Talk:On Liberty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||||||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
Contents |
[edit] "Tyranny of the Majority"?
I thought "tyranny of the majority" was quoted from Alexis de Tocqueville and Democracy in America?
I'm almost certain the term "tyranny of the majority" was coined by on of the United States' "Founding Fathers." I'm leaning toward Thomas Jefferson but I'm not absolutely sure.207.157.121.50 08:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey
In any case, is there a reason tyranny of the majority links here and not to de Tocqueville's work? Commander Nemet 04:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm almost certain that the phrase "tyranny of the majority" does not appear anywhere in Mill's On Liberty; although he does make several references to the idea itself, if not to that particular phrase. Nevertheless, I also remain unclear as to why the phrase should link to this specific article. I would suggest either (a) redirecting it to some other work that more explicitly focuses on the problem of the tyranny of the majority; or (b) making a new article altogether that could synthesize in one place the ideas of a number of thinkers, including Mill, on this important concept. --Todeswalzer 23:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is long over, but I would just like to state for the record that Mill directly mentions "tyranny of the majority" very, very early on in his work -- to the tune of the first section (Chapter 1, Introductory). I don't know the origins of the phrase, but it seems to be very shoddy work when this work's copyright has long since expired and been available publicly and people are too lazy to check. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 17:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] why was it a failure?
Why was Mill's argument in On Liberty a failure? and why would someone hold this view if it was a failure?
- Two words: Cliffs notes. Rhobite 05:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Who suggested that Mill's arguments in On Liberty were failures? Although there are a couple of points with which I disagree, the majority of the book seems to me like common sense, although I'm sure it didn't seem that way to most people when the book was first published. 207.157.121.50 08:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey
A failure? (!) I would very much like to see someone seriously defend that point of view. Mill's essay, and the ideas contained therein, have become a cornerstone in modern liberalism. --Todeswalzer 23:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] removed "effects" stuff...
I removed the following:
This paper's outline of libertarian concepts has earned it a secure place in history. Though it is certainly debatable, most nations are founded on the fundamental principal of human liberty. Some popular actions of states that go against Mill's beliefs on liberty are:
- the banning of gang membership
- the mandatory use of seatbelts
- the heavy taxation of alcohol as a result of drunk driving
- the heavy taxation of tobacco as a result of lung cancer
- the criminalisation of hate speech
While there is certainly room for an analysis of how closely Mill's ideas are paralleled in contemporary society, this is horribly unbalanced (for one; it doesn't quote examples where liberal principles *have* been the basis of government policy, perhaps because there are too many to list). Moreover, there is a question as to how much should be placed in a discussin of Mill's specific book, and how much should be placed within articles on liberalism and libertarianism more generally. --Robert Merkel 23:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- cool robert, i put the list on the Libertarianism page. Spencerk 05:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sure some people interpret Mill that way... but not all by any means. gren グレン 09:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Other Crud
Guess what? This text made Judith Reisman's list of hamful books. [1] I realize that she herself may or may not have chosen the list that was reviewed by these 15 "scholars", but it figures all the same. Sweetfreek 07:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I was quite surprised in this 'survey' of Mill's ideas to Not find what is arguably, his most famous quotation, which I offer here:
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stuart Mill
Bat 06:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Additional Resources
Why is there commentary on utility and human nature under this section? 128.239.152.92 08:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Liberal Democrats
Why are they still handing copies of this book to their leaders, when the core principle the form of liberalism they now represent is that the individual should not be trusted to run his own life, but should have it run for him by the state? Luwilt (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
quit trolling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.221.157 (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
