John Stuart Mill's Conception Of Social Liberty

Savannah Dye

4/18/17

Part I The subject of John Stuart Mill’s essay, On Liberty, is social liberty. Social liberty includes the form, degree, and limit of power that society or the government can rightfully exert onto an individual (Mill, On Liberty, p. 2). Mill believes that even though the topic of social liberty is rarely debated, it is a major player in contemporary discussions to the point that people will not be able to go without addressing it in the future. Not only has this topic evolved since its conception, but the conditions surrounding one’s social liberty have also evolved. Therefore, social liberty is entitled to free and ongoing debate (Mill, On Liberty, p. 2). For example, in olden times, the struggle between liberty and authority

These rulers either assumed power through force or through inheritance, and they used that power to “stick it” to the masses so to speak. The patriots of the day sought to establish protections for seemingly defenseless citizens against the autocratic governing class, which is what they considered to be liberty (Mill, On Liberty, p. 3). The people attempted to impose liberty by (1) establishing a host of political rights of the individual that the ruler could not encroach upon, and (2) a body of people who would serve as a check to the governmental power in place (Mill, On Liberty, p. 4). Mill asserts that the first way that they attempted to attain liberty for the masses prevailed, unlike the second. A new school of thought subsequently arises from the former, wherein the masses no longer felt that it was necessary for their rulers to be autonomous. They wanted the new ruling class to not only be a representative subset of the mass population, but also dispensable at the hands of the people. The idea of a public servant emerges from this new set of beliefs, and the people believe that their leaders being on of their own will protect citizens indefinitely from tyrannical

5). Mill believes that it was during this time that individuals began to worry that they had placed too much emphasis on limiting the powers of their leaders, given that the modified selection process was thought to be as honorable as it was infallible. The people now believed that the desires of average citizens would now be aptly reflected through the actions of the rulers, therefore, the safeguards were unnecessary. As opposed to employing an array of limitations on the newly adept government, the rulers would now be free to exercise power as they see fit while they will be held accountable by the threat of removal (Mill, On Liberty, p. 5). However, Mill thinks that just because the rulers are now accountable to the citizens whom they rule over, does not mean that the individuals are safe from governmental and societal constraints on their own liberty. He states that those who hold the power are not always as easily comparable to those whom they exercise their power over, even though they are elected out of the same body (Mill, On Liberty, p. 7). The importance of liberty does not diminish with time, which is precisely why Mill believes that this supposedly dated