On Liberty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search
For the 2014 book by Shami Chakrabarti, see On Liberty (2014).
This article possibly contains original research. Please improve
it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements
consisting only of original research should be removed. (September
2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

On Liberty

The title page of the first edition, published 1859

Author John Stuart Mill

Country United Kingdom

 Language English

Subject Liberty

Publication date 1859

Media type Print

Dewey Decimal 323.44

LC Class JC585

Text On Liberty at Wikisource

On Liberty is a philosophical essay by the English philosopher John Stuart Mill.

Published in 1859, it applies Mill's ethical system of utilitarianism to society and state.[1]
[2]
 Mill suggests standards for the relationship between authority and liberty. He
emphasizes the importance of individuality, which he considers prerequisite to the
higher pleasures—the summum bonum of utilitarianism. Furthermore, Mill asserts that
democratic ideals may result in the tyranny of the majority. Among the standards
proposed are Mill's three basic liberties of individuals, his three legitimate objections to
government intervention, and his two maxims regarding the relationship of the individual
to society.
On Liberty was a greatly influential and well-received work. Some classical
liberals and libertarians have criticized it for its apparent
discontinuity[specify] with Utilitarianism, and vagueness in defining the arena within which
individuals can contest government infringements on their personal freedom of action.
[3]
 The ideas presented in On Liberty have remained the basis of much political thought.
It has remained in print since its initial publication. A copy of On Liberty is passed to the
president of the British Liberal Democrats as a symbol of office.[4]
Mill's marriage to Harriet Taylor Mill greatly influenced the concepts in On Liberty, which
was published shortly after she died.

Contents

 1Composition
 2Overview
o 2.1Introduction
o 2.2Of the liberty of thought and discussion
o 2.3On individuality as one of the elements of well-being
o 2.4On the limits to the authority of society over the individual
o 2.5Applications
  2.5.1Economy
 2.5.2Preventing harm
 2.5.3Repeat offences to public through private action
 2.5.4Encouraging vice
 2.5.5Suicide and divorce
 2.5.6Education
 2.5.7Conclusion
 3Reception
o 3.1Contradiction to utilitarianism
o 3.2Narrow focus
o 3.3Religious criticism
o 3.4Conception of harm
o 3.5Charges of racism and colonialism
 4Notable editions
 5See also
 6Bibliography
 7References

Composition[edit]
According to Mill in his autobiography, On Liberty was first conceived as a short essay
in 1854. As the ideas developed, the essay was expanded, rewritten and "sedulously"
corrected by Mill and his wife, Harriet Taylor. Mill, after suffering a mental breakdown
and eventually meeting and subsequently marrying Harriet, changed many of his beliefs
on moral life and women's rights. Mill states that On Liberty "was more directly and
literally our joint production than anything else which bears my name."
The final draft was nearly complete when his wife died suddenly in 1858. [5][6] Mill
suggests that he made no alterations to the text at this point and that one of his first acts
after her death was to publish it and to "consecrate it to her memory." [5] The composition
of this work was also indebted to the work of the German thinker Wilhelm von
Humboldt, especially his essay On the Limits of State Action.[5][7] Finally published in
1859, On Liberty was one of Mill's two most influential books (the other
being Utilitarianism).[6]

