On Liberty, John Stuart Mill, 1859

[Truth Warrior]

On Liberty

John Stuart Mill

John Stuart Mill explains “The subject of this Essay is not the so-called Liberty of the Will, so unfortunately opposed to the misnamed doctrine of Philosophical Necessity; but Civil, or Social Liberty: the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.” This timeless essay addresses points that resonate into our twenty-first century world.

CONTENTSBibliographic Record Front Matter

LONDON: LONGMAN, ROBERTS & GREEN, 1869


NEW YORK: BARTLEBY.COM, 1999

1. Introductory
2. Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion
3. Of Individuality, as One of the Elements of Well-Being
4. Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual
5. Applications

http://www.bartleby.com/130/

Enjoy!

[Truth Warrior]

Extracted from # 1, above:

"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. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

http://www.bartleby.com/130/1.html

[Truth Warrior]

Bump.

[heavenlyboy34]

I already own the book, and highly recommend it.

[Truth Warrior]

I already own the book, and highly recommend it.

Very good, grasshoppa. Now for your next voluntary exercise, I'd suggest, The Individual, Society and the State by Emma Goldman

[Truth Warrior]

Bump.

[heavenlyboy34]

Very good, grasshoppa. Now for your next voluntary exercise, I'd suggest, The Individual, Society and the State by Emma Goldman

Thanks, sesei. ~bows respectfully~

[Truth Warrior]

Bump!

[raiha]

Strange that this was one of Abraham Lincoln's favourite books.. On Liberty. I got it but it's in the queue of unread books. I got it cos i became intrigued with the figure of Lincoln and his Whig Central Government leanings. And yet lo and behold his favourite writer had huge reservations about Central Government. Maybe he was just studying Mill to see how he could best hoodwink his electorate. So many people think Lincoln was tolerant towards minorities...(another Mill trait) but from what i have read, he rather chose to manipulate certain members of the population into BELIEVING he was tolerant to minorities.

[raiha]

He studied the Constitution in the way only a lawyer can as well....to see what he could manipulate, leave out, embroider....ie the "preserving the Union at all costs" claptrap.
sorry I've veered from Mill to Lincoln...can't help bringing the man into common parlance given the contribution he has made to today's mess.

[heavenlyboy34]

btw,

My copy of "On Liberty" also contains Mill's "Representative Government" and "Utilitarianism", which RPFers might like. (I don't have a webbernet site for those, sowwy )

[Truth Warrior]

Strange that this was one of Abraham Lincoln's favourite books.. On Liberty. I got it but it's in the queue of unread books. I got it cos i became intrigued with the figure of Lincoln and his Whig Central Government leanings. And yet lo and behold his favourite writer had huge reservations about Central Government. Maybe he was just studying Mill to see how he could best hoodwink his electorate. So many people think Lincoln was tolerant towards minorities...(another Mill trait) but from what i have read, he rather chose to manipulate certain members of the population into BELIEVING he was tolerant to minorities.

Lincoln was a man of his times and circumstances. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that, like most of us, he just did the best that he knew and could, given the reality of the situations. His primary agenda item was to preserve the union, slavery and minorities were lower on his list, based on his own words.

[Truth Warrior]

He studied the Constitution in the way only a lawyer can as well....to see what he could manipulate, leave out, embroider....ie the "preserving the Union at all costs" claptrap.
sorry I've veered from Mill to Lincoln...can't help bringing the man into common parlance given the contribution he has made to today's mess.

Slavery was ALWAYS a black mark curse for the US origins.<IMHO> The Brits managed to abolish slavery for the entire empire, WITHOUT a civil war, decades before we did "officially".

Yes, Lincoln was a lawyer and took the oath to uphold, defend and support the CONstitution.

