I read Mill’s 1859 seminal statement on democratic values and moral and political thought on three separate occasions over my extended educational experience: the first in the context of its focus on freedom of speech as a journalism major in a community college; the second in a political thought class as a history and political science dual major while I pursued my bachelor’s degree; and the third during law school while working on my student note. That latest reading was more than a quarter of a century ago. Since then, I learned that Mill’s wife, Harriet Taylor, contributed significantly to the thoughts expressed in this influential essay. Another woman hidden historical figure.

The essay seems even more vibrant today than it did in my earlier readings. The Mills’s focus on the free key freedoms – speech, thought, action, and association – seems hardly surprising in the 21st century. These freedoms are the cornerstone of democracy as an antidote to tyranny. And these freedoms are currently under attack even in the United States, the greatest successful democracy in the history of the world. At least until now. The Mills’s liberalism challenged the Victorian orthodoxy based on stuffy social customs and has been advanced by great American thinkers and jurists who would be appalled to be considered anything “liberal”. Indeed, the values set forth in their essay form the basis of my own strong convictions about the legitimate authority and limits of government vis-à-vis the individuals who are served by it, and as embodied in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Its relevance today cannot be overstated.

I have made it my business, though, to read essays critical of the Mills's work, so I went down that rabbit hole and have gathered some further reading, including but not limited to Liberty, Equality, Fraternity by James Fitzjames Stephens (a contemporary of Mills, I believe). I have my own criticisms, but they are minor, and would like to see what others have to say. ( )

Read this for my ethics class. He's so close to getting it right for me-if only it wasn't for his conflicting faith in institutions. Also for all his talk of freedom, there's still some normative conditions involved. ( )

I liked this one, but it was not as profound or as memorable as my friends told me it was, so I was a bit disappointed. Reading this book was not particularly entertaining, but gave me some background for reading other, more modern arguments related to liberty and society. ( )

"There are many who consider as an injury to themselves any conduct which they have a distaste for, and resent it as an outrage to their feelings; as a religious bigot, when charged with disregarding the religious feelings of others, has been known to retort that they disregard his feelings, by persisting in their abominable worship or creed. But there is no parity between the feeling of a person for his own opinion, and the feeling of another who is offended at his holding it; no more than between the desire of a thief to take a purse, and the desire of the right owner to keep it."
.........................................................................................................
On Liberty is the most recommended book at https://fivebooks.com/. ( )

I usually have a difficult time reading books much over 100 years old, this was no exception. (first published in 1859) But I made my way through it; fortunately it’s pretty short. The accompanying essays were valuable. - I especially like Jeremy Waldron’s.

Livro simpático do século XIX sobre a liberdade, defendendo os direitos do indivíduo, e um individualismo esclarecido - focado na acessibilidade de informação, multiplicidade de costumes, necessidade de um ambiente acolhedor da diferença para o florescimento da criatividade. Acima de tudo, é preciso que os regimes sociais admitam liberdade de expressão, permitindo argumentos diversos que, confrontados uns com os outros, promovem a instituição da verdade, na circulação pública do conhecimento aliada ao incentivo a expor opiniões eventualmente contrárias à massa do comum ou dos costumes. Pois a verdade é fruto da constante revisão das posições, frente aos argumentos e fatos. Mill nisso não diz que não há costumes sociais culturais que moldam, mas já adianta a posição multiculturalista cosmopolita, em que, se não se pratica, nem por isso deixamos de tolerar os costumes dos outros. O livro combate portanto os moralistas de plantão, que se acham por direito interferir no que é próprio da vida individual dos outros, enquanto não se preocupam com a liberdade que possuem para cuidar de suas próprias e viver bem. Daí, discute que a liberdade só existe na prática, e essa envolve não impedir a liberdade dos outros, sendo essa primeira cláusula, do compartilhamento igual das liberdades, justamente primeira, no sentido de que é um contrasenso manter uma liberdade de oprimir o outro, ainda mais quando justificada por argumentos do tipo "pq se não oprimo então eu me considero oprimido por não poder oprimir". Então, não é um individualismo bobo, embora simples: o estado e as instituições devem garantir e trabalhar para esse estado social em que o indivíduo floresce e ideias variadas circulam. ( )

"A szabadság egyetlen fajtája, mely megérdemli ezt a nevet, ha saját javunkra a magunk módján törekedhetünk mindaddig, míg nem próbálunk másokat ugyanebben megakadályozni, vagy gátolni ezt célzó erőfeszítéseiket."