Overview[edit]
Introduction[edit]
John Stuart Mill opens his essay by discussing the historical "struggle between authority
and liberty,"[8] describing the tyranny of government, which, in his view, needs to be
controlled by the liberty of the citizens. He divides this control of authority into two
mechanisms: necessary rights belonging to citizens, and the "establishment of
constitutional checks by which the consent of the community, or of a body of some sort,
supposed to represent its interests, was made a necessary condition to some of the
more important acts of the governing power." [9] Because society was—in its early stages
—subjected to such turbulent conditions (i.e. small population and constant war), it was
forced to accept rule "by a master."[9] However, as mankind progressed, it became
conceivable for the people to rule themselves. Mill admits that this new form of society
seemed immune to tyranny because "there was no fear of tyrannizing over
self."[10] Despite the high hopes of the Enlightenment, Mill argues that the democratic
ideals were not as easily met as expected. First, even in democracy, the rulers were not
always the same sort of people as the ruled. [11] Second, there is a risk of a "tyranny of
the majority" in which the many oppress the few who, according to democratic ideals,
have just as much a right to pursue their legitimate ends. [11][12][13]
In Mill's view, tyranny of the majority is worse than tyranny of government because it is
not limited to a political function. Where one can be protected from a tyrant, it is much
harder to be protected "against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling." [12] The
prevailing opinions within society will be the basis of all rules of conduct within society;
thus there can be no safeguard in law against the tyranny of the majority. Mill's proof
goes as follows: the majority opinion may not be the correct opinion. The only
justification for a person's preference for a particular moral belief is that it is that
person's preference. On a particular issue, people will align themselves either for or
against that issue; the side of greatest volume will prevail, but is not necessarily correct.
[14]
 In conclusion to this analysis of past governments, Mill proposes a single standard for
which a person's liberty may be restricted:
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 ... Over himself, over his body and mind,
the individual is sovereign.[15]
Mill clarifies that this standard is solely based on utility.[16] Therefore, when it is not
useful, it may be ignored. For example, according to Mill, children and "barbarian"
nations are benefited by limited freedom. [17] Just despots, such
as Charlemagne and Akbar the Great, were historically beneficial to people not yet fit to
rule themselves.[17]
J. S. Mill concludes the Introduction by discussing what he claimed were the three basic
liberties in order of importance:[18]

