On Liberty

Mill admits that the principles in this essay require more detailed discussion before they can be practically applied in society. Still, he says he will provide examples of possible applications to help clarify how society can use these principles. Mill writes that there are two maxims that combine to form this essay’s primary point. The first is that the individual is not accountable to society for anything they do unless their actions affect others. The most society can do is offer the individual advice and try to convince them of the right choice, but it cannot compel them to do or not do anything. The second is that if an individual does do something that hurts the interests of others, the individual must be held accountable either legally or socially depending on the action.

Mill argues that just because society is only justified in interfering in individual behavior if it harms or risks harming another person doesn’t mean that society is justified in interfering every time one person is hurt by another’s actions. For example, if one person hurts another by winning a competition, then society shouldn’t get involved because society has already decided people should be allowed to pursue their own goals without worrying about the pain those who aren’t as successful in their endeavors feel—unless, of course, someone has used malicious means to attain their goals. 

Mill reminds the reader that trade is a “social act” and thus falls under society’s legitimate jurisdiction. Under the modern theory of free trade, merchants are free to determine prices and manufacture goods at their discretion and buyers are free to choose to purchase goods from someone else. The question of how much power society can rightfully exert over certain details of trade—such as sanitation or protection for people in dangerous career fields—is still somewhat vague, especially because some details have to do with the individual liberty of the buyer. As an example, Mill describes the controversy surrounding selling poison, which can be used for legitimate purposes as well as criminal ones (namely to commit murder). Mill’s opinion is that society is within its rights to make sellers take precautions that might discourage people from buying poison for malicious reasons, such as keeping a sales register.

Mill admits that society’s right to take precautionary measures to prevent crimes before they’re committed reveals the limitations of his belief that “purely self-regarding” actions shouldn’t be interfered with just to prevent an evil. Mill further illustrates this point by saying he doesn’t believe general drunkenness should be punishable, but that it might be a good idea to put restrictions on people who habitually become violent when drunk. Still, society must remember that it cannot always punish people for actions which only hurt themselves unless they are done publicly and thus become a social problem (like “offences against decency”). On the other hand, giving advice (a social act) shouldn’t be interfered with because it violates the freedom of speech and the freedom of listening to opinions. Even this is thrown into doubt if the person giving advice derives a personal benefit, possibly pecuniary, from it.

The idea that one person might give advice that supports what society believes is evil to another person presents a new complication because it implies the existence of people and groups whose primary interests oppose society’s best interests. Mill asks if society is justified in interfering with people or groups who engage in behavior that society considers a social evil (like gambling or drunkenness). One side of the argument is that these things fall within individual liberty and must be tolerated. The other side could argue that intervention is justifiable because the “instigators” are not disinterested, and society loses nothing by trying to stop them. Mill agrees with the former opinion and even rejects the idea that society can rightfully increase taxes on or limit access to these things because it infringes on personal liberty. However, these establishments can be penalized if habitual “breaches of the peace” happen there.

Mill refers back to a point he made earlier in the essay that since individuals are free to decide what to do with their own lives, groups of people are allowed to make joint decisions through mutual agreement to regulate things that affect all of them. This is okay if everyone’s will is the same, but since will changes over time, people should also be free to end their agreements. Mill uses slavery—namely when one person willingly sells themselves to another—as an example of an agreement both society and law would refuse to uphold. The problem with selling one’s self into slavery is that a person gives up their liberty, thus undermining liberty itself. Furthermore, they might want to exert their liberty later and, in a free society, should be free to end the agreement. Therefore slavery—even when it’s willing slavery—cannot exist in free society.

When a person makes a promise or encourages another to rely on their long-term commitment to a course of action, they also create a new series of obligations to that person that don’t simply go away, especially if they have an impact on a third party. One example is marriage, especially a marriage that involves children. In these cases, even if people are allowed the legal freedom to end their agreement, they may still have a moral obligation to each other or the third party (children). An individual must consider this before entering a long-term agreement, and it is their own moral failing if they don’t give proper weight to the obligations towards others that they’re creating. 