[LibertyEagle]

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

Abraham Lincoln
(1809-1865) 16th US President
Source:

Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858
(The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

[Truth Warrior]

btw,

My copy of "On Liberty" also contains Mill's "Representative Government" and "Utilitarianism", which RPFers might like. (I don't have a webbernet site for those, sowwy )

http://www.iep.utm.edu/m/milljs.htm#top

www.google.com

[LibertyEagle]

Slavery was ALWAYS a black mark curse for the US origins.<IMHO> The Brits managed to abolish slavery for the entire empire, WITHOUT a civil war, decades before we did "officially".

So could have we. But, the issue never was slavery. What Lincoln did was to vastly diminish states' rights, make it clear that secession was not an option and opened the door to mercantilism.

I suggest reading some of Thomas DiLorenzo's books.

[B]Yes, Lincoln was a lawyer and took the oath to uphold, defend and support the CONstitution.

But, he didn't. That's the point.

[LibertyEagle]

Lincoln was a man of his times and circumstances. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that, like most of us, he just did the best that he knew and could, given the reality of the situations. His primary agenda item was to preserve the union, slavery and minorities were lower on his list, based on his own words.

Actually, he had an agenda he wanted to carry out and he did that well. Unfortunately, it was counter to what our country was founded upon.

"Roy Basler, the editor of Lincoln’s Collected Works, commented that Lincoln barely mentioned slavery before 1854, and when he did, ‘his words lacked effectiveness’" (pp. 54–55).

As DiLorenzo ably argues, Lincoln’s real concerns lay otherwise. Throughout his political life, he enlisted under the banner of Henry Clay’s "American System." Proponents of this plan favored a strong central government in order to promote economic development. In classic mercantilist fashion, Clay and his supporters wanted the government to direct the economy through spending on "internal improvements," high protective tariffs, and a nationalized banking system.

Our author does not confine himself to a mere description of Lincoln’s economic goals. He is an economist of distinction and readily locates the fallacies in these interventionist programs. As one would expect from someone trained in both public choice and Austrian economics, he at once seeks the self-interested motivations behind policies that profess to secure the national good. "[P]rotectionism . . . was a means by which a government could dispense favors to well-connected (and well-financed) special interest groups, which in turn provided financial and other support for the politicians dispensing the favors. It benefits both those industries that are protected from competition and the politicians, but it harms everyone else. . . . The same can be said for another element of mercantilism—tax-funded subsidies to politically well-connected businesses and industries. These subsidies generally benefit only those businesses that are lucky enough to get them, at the expense of the taxpayers generally" (pp. 56–57).

http://mises.org/misesreview_detail....ortorder=issue

[Truth Warrior]

So could have we. But, the issue never was slavery. What Lincoln did was to vastly diminish states' rights, make it clear that secession was not an option and opened the door to mercantilism.

I suggest reading some of Thomas DiLorenzo's books.

It was for the confederacy. They rightly and well feared the possible implications of POTUS Lincoln. Hence Fort Sumter.

Thanks for the suggestion.

May I have another?

As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy.
Abraham Lincoln

[LibertyEagle]

Then why did you imply that the war was fought because of slavery?

[Truth Warrior]

Actually, he had an agenda he wanted to carry out and he did that well. Unfortunately, it was counter to what our country was founded upon.


http://mises.org/misesreview_detail....ortorder=issue

Indeed. Many things run counter to the D of I, ESPECIALLY the illegal and unauthorized Federalist cabal coup and it's US CONstitution.<IMHO>

[LibertyEagle]

http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=607...conomic+Legacy

Lincoln's Economic Legacy
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Americans have been led to believe that when they celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s birthday each year on February 12 they are celebrating freedom, the preservation of the union, and a reaffirmation of the principles of the Declaration of Independence. This belief is a testament to the notion that in war the victors get to write the history.

Lincoln will probably be forever known as the "Great Emancipator" because of the Emancipation Proclamation. But every Lincoln scholar knows something that few Americans are aware of: The Emancipation Proclamation freed no one, because it specifically exempted those areas of the southern states that were at the time under the control of the federal armies while allowing slavery to exist in the "loyal" border states of Maryland and Kentucky and in Washington, D.C. itself.

