Analysis and Critique of JS Mill's On LibertyThe perception of liberty has been an issue that has perplexed the human race for a long time. It seems like every aspiring leader brings with them a new definition of freedom, some more realistic than others. We have seen, however, that some tend to have an understanding of what true freedom is. One such scholar was the English philosopher and economist JS Mill. Mill's On Liberty provided a great example of what he believes liberty is and how it should be protected. In this essay we will examine Mill's ideals regarding freedom and point out some things he may not have been realistic about. For Mill, liberty is defined by "the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over territory". individual." Mill's position is that society can intervene only when the individual's action causes harm to others. Interference for any other reason is unjustified and only hinders the development of society as a whole. When these freedoms are preserved, the end result is freedom, and true freedom, according to Mill, is pursuing your own good in whatever way you see fit, as long as it doesn't cause harm to others. And here's the problem: it's human nature to believe that you have right and the other is wrong. This concept, which seems to be ingrained in each of us, leads to disapproval, which in turn leads to anger, which in turn leads to repression. This is the only thing that must be avoided Throughout history there are examples of governments, or societies, stifling the voice of the opposition. Even though we may think we are right, that does not give us the right to prevent others from expressing their opinions and ideas. To take away an individual's ability to think and feel for himself is to rob him of the greater part of life. . On top of that you are depriving yourself of the knowledge they possess, which is retarding your growth as a person. According to Mill, we dare not silence the voice of opposition because there is a good chance that voice is correct. The truths of life are an ever-evolving concept. Things that were thought to be true have fallen apart time and time again, and if we are honestly trying to uncover these truths we need to listen and discuss each…half of the card…it would be structured as, with the three branches and the currency. Mill has more than one ideal that he would like to project onto a society. Both believe that a government's priority is to protect the freedom of its citizens, and if it fails to achieve this goal then it is the duty of the people to relieve it of power. Personally I agree with much of what Mill says. We must let people express themselves even when what they say and do makes us angry. For what we say and do my anger affects them anyway, and no one would want to be silenced. Tolerance is a virtue that we all need in our daily lives. But the problem is implementing all this in a society that preaches free speech, but doesn't always support it. People here don't want to hear anyone who opposes it. Even if we don't directly drown out their voices, we don't take the time to listen to what they have to say. Now, this is not the same as suppressing someone's ideas, not taking the time to listen to ideas and form informed opinions about them. “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise?” The same thing would not apply to someone speaking and no one listening?