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.