"The principle [of the Proclamation] is not that a human being cannot justly own another," the London Spectator observed on October 11, 1862, "but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States" government.

As Lincoln stated in a famous, August 22, 1862 letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

The Emancipation Proclamation was a propaganda strategy designed to deter England from supporting the Confederacy. It came as a complete surprise to most

Northerners, who thought they were fighting and dying by the tens of thousands to preserve the union. As a result, there were draft riots in New York City; a desertion crisis was created in the U.S. army, with some 200,000 deserters, according to historian Gary Gallagher; and war bond sales plummeted. According to James McPherson, the "dean" of "Civil War" historians, Union soldiers "were willing to risk their lives for the Union, but not for black freedom . . . . They professed to feel betrayed."

Slavery was ended in 1866 with the Thirteenth Amendment, but at the cost of 620,000 lives; hundreds of thousands more that were crippled for life; and the near destruction of almost half the nation’s economy. By contrast, dozens of other countries (including Argentina, Colombia, Chile, all of Central America, Mexico, Bolivia, Uruguay, the French and Danish colonies, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela) ended slavery peacefully during the first 60 years of the nineteenth century. Why not the U.S.?

Lincoln may have "saved" the Union in a geographic sense, but his war destroyed the union defined as a voluntary association of states. Forcing a state to remain in the union at gunpoint renders that state a conquered province, not a genuine partner. This was the overwhelming sentiment of Northern opinion makers at the outset of the war.

As Horace Greeley wrote on March 21, 1861: "The great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration is that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." If southerners wanted to secede, "they have a clear right to do so." "Nine out of ten of the people of the North," Greeley wrote, were opposed to forcing South Carolina to remain in the Union.

As of 1857, writes Roy Basler, the editor of Lincoln’s Collected Works, Lincoln had rarely ever mentioned the issue of slavery, and even then, "when he spoke of respecting the Negro as a human being, his words lacked effectiveness." What did preoccupy Lincoln’s mind throughout his twenty-eight year political career prior to becoming president was the political agenda of the Whig Party and of the man whom he revered most in life, the Kentucky slaveowner Henry Clay, whom Lincoln eulogized in 1852 as "the great parent of Whig principles" and "the fount from which my own political views flowed."

And those political views were clearly stated by Lincoln when he first ran for the Illinois legislature in 1832: "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." These three things -- protectionism, government subsidies to railroad and canal-building companies, and central banking -- were called the "American System" by Henry Clay. Economists have another word for them: "mercantilism."

Murray Rothbard accurately defined mercantilism as "a system of statism which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of imperial state power, as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the state." This is what Lincoln devoted his entire political career to achieving. He was a master politician who once told a friend that his career ambition was to be "the DeWitt Clinton of Illinois." DeWitt Clinton was the notoriously corrupt governor of New York who is credited with inventing the spoils system.

The so-called American System of mercantilism could only be implemented by a highly centralized government of the sort that the U.S. Constitution attempted to deter. That’s why it could only be put into place by force of arms, which it was. As soon as Lincoln maneuvered the South Carolinians into firing the first shot (at a customs house, Fort Sumter) tariff rates were immediately raised to an average of 47 percent and higher, and remained historically high for decades after the war.

During the war Lincoln established a number of tyrannical precedents, including unconstitutionally conducting a war without the consent of Congress; suspending habeas corpus; conscripting railroads and censoring telegraph lines; imprisoning without trial some 30,000 northern citizens for merely voicing opposition to the war; deporting a member of Congress, Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, for opposing Lincoln’s income tax proposal at a Democratic Party political rally; shutting down hundreds of Northern newspapers and imprisoning their editors for questioning his war policies; ordering federal troops to intimidate voters into voting Republican; and intentionally waging war against civilians.