Ennyike. Ilyen egyszerű. És ilyen bonyolult. Mert az egyszerű dolgok néha nagyon bonyolultak tudnak lenni. És ezzel le is tudtam a napi paradoxonomat.

Millt olvasva az volt a legszembetűnőbb, hogy fejtegetései milyen evidensek. Mintha az ember mindent hallott vagy gondolt volna magától is, amit egy ilyen XIX. századi pacák papírra vetett. Ez, ha jobban megvizsgáljuk, Mill zsenialitását jelzi: hogy az általa kikalapált eszmék ennyire a közgondolkodás részévé lettek, szinte változatlan formában bukkannak fel - gyakran olyan politikusok száján is, akik közben illiberálisként definiálják magukat. Ha belelapozunk Marxba, vagy a konzervatívok ősszövegeibe, azt látjuk, számos módosítást kell végrehajtanunk rajta ahhoz, hogy a jelen problémáira releváns választ adjanak - ehhez képest a liberalizmus filozófiai magja elképesztően időtlennek tűnik. (Persze lehet, hogy tévedek - akik jobban járatosak Hobbes-ban, esetleg a Tőkében, biztos kijavítanak.)

A liberalizmust gyakran éri az a vád, hogy idealista. Hisz az egyéni felelősségben, abban, hogy te meg én magunktól is el tudjuk dönteni, mi a jó nekünk, és nem kell, hogy egy nagyobb tekintély pesztrálgasson minket, mint egy bébiszitter. Azt gondolom, ez az idea olyan mélyen gyökerezik az Újszövetségben, amennyire egy elmélet csak gyökerezhet*. Az ember ugyanis lelkes lény, és aligha lehet számára nemesebb célt kitalálni, mint hogy ezt a lelket folyton csinosítsa, tökéletesítse - ha Isten nem ezért adta neki, akkor semmi értelme nem volt az egész hókuszpókusznak Évával meg Ádámmal, csinálhatott volna egyszerűen egy újabb hangyafajt, csak nagyobbat, mint az eddigiek. Mill mély meggyőződése, hogy az ember igazi feladata önmagát megteremteni, viszont ez a folyamat csak a lehető legnagyobb szabadság légkörében képzelhető el. Ez az, ami előre visz minket, ami mozgatja a társadalmat és a civilizációt**.

Ugyanakkor Millt én kifejezetten realistának is tartom. Nem azt állítja, hogy mindenkinek megvan a tehetsége vagy akarata önmaga tökéletesítésére. Érti és érzékeli, az átlagember számára ezek a célok túl absztraktak, neki megfelel az állóvíz, sőt: erős késztetést érez, hogy saját világnézetét másokra kényszerítse. De pont ezért van szükség a korlátokra, melyeket a liberalizmus emel. Mert ez az eszme nem csupán arról szól, mit szabad (hajlamos vagyok azt hinni, nem is elsősorban erről szól), hanem arról is, mit nem tehetünk - másokkal. Nem kényszeríthetjük őket arra, hogy az általunk favorizált világnézeti keretek között tengődjenek - nem csak egy uralkodó kisebbség nem tehet ilyet, de a többség sem.

Nyilván a liberalizmus nem tökéletes eszmerendszer. Nem is állíthatná, hogy mindenre van megoldása, ha egyszer abból indul ki, hogy a társadalom egymásnak gyakran ellentétes érdekek halmaza, ahol senki nem birtokolhatja egyedül az igazságot - igen, még a liberalizmus sem. Ugyanakkor - legalábbis elméletileg - a liberalizmus az az idea, ami leginkább képes tolerálni a véleménykülönbségeket, lehetővé téve ezáltal, hogy palástja alatt a lehető legtöbb nézet hívei megtalálhassák a maguk számítását. Ez persze hordoz magában veszélyt, de egyben lehetőség is arra, hogy a közösség soha ne veszítse el a tanulás képességét, és mindig találjon körein belül olyan igazságot, ami az adott kor legégetőbb problémájára megoldást jelent.

