On Liberty

5 Responses to “On Liberty”

1. Anonymous says:

   October 17, 2010 at 4:18 pm

   This book represents the beginning of the peversion of classical liberalism (Algernon Sidney, John Trenchard, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry) into the tyranny of modern day liberalism (socialism). Mill is the originator of the thoughtless confounding of liberal and socialist thoughts that led to the decline of the living standards of the English people. Mill is the fantastic advocate of Socialism. All the opinion that could be expounded in favour of socialism are expounded here. Marx, Lasalle and Engels are scarcely of importance. The blood of 100 million ultimately dripped from his pen (see the black book of communism). Liberty means freedom from taxes, too many laws and respect for property rights not the right to welfare or automatically to vote. It is no surprise to see neo-con Himmelfarb enthusing over this book considering the Kristol family tree are fans of the tyrant Trotsky.
   Of course as an agnostic he advocates that socially, individuals should be privately able to do whatever they like. Sorry to say in order for a society to be free from too many laws the people must abide by unwritten laws and that means the laws of the Abrahamic God. If a village does not want to tolerate homosexuals then they should be free not to and be able to drive them out, it’s called the social contract. As George Washington wisely place it ‘in order to be a truly free people,we must be a religious people’. J.S. Mill, not a very excellent thinker and an appalling one on the scenery of liberty.
   Reader’s Rating: 1 / 5
2. C. Brandt says:

   October 17, 2010 at 5:20 pm

   In the Introduction to “On Liberty,” Currin Shields, an English egghead, bemoans the fact that Mill’s most “legendary” essay is “more talked about than read.”

   I’m surprised it is even talked about, and I am very much NOT surprised that hardly anyone reads it. Mill takes about a hundred and twenty pages to say what could be (and was) summed up in an epigram: People should be free to do whatever they want, as long as it does not harm anyone else.

   Not only does Mill theme the reader to pages and pages of supererogatory writing, but his prose is the personification of Victorian verbosity, with more modifiers, clauses, footnotes, and parentheticals than there are alcoholics in Butte, Montana. (And there are a LOT of alcoholics in Butte, Montana.)

   I guess if you’re studying philosophy, you’re gonna have to read this thing sooner or later…likewise if you’re an autodidact.
   Reader’s Rating: 2 / 5
3. F. Harrison says:

   October 17, 2010 at 7:43 pm

   I don’t really like the fact that Mill wasn’t religious- I don’t judge you can have a just person who doesn’t judge in a privileged power, but the economics in On Liberty and the politics are incredible. It comes down to this: No one should be prevented from thinking or doing anything except that which harms others. In additional words: government needs to get out of our bidness!
   Reader’s Rating: 5 / 5
4. Ryan Setliff says:

   October 17, 2010 at 8:23 pm

   John Stuart Mill was a liberal’s liberal or a socialist’s socialist- yet to be of his times (or just hanging on Karl Marx’s coattail.) His utilitarian socialist philosophy was a real u-turn away from the classic liberalism preceeding his times. What is particularly disturbing is that this book is passed off by academia to represent classical liberalism. This book is excellent for its past value and studying political theory, but don’t be fooled into thinking ‘On Liberty’ is at all faithful or indicative of the classical liberal or libertarian philosophy on liberty.

   Get Liberalism in the Classic Tradition by Ludwig von Mises to know right classical liberalism.
   Reader’s Rating: 3 / 5
5. Nathaniel Avery says:

   October 17, 2010 at 9:21 pm

   It was not Socialism itself that is an evil, but the way it was implemented in some countries, in response to white-anglo-whatever’s really value-less review. Mill’s book about liberty was of vast importance in freeing the individual from the tyranny of communal opinion. A name may dislike homosexuals, but has no right to harass them or pass ethical judgements on them for what is their choice, of no harm to anyone else. Persons are opinions of an indeterminate validity. Socal intervention may only be used to protect a name from restriction of their liberties. What Mill lacks in rigour, he makes up for in persuasiveness. He has some fantastic lines in defense of liberty, a pre-dominant value of human life. Although, it is to be noted that the book can be to some extent tedious in areas which it is repetitive. This book also illustrates what can be seen as a fault in utilitarianism. Utilitarianism takes no notice of additional values, or of a conflict of values, such as liberty of being over the majorities happiness, in which ethics slides into ridiculousness.
   Reader’s Rating: 4 / 5