1. The freedom of thought and emotion. This includes the freedom to act on such
thought, i.e. freedom of speech
2. The freedom to pursue tastes (provided they do no harm to others), even if they
are deemed "immoral"
3. The freedom to unite so long as the involved members are of age, the involved
members are not forced, and no harm is done to others
While Mill admits that these freedoms could—in certain situations—be pushed aside, he
claims that in contemporary and civilised societies there is no justification for their
removal.[19]
Of the liberty of thought and discussion[edit]
In the second chapter, J. S. Mill attempts to prove his claim from the first chapter that
opinions ought never to be suppressed.[20] Looking to the consequences of suppressing
opinions, he concludes that opinions ought never to be suppressed, stating, "Such
prejudice, or oversight, when it [i.e. false belief] occurs, is altogether an evil; but it is one
from which we cannot hope to be always exempt, and must be regarded as the price
paid for an inestimable good." He claims that there are three sorts of beliefs that can be
had—wholly false, partly true, and wholly true—all of which, according to Mill, benefit
the common good:[21]
First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly
know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the
silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth;
and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole
truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has
any chance of being supplied. Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but
the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly
contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice,
with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but,
fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled,
and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a
mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and
preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal
experience.[21]
Mill spends a large portion of the chapter discussing implications of and objections to
the policy of never suppressing opinions. [20] In doing so, Mill explains his opinion of
Christian ethics,[22][23] arguing that, while they are praiseworthy,[24][25] they are incomplete on
their own. Therefore, Mill concludes that suppression of opinion based on belief in
infallible doctrine is dangerous.[26] Among the other objections Mill answers is the
objection that the truth will necessarily survive persecution [27] and that society need only
teach the grounds for truth, not the objections to it. [28] Near the end of Chapter 2, Mill
states that "unmeasured vituperation, enforced on the side of prevailing opinion, deters
people from expressing contrary opinion, and from listening to those who express
them."[29]
On individuality as one of the elements of well-being[edit]
In the third chapter, J. S. Mill points out the inherent value of individuality since
individuality is ex vi termini (i.e. by definition) the thriving of the human person through
the higher pleasures.[30][31] He argues that a society ought to attempt to promote
individuality as it is a prerequisite for creativity and diversity. [31] With this in mind, Mill
believes that conformity is dangerous. He states that he fears that Western
civilization approaches this well-intentioned conformity to praiseworthy maxims
characterized by the Chinese civilization.[30][32] Therefore, Mill concludes that actions in
themselves do not matter. Rather, the person behind the action and the action together
are valuable.[33] He writes:
It really is of importance, not only what men do, but also what manner of men they are
that do it. Among the works of man, which human life is rightly employed in perfecting
and beautifying, the first in importance surely is man himself. Supposing it were possible
to get houses built, corn grown, battles fought, causes tried, and even churches erected
and prayers said, by machinery—by automatons in human form—it would be a
considerable loss to exchange for these automatons even the men and women who at
present inhabit the more civilised parts of the world, and who assuredly are but starved
specimens of what nature can and will produce. Human nature is not a machine to be
built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which
requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward
forces which make it a living thing.[33]
On the limits to the authority of society over the individual[edit]
In the fourth chapter, J. S. Mill explains a system in which a person can discern what
aspects of life should be governed by the individual and which by society. [34] Generally,
he holds that a person should be left as free to pursue his own interests as long as this
does not harm the interests of others. In such a situation, "society has jurisdiction over
[the person's conduct]."[34] He rejects the idea that this liberty is simply for the purpose of
allowing selfish indifference. Rather, he argues that this liberal system will bring people
to the good more effectively than physical or emotional coercion. [35] This principle leads
him to conclude that a person may, without fear of just punishment, do harm to himself
through vice. Governments, he claims, should only punish a person for neglecting to
fulfill a duty to others (or causing harm to others), not the vice that brought about the
neglect.[36]
J. S. Mill spends the rest of the chapter responding to objections to his maxim. He notes
the objection that he contradicts himself in granting societal interference with youth
because they are irrational but denying societal interference with certain adults though
they act irrationally.[37] Mill first responds by restating the claim that society ought to
punish the harmful consequences of the irrational conduct, but not the irrational conduct
itself which is a personal matter.[38] Furthermore, he notes the societal obligation is not to
ensure that each individual is moral throughout adulthood. [39] Rather, he states that, by
educating youth, society has the opportunity and duty to ensure that a generation, as a
whole, is generally moral.[40]
Where some may object that there is justification for certain religious prohibitions in a
society dominated by that religion, he argues that members of the majority ought make
rules that they would accept should they have been the minority. [41] He states, "unless
we are willing to adopt the logic of persecutors, and say that we may persecute others
