Has Anyone Read The Book Called On Liberty by John Stewart Mill?

[PokerProdigy]

I am reading this book for my philosophy class this quarter. It is a very interesting book that was written in the 1850's. I have only read through about half the book so far.

Basically, J.S. Mill is arguing that even in a democracy you will have tyranny, because majority rule will oppress the minorities, he calls this idea "tyranny of the majority." So the book is more about freedom/liberty of ideas, thoughts, expression, etc... One thing that is very interesting about the book is that it does not only tie into politics, but also religion. And with all the religious posts lately I thought I'd mention this book.

So I encourage anyone who hasn't read the book to give it a read. And if you have read the book, what did you think?

P.S. The writing style is a little wierd because of the times (I guess this was the "intellectual" writing style of the 1850's) but it is still DEFINITELY worth a read.

[Autocratic]

I thought the "tyranny of the majority" concept was basically a result of his being unable to witness success democracy. While it could hold true, the vast spectrum of competing ideas makes it a less significant factor. For example, who is the tyrant on the abortion issue? Affirmative action (where most of the public opposes but the courts have held firm)? His logic was a bit oversimplified I thought, but I read this a few years ago, so correct any of my assumptions if need be.

[PokerProdigy]

I think the "tyranny of the majority" idea is more like this. People say liberty/freedom are good, but they usually only mean that when they're referring to their own liberty/freedom. Yet, they don't want other people with different opinions to express them. But J.S. Mill says that this is a bad concept because different opinions are a great thing. Because one of three things can happen 1) the different opinion is true, and therefore, not allowing it to be expressed will keep people from the truth, 2) the different opinion will contain a portion of truth in it, and therefore, you can modify the old opinion, and it will now be more true, 3) if the different opinion is totally false, it allows you to understand the true opinion more, because now it has sustained the test of opposing opinions. So basically, Mill is saying that the "optimum strategy" is to allow a situation in which differing opinions are allowed, encouraged, expressed.

P.S. I have only read the first half, so this is basically what he has talked about in the first couple chapters.

[Autocratic]

Again, to what you said, I'd say Mill's perception of democracy would have to shift in the face of modern democracy, notably in America.

[PokerProdigy]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, to what you said, I'd say Mill's perception of democracy would have to shift in the face of modern democracy, notably in America.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am confused what you mean by this. Could you explain?

[Autocratic]

His concepts of embattled opinions and ideas have been accepted by most proponents of democracy. They are legitimate, but generally are not as dangerous as he would have envisioned.

[PokerProdigy]

But I think part of Mill's point/argument is that people will say that they want/accept these things but they haven't neccessarily given it much thought and also some of their actions and opinions prove otherwise. For example, there are still tons of battles over censorship.

[Autocratic]

But debate on issues isn't the result of failing democracy, it's really the epitome of it.

Mill highlights this as a negative, when it reality compromise has become so essential to democracy that Mill's ideas seem a little antiquated.

[PokerProdigy]

I agree that compromise has become a big part of our democracy, and I also agree that "debate" is the epitome of our democracy. But debate is not the same thing as trying to stop someone from doing something. Notice that this idea of "tyranny of the majority" still happens, especially in a democracy. Now don't get me wrong because I think a democracy is great, but at the same time we need to be careful that we don't allow "tyranny of the majority" to happen. It's like a quote I heard from some french philosopher a long time ago who said something along the lines of "a democratic society can be a very oppressive society, because the majority can always opress the minority." And if you look at our history and even the present times, you can notice that this happens.

[Autocratic]

I think that as it was before, tyranny of the elite is more dangerous than the majority. The majority cannot tyranize at all - there is no coordination or real communication between them. The elite, powerful politicians and the exorbitantly wealthy, still rule society.

[PokerProdigy]

But who elects those "powerful politicians" in a democracy. The majority right?

[Autocratic]

Because they are the best candidates, or because they are the best of the two or three offered? Their hands are forced.

[PokerProdigy]

Because they are the best of the 2 or 3 offered. But they are usually still in office representing those who voted for them. Right?

[Autocratic]

What I'm saying is that because the choices are so limited (not to mention the restrictions of parties, lobbyist power, etc.) the people aren't fully represented.

[PokerProdigy]

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm saying is that because the choices are so limited (not to mention the restrictions of parties, lobbyist power, etc.) the people aren't fully represented.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I can definitely agree with that /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[purnell]

...about a million years ago. Nice topic. I know it's around here somewhere...

[sexypanda]

[ QUOTE ]
But who elects those "powerful politicians" in a democracy. The majority right?

[/ QUOTE ]

The American founding fathers took Mill's "tyranny of the majority" into consideration when constructing our democracy. That's why we have the electorate system, and why the Congress is split into the Senate and the House (the Senate having 2 members from each state, and the House having a varying amount of members from each state based on their populations).

[PokerProdigy]

I heard that the electoral system was set up so that we'd have even MORE tyranny. I heard that originally it was set up so that some peoples votes would be worth more than others, and that way you could still have some of those old, powerful, rich, white guys making the rules.

[purnell]

There was the thing where slaves were counted as a fraction of a person, for deciding how many reps a state had. This was a compromise, with the non-slave states saying that counting the slaves gave too much power to the slave states, and the slave states arguing, I guess, that the slaves were people and should be fully represented. Sick [censored], that.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
I heard that the electoral system was set up so that we'd have even MORE tyranny. I heard that originally it was set up so that some peoples votes would be worth more than others, and that way you could still have some of those old, powerful, rich, white guys making the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

The electoral college was set up because they wanted a sampling of who the elite - represented in the college - wanted for president. They believed the public was generally unsuited to being given full electoral power.

[Cornell Fiji]

I read this as a freshman and fell in love with it. Mill's writings on the topic of utilitarianism changed my outlook on life. I wish I could add more to the discussion but its been a while, maybe I will find the book and reread it...

-Steve

[XxGodJrxX]

All of John Stuart Mill's essays should be required reading for everybody (period). I think the "tyranny of the majority" is very evident throughout the world, even in the United States. Examples include not being "patriotic". After 9/11, almost everybody gave the reason "they hate democracy" for what happened on that day (which I think it idiotic). Anybody that did not agree with such a statement was blasted as unpatriotic and shunned. Another example, most of the country is heterosexual, and the seven or eight percent of the homosexuals in the country are refused the right to get married, adopt children, teach in public schools, etc.

I think that if people were better informed and more open to other ideas, while not necessarily agreeing with them, things would be a lot better for the reasons that Mill states in "On Liberty", "Utilitarianism", and "The Subjection of Women".

[Bodhi]

You are embarking on a wonderful journey. Mill is great, and there's lots, lots more to read afterwards.

[PokerProdigy]

Good point sir.

[lehighguy]

There was a book like this I was really exceited to read but my mom lost in the move. It was by a French author and written when America was quite young. Can't think of author or title right now.

[Bodhi]

DeToqueville?

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
DeToqueville?

[/ QUOTE ]

Typically in two volumes. The first is much better than the second.