Megjegyzés: olvasás közben gyakran eszembe jutott, mit szólna Mill a pandémia kérdésével kapcsolatos egyre mélyülő társadalmi szakadékhoz. Az oltásellenesek*** (akár tudnak róla, akár nem) ugyanis gyakran mintha az ő érveit ismételnék meg, amikor a kötelező oltás kérdése felmerül. Hogy joguk van elutasítani a vakcinát, joguk van aszerint a nézet szerint élni, hogy a covid csak humbug, bezzeg a gyógyszergyárak haszonleső szörnyek, akik valamiért szeretnék a teljes eljövendő generációt az autizmus örvényébe taszítani. Leegyszerűsítve: joguk van akár hülyének is lenni. A hülyeséghez való jog védelme valóban olyan kérdés, amiben egy liberális gondolkodónak lehet kellemetlen perceket okozni. A probléma itt nyilván az, hogy a liberalizmus által kijelölt korlátok ("...saját javunkra a magunk módján törekedhetünk mindaddig, míg nem próbálunk másokat ugyanebben megakadályozni...") gyakran elmosódottak. Mi bizonyítja ebben a konkrét esetben, hogy ha valaki elutasítja az oltást, akkor ennek bármilyen sérelmet okoz? Erre nyilván az a válasz, hogy a tudomány már számtalanszor elmagyarázta, az átoltottság hiánya mennyiben felel azért, hogy egy vírus továbbra is jelen van egy közösségben. Erre viszont simán lehet az felelni, hogy a tudomány ezt baromi bonyolultan magyarázta el, ellenben a múltkor a facebookon volt egy poszt, amiben feketén-fehéren oda volt írva, hogy akit beoltottak, az is elkapta, sőt, AZÉRT kapta el. Az egy tök egyszerű nyelven megírt poszt volt - no most milyen alapon akar minket bárki arra kényszeríteni, hogy a bonyolult, agytornát igénylő állításokat fogadjuk el, amikor primitív, könnyen emészthető, világnézetünkhöz jobban passzoló igazságok is rendelkezésünkre állnak? Ha véleményszabadság van, akkor az együtt jár annak a szabadságával is, hogy akár rossz véleményeket is magunkévá tehetünk. Ha a tekintély nem köthet minket abban, hogy önmagunk lehessünk, akkor miért pont a tudomány tekintélye lenne a kivétel? Nehezen, talán sehogy sem feloldható kérdés. Az ilyesmi próbára teszi a liberalizmus rugalmasságát - hogy képes-e kilépni saját keretei közül anélkül, hogy meghasonuljon önmagával. Mert néha talán erre is szükség van. És itt jegyezném meg, hogy bizonyos tekintetben hálával tartozunk az oltáselleneseknek, amiért balhitükkel gondoskodnak arról, hogy nap mint nap próbára tehetjük véleményünket, így az megmenekül attól, hogy holt dogmává kövesedjen.

* Megkockáztatom (bár teológiai értelemben totálisan alulképzett vagyok), hogy amikor a reformáció elvetette a szabad akaratot, bizonyos értelemben távolabb került Jézustól, mint a liberalizmus, aki viszont központi elemmé tette. De ez az ellentmondás talán csak látszólagos, teológiai érveléssel feloldható - nyilván a tény, hogy Mill is egy protestáns ország légkörében tudta kidolgozni elméleteit, nem a katolikus Rómában, jelzi a reformáció rugalmasságát.
** Mill egyik érve a liberalizmus mellett amúgy épp az, hogy a társadalom uniformizálódik, és csak az egyén sokszínűségének védelme az, amivel megelőzhetjük az egyformaság korát.
*** Azt gondolom, az oltásellenesek is egy sokszínű közösséget alkotnak, akik számos (bizonyos esetekben megfontolandó) kétség alapján juthatnak arra a következtetésre, amire. Radikális tudománytagadók éppúgy akadhatnak közöttük, mint olyanok, akik egyszerűen bizalmatlanok a rendszer, vagy épp a gyógyszerlobbi iránt. Azzal, hogy ebben a példában a szélsőségeseiket ragadom meg, a leegyszerűsítés vétkét veszem magamra. Mea culpa. ( )

