anything.

On a side note - I think the core concepts in Enlightenment thinking of his sort are essentially correct but they likely need to be brought present in their contextualization, ie. used as lenses through which to view the current moment rather than absolutes. Some things, like defending legal speech (ie. no 'fire in a theater' or 'Go kill x person') is critical and the arguments against additional kinds of speech range significantly in their quality - many of them being quite dangerous and needing to be refuted for the sake of preventing authoritarianism from catching hold.

I don’t share Mill’s pessimism, as laid out in Fnord’s excerpt.

5 members, but only 3 voted.  Why?

But I DO like ice cream