because we are right, and that they must not persecute us because they are wrong, we
must beware of admitting a principle of which we should resent as a gross injustice the
application to ourselves."[42] In saying this, he references an earlier claim that morals and
religion cannot be treated in the same light as mathematics because morals and religion
are vastly more complex.[43] Just as with living in a society which contains immoral
people, Mill points out that agents who find another's conduct depraved do not have to
socialise with the other, merely refrain from impeding their personal decisions. [44] While
Mill generally opposes the religiously motivated societal interference, he admits that it is
conceivably permissible for religiously motivated laws to prohibit the use of what no
religion obligates. For example, a Muslim state could feasibly prohibit pork. However,
Mill still prefers a policy of society minding its own business. [45]
Applications[edit]
This last chapter applies the principles laid out in the previous sections. He begins by
summarising these principles:
The maxims are, first, that the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in
so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself. Advice, instruction,
persuasion, and avoidance by other people if thought necessary by them for their own
good, are the only measures by which society can justifiably express its dislike or
disapprobation of his conduct. Secondly, that for such actions as are prejudicial to the
interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subjected either to social
or to legal punishment, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its
protection.[46]
Economy[edit]
Mill first applies these principles to the economy. He concludes that free markets are
preferable to those controlled by governments. While it may seem, because "trade is a
social act," that the government ought intervene in the economy, Mill argues that
economies function best when left to their own devices. [47] Therefore, government
intervention, though theoretically permissible, would be counterproductive. [47] Later, he
attacks government-run economies as "despotic." He believes that if the government
ran the economy, then all people would aspire to be part of a bureaucracy that had no
incentive to further the interests of any but itself. [48]
Preventing harm[edit]
Next Mill investigates in what ways a person may try to prevent harm. [49] He first admits
that a person should not wait for injury to happen, but ought try to prevent it. Second, he
states that agents must consider whether that which can cause injury can cause injury
exclusively.[50] He gives the example of selling poison. Poison can cause harm. However,
he points out that poison can also be used for good. Therefore, selling poison is
permissible.[47] Yet, due to the risk entailed in selling poison or like products (e.g.
alcohol), he sees no danger to liberty to require warning labels on the product. [51][52] Again,
Mill applies his principle. He considers the right course of action when an agent sees a
person about to cross a condemned bridge without being aware of the risk. Mill states
that because the agent presumably has interest in not crossing a dangerous bridge (i.e.
if he knew the facts concerned with crossing the bridge, he would not desire to cross the
bridge), it is permissible to forcibly stop the person from crossing the bridge. He
qualifies the assertion stating that, if the means are available, it is better to warn the
unaware person.[50]
With regard to taxing to deter agents from buying dangerous products, he makes a
distinction. He states that to tax solely to deter purchases is impermissible because
prohibiting personal actions is impermissible and "[e]very increase of cost is a
prohibition, to those whose means do not come up to the augmented price." [52] However,
because a government must tax to some extent in order to survive, it may choose to
take its taxes from what it deems most dangerous.[53]
Repeat offences to public through private action[edit]
Mill expands upon his principle of punishing the consequences rather than the personal
action. He argues that a person who is empirically prone to act violently (i.e. harm
society) from drunkenness (i.e. a personal act) should be uniquely restricted from the
drinking. He further stipulates that repeat offenders should be punished more than first
time offenders.[54]
Encouraging vice[edit]
On the subject of fornication and gambling, Mill has no conclusive answer, stating,
"[t]here are arguments on both sides." [55] He suggests that while the actions might be
"tolerated" in private, promoting the actions (i.e. being a pimp or keeping a gambling
house) "should not be permitted."[56] He reaches a similar conclusion with acts of
indecency, concluding that public indecency is condemnable. [57]
Suicide and divorce[edit]
Mill continues by addressing the question of social interference in suicide. He states that
the purpose of liberty is to allow a person to pursue their interest. Therefore, when a
person intends to terminate their ability to have interests it is permissible for society to
step in. In other words, a person does not have the freedom to surrender their freedom.
[58]
 To the question of divorce, Mill argues that marriages are one of the most important
structures within society;[59] however, if a couple mutually agrees to terminate their
marriage, they are permitted to do so because society has no grounds to intervene in
such a deeply personal contract.[60]
Education[edit]
Mill believes that government run education is an evil because it would destroy diversity
of opinion for all people to be taught the curriculum developed by a few. [61] The less evil
version of state run schooling, according to Mill, is that which competes against other
privately run schools.[62] In contrast, Mill believes that governments ought to require and
fund private education. He states that they should enforce mandatory education through
minor fines and annual standardised testing that tested only uncontroversial fact. [63] He
goes on to emphasise the importance of a diverse education that teaches opposing
views (e.g. Kant and Locke).[64] He concludes by stating that it is legitimate for states to
forbid marriages unless the couple can prove that they have "means of supporting a
family" through education and other basic necessities. [65]
Conclusion[edit]
J. S. Mill concludes by stating three general reasons to object to governmental
interference:

1. if agents do the action better than the government. [66]

2. if it benefits agents to do the action though the government may be more
qualified to do so.[66]
3. if the action would add so greatly to the government power that it would become
over-reaching or individual ambition would be turned into dependency on
government.[67]
He summarises his thesis, stating:
The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it; and a
State which postpones the interests of their mental expansion and elevation, to a little
more of administrative skill, or of that semblance of it which practice gives, in the details
of business; a State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile
instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes—will find that with small men no
great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it
has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power
which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish. [68]

Reception[edit]
On Liberty was enormously popular in the years following its publication. [69] Thomas
Hardy recalled later in life that undergraduates in the 1860s knew the book almost by
heart.[69] Criticisms of the book in the 19th century came chiefly from thinkers who felt
that Mill's concept of liberty left the door open for barbarism, such as James Fitzjames
Stephen and Matthew Arnold.[70]
In more recent times, although On Liberty garnered adverse criticism, it has been
largely received as an important classic of political thought for its ideas and accessibly
lucid style. Denise Evans and Mary L. Onorato summarise the modern reception of On
Liberty, stating: "[c]ritics regard his essay On Liberty as a seminal work in the
development of British liberalism. Enhanced by his powerful, lucid, and accessible prose
style, Mill's writings on government, economics, and logic suggest a model for society
that remains compelling and relevant." [71] As one sign of the book's importance, a copy
of On Liberty is the symbol of office for the president of the Liberal Democrat Party in
England.[72]
Contradiction to utilitarianism[edit]
Mill makes it clear throughout On Liberty that he "regard[s] utility as the ultimate appeal
on all ethical questions", a standard he inherited from his father, a follower of Jeremy
Bentham.[6] Though J. S. Mill claims that all of his principles on liberty appeal to the
ultimate authority of utilitarianism, according to Nigel Warburton, much of the essay can
seem divorced from his supposed final court of appeals. Mill seems to idealize liberty
and rights at the cost of utility. For instance, Mill writes: [73]
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of contrary
opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he
had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. [74]
This claim seems to go against the principle of utilitarianism, that it is permissible that
one should be harmed so that the majority could benefit. [73]
Warburton argues that Mill is too optimistic about the outcome of free speech.
Warburton suggests that there are situations in which it would cause more happiness to
suppress truth than to permit it. For example, if a scientist discovered a comet about to
kill the planet in a matter of weeks, it may cause more happiness to suppress the truth
than to allow society to discover the impending danger. [73]
While David Brink concedes that Mill's apparently categorical appeal to rights seems to
contradict utilitarianism, he points out that Mill does not believe rights are truly
categorical because Mill opposes unrestrained liberty (e.g. offensive public exposure). [75]
Furthermore, David Brink tries to reconcile Mill's system of rights with utilitarianism in
three ways:[75]
 1. Rights are secondary principles to the Greatest Happiness Principle [75]
2. Rights are incomparable goods, justifying their categorical enforcement [75]
3. Liberty is a good. Thus, those who suppress it are worthy of punishment. Rights
deal with the value of punishing/protecting others' interference with liberty, not
the actual protection of liberty[75]
Narrow focus[edit]
Some thinkers have criticised Mill's writing for its apparent narrow or unclear focus in
several areas. Mill makes clear that he only considers adults in his writing, failing to
account for how irrational members of society, such as children, ought to be treated.
[76]
 Yet Mill's theory relies upon the proper upbringing of children. [17][40] Plank has asserted
that Mill fails to account for physical harm, solely concerning himself with spiritual
wellbeing. He also argues that, while much of Mill's theory depends upon a distinction
between private and public harm, Mill seems not to have provided a clear focus on or
distinction between the private and public realms. [76]
Religious criticism[edit]
Nigel Warburton states that though Mill encourages religious tolerance, because he
does not speak from the perspective of a specific religion, some claim that he does not
account for what certain religious beliefs would entail when governing a society. Some
religions believe that they have a God given duty to enforce religious norms. For them, it
seems impossible for their religious beliefs to be wrong, i.e. the beliefs are infallible.
Therefore, according to Warburton, Mill's principle of total freedom of speech may not
apply.[73][77]
Conception of harm[edit]
The harm principle is central to the principles in On Liberty.[73] Nigel Warburton says that
Mill appears unclear about what constitutes harm. Early in the book, he claims that
simply being offensive does not constitute harm.[73][78] Later, he writes that certain acts
which are permissible and harmless in private are worthy of being prohibited in public. [57]
[73][79]
 This seems to contradict his earlier claim that merely offensive acts do not warrant
prohibition because, presumably, the only harm done by a public act which is harmless
in private is that it is offensive.[73]
Warburton notes that some people argue that morality is the basis of society, and that
society is the basis of individual happiness. Therefore, if morality is undermined, so is
individual happiness. Hence, since Mill claims that governments ought to protect the
individual's ability to seek happiness, governments ought to intervene in the private
realm to enforce moral codes.[73]
Charges of racism and colonialism[edit]
Mill is clear that his concern for liberty does not extend to all individuals and all
societies. He states that "Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with
barbarians".[80] Contemporary philosophers Domenico Losurdo[81] and David Theo
Goldberg[82] have strongly criticised Mill as a racist and an apologist for colonialism.
However, during his term as a Member of Parliament, he chaired the
extraparliamentary Jamaica Committee, which for two years unsuccessfully sought the
prosecution of Governor Eyre and his subordinates for military violence against
Jamaican Blacks.[83]