John Stuart Mill calls this nearly 200 page book an essay. Since an essay just means a writing of the authors own opinion this qualifies. Mill makes one strong point in On Liberty and that is that the individual should not be limited by rulers or governments in his or her thinking or actions or speech. Governments should not restrict freedom. However Mill makes it very clear that liberty does not mean that a person is free to do anything that harms another. There is no freedom to impair other people's rights or health or happiness. John Stuart Mill writes that societies and governments do have the authority to restrain or restrict or even punish individuals when their actions interfere with others, freedom is not absolute. It has never meant that one can do whatever one feels like without regard to the impact on other people. The idea that freedom means we can not be compelled to do what is best for everyone else is popular today. The resistance to reasonable public health measures during the pandemic that began in 2020 is a prime example of what Mill considered the limits of freedom. More people need to read John Stuart Mill. ( )

This is one of the finest works of libertarian philosophy, focused on the proper role of the individual vs. the state and society. Essentially, Mill advances the case for individual freedom and non-intervention by society to the extent that the individual's actions only harm himself, using multiple forms of justification -- that it allows experimentation, that restrictions are often misguided, and that restrictions tend to centralize power and eliminate greatness in men.

I disagree with Mill on one specific point. He says an individual's role as a service provider, business, etc. is "part of society" and not "an individual right" -- this is incorrect; the right to make/sell is just as much an individual right as the right to buy/consume.

Depressingly, much of what he identified as uniquely awesome about America is no longer true -- we are now governed by a massive bureaucracy, and much of the citizenry are not individually reliant as they were at one time -- and in areas such as universal state-run education his fears have been fully realized. ( )

An essay that was as relevant today as when it was first published. This handsome edition from Penguin is uncluttered and easy to read. ( )

This book just did not resonate with me. The logic seemed sound, but it also seemed like he was rehashing the same thing over and over. Some of the better points:
- Societies tend to demand conformity, assuming that their way is the "true" way.
- Societies mistakenly assume that they are better than all previous societies.
- Diversity is good as long as it is not harmful to society.
- When there is no opposition, people fail to grasp the arguments for their way of life, and the society becomes weak, unable to defend itself against competing philosophies.
- Truth doesn't necessarily triumph over falsehood, especially in the short run. In the long run truth keeps being rediscovered, and may eventually be adopted.
- Legal or social penalties will generally stop the propagation of both truth and error

"Strong impulses are but another name for energy. Energy may be turned to bad uses, but more good may always be made of an energetic nature, than of an indolent and impassive one."
----------------------- Addendum --------------------
About 2/3 of the way through this book I saw that his arguments are those that would be employed by homosexual, etc.. They also seemed arbitrary rather than having a sound foundation: He says that fornication is okay, but that a pimp is not; Drunkenness is okay, but violent behavior while drunk is not. Marriage is okay; so is divorce. Men should support their families & provide education for their children.
( )

A pleasingly readable philosophical pamphlet (using the Victorian definition of a 4-hour read). Mill is very English in his philosophy, arguing through example and refusing to follow his arguments _ad absurdium_. This has the effect of keeping the pace trotting along, but with the risk of raising many unanswered questions.

I was surprised to find the final chapter a treatise on small government. Knowing Mill as one of the authors of Utilitaniarism, and carrying my post 1970s tribal assumptions of Left/Right, I'd naturally expected an argument for liberty requiring the constraint of business. Mill, however, argues the opposite. I wonder if in the 21st Century with _de facto_ businesses as governments, he'd thread a more subtle needle. His suspicion of the National Curriculum get more positive support from me.

Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of character has abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigor, and moral courage which it contained.