Mill expresses his belief that while a person is free to make decisions for themselves, they are not generally free to make decisions for others. The State must limit the amount of power one person has over another, but it neglects this duty when it comes to marriage and family—husbands exert almost total control over their wives and children. Mill believes this evil can be partially remedied by giving wives the same rights and protections as men, but this is harder to do with children. Fathers are jealous of any interference in their control over their kids. This is evident when it comes to education—according to Mill, most would agree fathers are responsible for their children’s education, but few expect fathers to educate their kids. This is an offense against the kids and society, so society is right to interfere and ensure kids are educated, as well as fed and clothed.

Mill believes that if government would require children to be educated, then it would solve the problem of what to teach them because individual families would be able to choose for themselves which schools their children attend. The only opposition to there being a state educational requirement is that nobody wants the state to control school curriculums. However, Mill devises a system to ensure people are giving their children the education society requires: it involves yearly age-appropriate tests to make sure kids are at least meeting attaining general knowledge, and these tests would only deal in facts, not opinions. Beyond general education, kids may choose to take exams in specialized areas to earn a certificate to prove their ability enter a profession in a certain field. The parents of kids who fail the general tests will have to pay a fine.

Mill asserts that having a baby is one of the most important actions anyone can take, and to bring a life into the world without having the means to take care of it is a crime against that new life. Mill argues that the laws some countries already have that require people who want to get married to prove they are capable of taking care of a baby do not violate liberty because it is an action of the state meant to prevent a dangerous act that would hurt others. Still, Mill acknowledges that most people would not agree. He explains that this highlights a “strange respect of mankind for liberty” that exists alongside a “strange want of respect for it.”

The last group of questions Mill addresses involves the topic of whether a government should do something for society’s benefit instead of requiring it to take care of itself. One objection to this is that society might be able to help itself better than the government can. Another objection is that it is beneficial for members of a society to do the “particular thing” themselves rather than letting the government do it for them because it will require people to exercise their mental faculties, and it also gives them the chance to explore the value of “joint interests” in society by working with their peers. The final objection includes the argument that letting the government interfere unnecessarily adds to its power and increases its ability to influence individuals in society.

If the government’s powers are increased by putting it in charge of things like banks, charities, universities, and railways, it would effectively destroy freedom in that state even if people enjoy liberty of the press and speech. Furthermore, if the greatest minds and talents in society chose to work for government departments instead of other public or private ones, they would cease to work for the greater good of humanity and focus all their abilities and ambitions on advancement within these departments. More importantly, this kind of system would effectively prevent reform that might restore freedom.

Mill writes that one can find a good example of a strong society in France—in which universal military service has made it so whenever there’s an insurrection, there’s at least one person capable of taking charge—and in America, where most people are capable of improvising a functioning government in the event the main government collapsed. Mill says this is what a truly free society should be like and a society of this kind of strength and intelligence will never be “enslaved” by external powers. On the other hand, the better the organization of the government, the more subservient politicians are to their organizations. Mill also reminds the reader that when the government attracts all the best thinkers of the country, mental activity and progress will eventually decline as most people fall into a set routine. Because of this, there should be some means of developing ability independent of the government.

Mill says society must try to determine the point at which evil begins and try to remove the obstacles that hinder society’s wellbeing. Mill also argues that it is safest for a society to disseminate power as much as possible and centralize information for distribution. Some officers would be required in all localities to enforce general rules, but beyond those, officers should be trusted to use their own judgment in situations while administrative branches would limit themselves to overseeing the execution of enforcing the law or taking necessary action against those who fail to enforce it. Governments should support activity that stimulates people because the worth of a state is proportional to the worth of the people who make it up. States that “dwarf[]” citizens to make them easier to control will find it difficult to achieve greatness because it lacks “vital power.”