John Stuart Mill's Limitations

For one dedicated to the furthering of liberal ideas within the political sphere, the application of limitations appears, upon first reading, to be in direct contrast with that goal. If the advancement of human society hinges upon the free practice of one’s unique moral code and personal intellectual exploration, in what regard does the limitation of other’s same rights elevate the collective good of a society as a whole? Although seemingly paradoxical in nature, the “enforcement of restraints”(7) complements John Stuart Mill’s major principles of moral human behavior, in such a way that the balance of liberty versus authority shifts in a direction favorable to human progression.
In essence, a liberal society is one in which the will of the people is safeguarded by the larger powers at hand; with limitations placed conservatively so as not to infringe upon one’s individual rights. If total free will was the object of desire, it would inevitably undermine the very principles upon which it hinges, destroying itself by the very doctrines it wrote. Human nature is such that it fulfills the actions which …show more content…
While the value of free will can never be understated, the over-enactment of one’s rights, in such a manner that they limit the freedoms of another, are detrimental to the society as a whole, as it weakens the case for the practice of such rights. Authoritarian governments are hostile to the creation of genius, as much as the total anarchy eats it away from the inside. The restraints Mill implies here are simply that; stating that man’s search for effective government hinges upon its understanding of the balance needed between lawful protections and individual liberties; the creation of a society free of choice and sheltered from