It would be pretentious to suggest I dedicated my reading to Ahmed Merabet, yet it would be untrue to exclaim otherwise. We've drowned in debate about liberty this last week. Somehow I regard that as most encouraging. I found Mill’s treatise riveting and incisive along a number of axes which inform our means of government and private life. Mill was a shrewd historian and a brilliant writer. I gasped audibly at his conclusions and deft references. Too often Utilitarianism is wedged into confined spaces for politically conservative purposes. I have no problem with that. I suspect J.S. Mill wouldn't either. His moral remains, we should all disagree, question custom and exercise our faculties at every turn.
( )

I liked this one, but it was not as profound or as memorable as my friends told me it was, so I was a bit disappointed. Reading this book was not particularly entertaining, but gave me some background for reading other, more modern arguments related to liberty and society. ( )

Revisiting On Liberty was an interesting exercise. It is little wonder that it was, and, according to the introduction, is ever more so, a gospel for living as an individual. What was most challenging was to find that so much of my education has led me to read Mill as if it were gospel, agreeing at every turn with almost everything. Its simplicity may be a reason for this, but it is also evident that a liberal education cannot be anything less than based on Mill's philosophy. Ideas affecting liberty, such as the after-hours lock-out laws in Sydney, are covered by Mill. Yet contemporary ideas of libertarianism seem to deny Mill's authority on the matter. But finding my own philosophy so closely aligned with Mill's is something worthy of further challenge and reflection. That this "little book" has since become a program for governments throughout the Anglo world appears to have reached its peak, with issues such as national security throwing into conflict the ideas of Hobbes and Mill on the nature of the "good society". Yet this gospel of the liberal tradition, in my mind, at least, wins again and again when read from the lofty heights of experience which I could neither conjure nor comprehend all those years ago. Mill really is the "godfather" of the liberal tradition and, like any gospel, rewards one with each subsequent reading. ( )

Nice long Victorian sentences. Five stars for the scorn and contempt. ( )

This is a lucid, powerful, and extremely influential defense of individual liberty. It's short, too, less than 150 paperback pages, very accessible and worth knowing whatever your beliefs. After all, as Mill himself says, if something is true, we should learn it--if something is false, it can still illuminate truth through its errors. Although I think there are some fatal defects, I also find much that is persuasive and wise. I like his arguments for the utility of freedom of speech and opinion and the dangers of conformity. Mill states his object from the start:

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

For me so far, so good. I see two major problems with his arguments though, defects that are undermine the above. First, there is his insistence in grounding his argument on Utilitarianism:

It is proper to state that I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility. I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being.

And then Mill makes a curious move. He states his arguments don't apply to children that those "who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury." Fair enough. But then he goes on to say that:

Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion.

That in my opinion is what always lets the tyrant in the door. It's for their own good! Wasn't after all that the argument for everything from black chattel slavery to colonialism? If you don't ground individual liberty as a right, then the argument can always be made that a individual person or even the majority of the people don't know their own good. Who is to say when humankind has reached the age of majority? And indeed you can see that in Mill's own evolution. In this essay he argues for the free market--but eventually would become a socialist. So... ( )

Apart from the small print and huge paragraphs, this is a supremely readable and insightful tome of political philosophy. I can agree in general with his ideas, but in response to all of those free market neo-liberals worshipping at his feet I would point to page 80:

Whoever succeeds in an overcrowded profession, or in a competitive examination; whoever is preferred to another in any contest for an object which both desire, reaps benefit rom the loss of others, from their wasted exertion and their disappointment. But it is, by common admission, better for the general interest of mankind, that persons should pursue their objects undeterred by this sort of consequences. In other words, society admits no right, either legal or moral, in the disappointed competitors, to immunity from this kind of suffering; and feels called on to interfere, only when means of success have been employed which it is contrary to the general interest to permit -- namely, fraud or treachery, and force.

That seems to succinctly condemn any of the hanky panky going on up there Wall Street-ward, and even allow for society (i.e. state) intervention to prevent it. Admittedly, it leaves the definition of "treachery" and "force" rather fuzzy.