Notable editions[edit]
  The full text of On Liberty at Wikisource, a faithful copy of the fourth edition
published in 1869 by Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer.
 On Liberty at the Internet Archive, a digital facsimile of the first edition.
 On Liberty at Project Gutenberg, derived from an edition by Walter Scott
Publishing with an introduction by W. L. Courtney
 On Liberty at the University of Adelaide Library, derived from the “Harvard
Classics” Volume 25 published in 1909
 On Liberty at Feedbooks
 On Liberty at Bartebly, derived from the edition published in 1869 by Longman,
Roberts & Green
 On Liberty: A Translation into Modern English  Ebook ISBN 9780906321638
  On Liberty public domain audiobook at LibriVox
 Joel Feinberg's heavily annotated copy of Mill’s   On Liberty available online at the
Princeton University Digital Library.
 On Liberty and The Subjection of Women (ISBN 0-141-44147-X)
 The Basic Writings of John Stuart Mill On Liberty, The Subjection of
Women & Utilitarianism (ISBN 0-375-75918-2)
 All Minus One: John Stuart Mill’s Ideas on Free Speech Illustrated (ISBN 978-0-
692-06831-1), a condensed and illustrated version of Chapter 2 of On
Liberty designed for students

See also[edit]
 The Subjection of Women

Bibliography[edit]
Wikiquote has quotations
related to: On Liberty

 Brack, Duncan (2007). "Great Liberals". Journal of Liberal History. Archived

from the original on 6 March 2012. Retrieved 6 July 2012.
 Brink, David (2007). "Mill's Moral and Political Philosophy". 3.12 Liberalism and
Utilitarianism: Stanford.
 Clausen, Christopher (2009). "John Stuart Mill's 'Very Simple Principle'". Wilson
Quarterly. pp. 40–46. Archived from the original on 8 January 2016. Retrieved 9
July 2012.
 Devlin, Patrick Baron (1965), The enforcement of morals, London: Oxford
University Press, p. vi, ISBN 0-19-285018-0, OCLC 1934003, 0192850180
 Evans, Denise; Onorato, Mary L. (1997). Nineteenth-Century Literary Criticism.
Gale Cengage. ISBN 0-8103-7175-8.
 Mill, John Stuart (1859). On Liberty. MobileReference.
 Mill, John Stuart (1873). Autobiography.
 Menezes Oliveira, Jorge. "Harm and Offence in Mill's Conception of
Liberty"  (PDF). University of Oxford, Faculty of Law. Archived from the
original  (PDF) on 24 April 2012. Retrieved 6 July 2012.
 Plank, Barbara (1995–2012). "John Stuart Mill". Archived from the original on 3
March 2016. Retrieved 15 December 2017.
 Scarre, Geoffrey (2007). Mill's 'On Liberty': A Reader's
Guide. ISBN 9780826486486.
 Ten, Chin Liew (2007) [1980]. Mill On Liberty. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
 Warburton, Nigel (2008). "Philosophy: The Classics". John Stuart Mill on Liberty.
 Wilson, Fred (2007). "John Stuart Mill". Life: Stanford.

