J Stuart Mill On Liberty Summary

In contemporary American politics, the word “liberty” is often tossed around by politicians to instill a sense of pride and trust in their supporters. However, it is rare to hear discussion as to what liberty means. In his essay, On Liberty, J.S. Mill attempts to concretely define what liberty is. He examines the concept of liberty and the consequences liberty has for a free society and attempts to define liberty as it relates to an individual’s interactions with a government and society. Mill also discusses the effects of collectivism and prevailing opinion on liberty and perceptions of morality. Mill’s interpretations of liberty suggest that within a civilization there is a responsibility to be fair to each entity of society. Mill opens …show more content…
If a government derives its legitimacy from the will of its own people, Mill argues that “a nation [does] not need to be protected against its own will” (3). Considering Mill’s initial interpretation of liberty as a check on the powers a government can exercise, Mill asks if liberty is even necessary in democratic society. In forms of self-government, the authority of the government comes from the consent of the governed, the concept of popular sovereignty. However, the practice of majority rule, Mill argues, changes the nature of self-government in that it still gives opportunity of governmental …show more content…
He says that it is in the very nature of the political majority to oppress the minority in a phenomenon called “tyranny of the majority” (4). For Mill, this tyranny manifests in two forms, de jure and de facto. In de jure tyranny, the political majority utilizes government power through laws and civil penalties to exercise authority over the minority. Examples of de jure tyranny are prevalent throughout American history such as Jim Crow Laws or the Dred Scot decision. De facto tyranny derives from society as a whole and often comes in the form of social condemnation for a particular social group or action. Mill argues that de facto tyranny can be much more difficult for individuals that have been condemned by society to escape than political tyranny. Society’s authority to mandate the behaviors of individuals is related to society’s perception of moral and just behaviors. Mills says that “[society] prevents the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways” (5). However, Mill contends that the bounds of morality, and by extension, liberty, are not static. Rather, they change and evolve through the political socialization of individuals that make up the collective. Factors like religion and social class affect public perception of malicious