The second plank of the American System of mercantilism, central banking, was achieved with the National Currency Acts of 1863 and 1864, and there was a virtual explosion of government subsidies to railroads and other businesses that bankrolled the Republican Party. The inevitable consequence was the notorious corruption of the Grant administrations.

In 1861 Senator John Sherman, brother of General William Tecumseh Sherman and a major power in the Republican Party, announced that "Those who elected Mr. Lincoln expect him to secure to free labor its just right to the Territories of the United States; to protect . . . by wise revenue laws, the labor of our people; to secure the public lands to actual settlers . . . ; to develop the internal resources of the country by opening new means of communications between the Atlantic and Pacific."

Translating from the politician’s idiom into plain English, this meant that Lincoln’s main objective was always protectionism for Northern manufacturers; buying votes with cheap federal land sales; and the purchase of even more votes and campaign contributions through a massive spoils system created by government subsidies to the railroad industry. The corrupt political strategy of DeWitt Clinton writ large is Abraham Lincoln’s true economic legacy.

[LibertyEagle]

Indeed. Many things run counter to the D of I, ESPECIALLY the illegal and unauthorized Federalist cabal coup and it's US CONstitution.<IMHO>

Not all of our Founders were alike. There were both Federalists and Anti-Federalists. As much as you bash it, the reality is that the form of government they laid out for us in the Constitution, led to us being the most free and prosperous nation, the world ever knew. Unfortunately, WE fell down on the job and didn't heed the words of our Founders to stay educated and vigilant.

[Truth Warrior]

Then why did you imply that the war was fought because of slavery?

For the Confederacy it was an attempt to preserve it's economic dependency and way of life. Remember who fired the first shot.

Can we get back to Mill sometime SOON?

[Truth Warrior]

Not all of our Founders were alike. There were both Federalists and Anti-Federalists. As much as you bash it, the reality is that the form of government they laid out for us in the Constitution, led to us being the most free and prosperous nation, the world ever knew. Unfortunately, WE fell down on the job and didn't heed the words of our Founders to stay educated and vigilant.

Read some DiLorenzo.

Our freedom and prosperity came IN SPITE of the Federal government, NOT because of it.

Can we get back to Mill sometime SOON?

[LibertyEagle]

For the Confederacy it was an attempt to preserve it's economic dependency and way of life. Remember who fired the first shot.

You keep trying to insist the war was fought over slavery, but you still FAIL.

Can we get back to Mill sometime SOON

You're the one who made the incorrect statements about Lincoln and the Civil War. They had to be corrected.

[Truth Warrior]

You keep trying to insist the war was fought over slavery, but you still FAIL.

FALSE!


You're the one who made the incorrect statements about Lincoln and the Civil War. They had to be corrected.

FALSE!

Try reading for COMPREHENSION, I hear it often works absolute wonders.

Can we get back to Mill sometime SOON?

[heavenlyboy34]

Try reading for COMPREHENSION, I hear it often works absolute wonders.

Can we get back to Mill sometime SOON?

I hope so. I like Mill from my readings of Utilitarianism so far. I'll get back to ya when I read further. TTYL, sensei.

[Truth Warrior]

I hope so. I like Mill from my readings of Utilitarianism so far. I'll get back to ya when I read further. TTYL, sensei.

I did too when I first read it, upon further reflection it became TOO collectivist and sacrificial.<IMHO> "Greatest good for the greatest number", and all that CRAP, etc. .

I still much prefer, "On Liberty".

"Society are people." -- Frank Chodorov

[heavenlyboy34]

I did too when I first read it, upon further reflection it became TOO collectivist and sacrificial.<IMHO> "Greatest good for the greatest number", and all that CRAP, etc. .

I still much prefer, "On Liberty".

"Society are people." -- Frank Chodorov

Thanx for the guidance and insight, sensei.

[Truth Warrior]

Thanx for the guidance and insight, sensei.

Come to your own conclusion, grasshoppa.