References[edit]
1. ^ Mill, John Stuart (1860). On Liberty (2 ed.). London: John W.Parker &
Son. ISBN 9781499238341.
2. ^ Mill, John Stuart (1864). On Liberty (3 ed.). London: Longman, Green, Longman Roberts &
Green.
3. ^ Ebeling, Richard (1 June 2001).  "John Stuart Mill and the Three Dangers to Liberty".  The
Future of Freedom Foundation. Retrieved  9 October  2019. Classical liberals and libertarians have
often pointed out that a weak link in Mill’s argument is the vagueness or inconsistency in how he
defines the arena within which the individual may claim protection from political infringements on his
individual freedom of action.
4. ^ Books, Five. "On Liberty | Five Books Expert Reviews".  Five Books. Retrieved  18
May 2019.
5. ^ Jump up to:a b c Mill "Autobiography" 1873
6. ^ Jump up to:a b c Wilson 2007, section: Life
7. ^ Mill 1859, pp. 7,879,100, 143–44, 150, 164
8. ^ Mill 1859, p. 3
9. ^ Jump up to:a b Mill 1859, p. 4
10. ^ Mill 1859, p. 5
11. ^ Jump up to:a b Mill 1859, p. 6
12. ^ Jump up to:a b Mill 1859, p. 7
13. ^ Mill 1859, p. 13
14. ^ Mill 1859, pp. 9–10
15. ^ Mill 1859, pp. 14–15
16. ^ Mill 1859, p. 16
17. ^ Jump up to:a b c Mill 1859, p. 15
18. ^ Mill 1859, p. 18
19. ^ Mill 1859, p. 19
20. ^ Jump up to:a b Mill 1859, ch. 2
21. ^ Jump up to:a b Mill 1859, p. 72
22. ^ Mill 1859, pp. 66–68
23. ^ Mill 1859, p. 35
24. ^ Mill 1859, p. 36
25. ^ Mill 1859, p. 41
26. ^ Mill 1859, p. 45
27. ^ Mill 1859, pp. 38–39
28. ^ Mill 1859, p. 48
29. ^ Mill, John Stuart, Harvard Classics: Volume 25, PF Collier & Sons, New York 1909, p. 258.
30. ^ Jump up to:a b Mill 1859, p. 84
31. ^ Jump up to:a b Mill 1859, p. 89
32. ^ Mill 1859, pp. 98–99
33. ^ Jump up to:a b Mill 1859, p. 81
34. ^ Jump up to:a b Mill 1859, p. 103
35. ^ Mill 1859, p. 104
36. ^ Mill 1859, p. 108
37. ^ Mill 1859, p. 111
38. ^ Mill 1859, p. 112
39. ^ Mill 1859, p. 113
40. ^ Jump up to:a b Mill 1859, p. 114
41. ^ Mill 1859, pp. 118–19
42. ^ Mill 1859, p. 119
43. ^ Mill 1859, p. 49
44. ^ Mill 1859, p. 109
45. ^ Mill 1859, p. 118
46. ^ Mill 1859, p. 130
47. ^ Jump up to:a b c Mill 1859, p. 131
48. ^ Mill 1859, p. 155
49. ^ Mill 1859, ch. Applications
50. ^ Jump up to:a b Mill 1859, p. 133
51. ^ Mill 1859, p. 134
52. ^ Jump up to:a b Mill 1859, p. 139
53. ^ Mill 1859, pp. 139–40
54. ^ Mill 1859, p. 135
55. ^ Mill 1859, p. 137
56. ^ Mill 1859, p. 138
57. ^ Jump up to:a b Mill 1859, p. 136
58. ^ Mill 1859, p. 142
 59. ^ Mill 1859, p. 143
60. ^ Mill 1859, pp. 143–44
61. ^ Mill 1859, p. 147
62. ^ Mill 1859, p. 148
63. ^ Mill 1859, pp. 148–49
64. ^ Mill 1859, p. 150
65. ^ Mill 1859, p. 151
66. ^ Jump up to:a b Mill 1859, p. 152
67. ^ Mill 1859, p. 154
68. ^ Mill 1869, p. 207
69. ^ Jump up to:a b Scarre 2007, p. 135.
70. ^ Scarre 2007, pp. 135–36.
71. ^ "John Stuart Mill (1806–1873)." Nineteenth-Century Literature Criticism. Ed. Denise Kasinec
and Mary L. Onorato. Vol. 58. Detroit: Gale, 1997. pp. 317–88. Literature Criticism Online. Gale.
72. ^ Brack 2007
73. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i Warburton 2008, John Stuart Mill On Liberty
74. ^ Mill 1859, p. 23
75. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Brink 2007, 3.12 Liberalism and Utilitarianism
76. ^ Jump up to:a b Plank 2012
77. ^ Mill 1859, p. 32
78. ^ Mill 1859, pp. 72–73
79. ^ Oliveira, Offence and Costumary Morality
80. ^ On Liberty, by John Stuart Mill, pp. 18–19.
81. ^ Domenico Losurdo, Liberalism: A Counter-History, Verso, London, 2011
82. ^ David Theo Goldberg (2000) Liberalism's limits: Carlyle and Mill on “the negro
question”, Nineteenth-Century Contexts: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22:2, 203–
16, doi:10.1080/08905490008583508
83. ^ Riley, Jonathan (1998). Mill on liberty. Routledge. p. 5. ISBN 9780203003381.

 cb11963875x (data)

N: n93099950

 35964041

001787514

OC: 027640469

: 176690097

dCat Identities (via VIAF): 176690097

Categories: 
 1859 books
 Classical liberalism
 Political books
 Books about liberalism
 Works by John Stuart Mill
 Books by John Stuart Mill