I found deeply engaging his elegant conversation about freedom of opinion and expression in chapters 2 and 3. Among many memorable points, he proclaims the importance of keeping our beliefs alive and honed through honest and vigorous debate with opposing opinions. Also very interesting were his ideas about the school system in chapter 5. I´d be interested to hear what he had to say about universal health care. ( )

The seminal work on utilitarianism by it's intellectual founder. JSM's take on macro and micro economics (as we know them now) is critical to understanding our freedoms as tied to a economized society.

A must read for all libertarians and socialists. ( )

How did I get a college degree without reading this book? How did I even get a high school diploma? John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty”, written just before the US Civil War, is an amazing look at the concept of liberty, what we in the modern United States would call freedom. Although the book is a century and a half old the language is only slightly dusty and the issues are depressingly current. What is the proper role of government, should women have rights equal to men, should majority opinion create rules for the minority?

Mills’ believed that, as long an individual’s actions do not cause harm someone else, those individuals, those adult individuals, should be allowed to do whatever they please. His argument on the Temperance Movement of his era is directly applicable to the question of recreational drugs today, as are his comments on freedom of religion.

This book, along with Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” are the most important works I have read on the subject of freedom and the proper role of government, both are old enough that I doubt anyone could accuse the authors of these books of “partisan politics” unless, that is, they consider freedom and liberty of interest only the “other side”. ( )

Wouldn't it be great if life were like these philosopher chappies thought? You know, one great idea; we all conform to it, and universal happiness is guaranteed! Mill, of course came up with the idea that individual liberty was that one concept. The only rider which he was willing to put upon liberty, was that one's liberty must not harm another.

The best thing about this Pelican edition, is the forward which, gives the uninitiated, such as myself, a background to the writing thereof. The partial biography tells us that John Stuart never attended school, but was hothoused by his father, James, and Jeremy Bentham, to such an extent that JS was reading ancient Greek manuscripts at the age of three! Needless to say, such pressure caused the poor might to suffer a nervous breakdown and he eventually rebelled to the extent of a most curious affair at age 23 with a married woman, Harriet Taylor. When Mr Taylor turned up his heels (some twenty years later), they, eventually, wed and, whilst working together on several tracts, one of which was 'On Liberty', published nothing until such time as Mrs. Mill went to meet her first husband once more.

The biography certainly helps one to understand from whence came this seemingly simple and humanitarian philosophy and also gives an inkling as to why it, like all unidimensional solutions to the human state, is bound to disappoint its followers. This little book is a very readable insight into John Stuart's (and Harriet's) thinking. Fascinating, but I shall not become a devotee. ( )

After finishing this book, I'm of the opinion it should be required reading in high school. It is not that I agree with Mill on all points—I certainly don't—it's that he's asking the right questions. Essentially, he starts a discussion on what it means to be a citizen of a community and what it means to be a just government. He highlights the often-overlooked distinction between the premise that, in a democracy, power should be in the hands of the majority and the very different premise that the majority, having that power, should be free to do as it chooses.

Of course, he reaches certain conclusions: "…the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." These conclusions can be attacked from both directions. From a more conservative position, one can question what appears to be his assumption that a society is nothing more than a collection of individuals, that no concept of shared values has a place in it. One might also question his delineations of "harm to others"…they seem somewhat shallow and limited to direct causality. From a more liberal position, one might take issue with his statements that backward societies should not enjoy full privileges because they are not "capable". One might question whether he is really trying to protect individuality or whether he is trying to protect the intellectual elite from the "despotism of collective mediocrity."

It does not matter. These questions are certainly as relevant today as they were just before the Civil War, and the attempt to answer them seems important to me. ( )

A core writing about political philosophy, this is the one that, more than any other, activated my thinking about politics and freedom. Mill describes the object of his essay to be: "That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." ( )

A must read for anybody interested in freedom of expression ( )

A classic exposition of the idea that man should generally be free of interference from the government except as needed to protect the liberty of others. It's written from a decidedly utilitarian perspective, making the conclusions both stronger and weaker - stronger because Mill shows that liberty has significant practical advantages, but weaker because it places liberty as a good less valuable than other goods, and makes it difficult to defend liberty against the argument that some infringement on liberty will leave people "better off". ( )