On Liberty

Apr 30, 2013 Dina Nabil rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: pdf, books-change-my-life, own

عن الحريه هو اروع ما قرأت من فتره طويله...كتاب صغير مزدحم بالافكار...يعطى لك كقارئ مساحه للتفكير و الرأى...لا يفرض عليك رأى ابدا...لكاتب يدرك دائما ان رأيه ليس صحيحا مئه فى المئه بل هو مجرد رأى لك ان ترفضه او تقبله او تناقش به..رأى صواب يحتمل الخطأ و ربما رأى خطأ يحتمل الصواب...يحفزك على ان تكون رأيك و لا تكتفى بأراء المؤلف...

لم استطع ان امنع نفسى من امكانيه انتحار المؤلف ان عاش فى مجتمعنا 3 ايام...اتصور انه لن يستطيع تحمل ما نراه فى وطننا العربى...فهو يعتبر كثير من الاشياء من المسلمات بينما تلك...more عن الحريه هو اروع ما قرأت من فتره طويله...كتاب صغير مزدحم بالافكار...يعطى لك كقارئ مساحه للتفكير و الرأى...لا يفرض عليك رأى ابدا...لكاتب يدرك دائما ان رأيه ليس صحيحا مئه فى المئه بل هو مجرد رأى لك ان ترفضه او تقبله او تناقش به..رأى صواب يحتمل الخطأ و ربما رأى خطأ يحتمل الصواب...يحفزك على ان تكون رأيك و لا تكتفى بأراء المؤلف...

لم استطع ان امنع نفسى من امكانيه انتحار المؤلف ان عاش فى مجتمعنا 3 ايام...اتصور انه لن يستطيع تحمل ما نراه فى وطننا العربى...فهو يعتبر كثير من الاشياء من المسلمات بينما تلك الاشياء بالنسبه لنا امل بعيد المنال ...منها مثلا : تخيل موقف كاتبنا ان عاش ازمه مجلس الشورى حين عزل رئيس
تحرير ...تخيل رأى كاتب كتب تلك الكلمات عن الصحافه

الفصل الثانى فى حريه النقاش و المحاوره-لاحظ ان الفصل الاول كان مقدمه طويله- : مما ذكر به

يضيف الكاتب ما يثير الانتباه عن هؤلاء ممن يحرمون النقاش و المجادل فى اى شئ..يروجون الى ان النقاش غير مفيد لانهم ببساطه على حق...و هنا يستنكر الكاتب كيف علمتهم بانكم من على حق؟؟..هل انتم متأكدون 100 فى المئه..و ان كنتم هل حصلتهم على توكيل عن كل بنى البشر بالتحدث باسمهم و اقرار الصواب من الخطأ

فلفترض ان اتنين بيتناقشوا يمشوا شمال او يمين ...فاذا كنت مقتنع ان اليمين هو الصح قلقان ليه من المناقشه؟..اذا كنت على صواب زادك النقاش اقتناع و زالت شكوكك من اتجاهك..و ان كنت على خطأ لماذا لا تعطى نفسك فرصه للمراجعه و التفكير

ذكر نفسك دائما بانك قد لا تكون على صواب كما تتخيل..فمن قتل سقراط قتله من باب عقابه على"افساد الشباب" قتلوه بدافع اخلاقى و اثبت التاريخ خطأ هؤلاء..هؤلاء من ظنوا ان الارض مركز العالم وان الشمس من تدور كانوا على قناعه غير قابله للحركه بانهم هم الاصواب بلا نقاش..من صلبوا المسيح -على الروايه المسيحيه- قتلوه من باب الدفاع عن اليهوديه و لعقابه على "كفره" بينما دخلوا التاريخ من اوسع ابواب الكفر و الظلم..من مثل بجثه الحسين تخيل انه بيدافع عن الدين و توحد الامه بينما وصم طيله الدهر بسبب الفرقه و ضياع الشهامه ,دخل التاريخ كقاتل حفيد النبى مجرد سفاح...سيب لنفسك فرصه للتراجع ,نقطه رجوع

يرى الكاتب-و انا معه- ان هذا النوع من خنق النقاش يقتل الابداع و يوقف نمو الانسانية فربما يكون فى النهايه السير يمينا او يسارا خاطئ ربما كان طريق ثالث لن تكتشفه دون ان تناقش و تستمع و تفكر ليس من باب اقناع الطرف الاخر فقط ربما لاقناع ذاتك فى النهايه...فالاضطهاد لم يمنع فكره قط من الانتشار بل قد يمنع البوح علانيه بتلك الافكار..فسقراط تجرع السم و حفظ العالم كلماته...عذب المسيحين و القوا للاسود-و مثلهم المسلمين- و لم يمنع ذلك من انتشار المسيحيه او الاسلام على السواء...الحقيقه تكتسب الكثير حتى من خلال الاخطاء التى ادت اليها

ينطبق المثال على حكومه تقرر اتجاه اشتراكى ام رأسمالى مثلا...و يجيب هؤلاء ممن يخافون من النقاش عموما بان هناك استثاء للتلك القاعده الا و هى نقاشات الدين و الاخلاق...و ارى انا و المؤلف بانه لا يوجد فرق على الاطلاق فالمناقشه اذا كانت على هذا المنوال بلا صراخ او تخوين او تكفير دائما مفيده و يضيف الكاتب بان حتى و ان كان طريقه الحوار عصبيه او شكوى او حتى اتهامات متضاده فائدتها اكتر من مضارها و يشرح ذلك فى استفاضه يضيق بها حيز الريفيو للاسف وردت فى الصفحه 65 بالتفاصيل

يقارن الكاتب بين المؤمنين الاوائل فى الاديان ...هؤلاء من تحلقوا حول الرسل و بين هؤلاء المؤمنين الجدد ممن يرثون الايمان مع ملابس الوالد...مقارنه بين هؤلاء ممن اقتنعوا بعقولهم قبل قلوبهم و بين هؤلاء المترددين ممن يرهبون حتى من النقاش خوفا على ايمانهم الهش..هؤلاء من تحميهم القوانين من كتاب الكفار خوفا على عقولهم الفارغه فى الاصل

##################
الفصل الثالث :الفردية

فى هذا الفصل يتناول المؤلف "الفرديه" كاساس لمجتمع سوى...و يضرب مثل بالتعليم: فمعنى الفرديه لا يعنى حرمان الشخص من تجارب الاخريين والا لبدأ كل شخص من الصفر و نكون قد اعاقنا التطور البشرى فى غايه على شأن الفرديه...بل ان الطريق الاقوم هو توفير تلك الخبرات الى الطالب -او اى كان الشخص الطالب للمعرفه- و تركه لفرديته تزيد او تنقص , تعدل و تطور فياخد ما يتوافق معه و يترك ما لم يقتنع به و يضيف ان القدره العقليه كالقوه البدنيه لا تأتى الا بالتدريب و الاستخدام الواعى

خلق نسخ اضافيه من البشر غير مفيد -هكذا يرى المؤلف و انا معه- و تخليق نماذج مشابهه لما نملكه بالفعل لا يجعل منا بشر انما ندخل فى تصنيف القرده او حتى الروبوت ...فالطبيعه البشريه ليست اله يمن بناؤها على غرار نموذج معين بل شجره تحتاج الى النمو و التطور

صرنا لا نسأل انفسنا ماذا نحب؟؟..ماذا نريد او نحتاج ان نفعل؟...تحول السؤال الى ما هو الفعل الذى يناسب منصبى؟؟..ماذا يفعل من هم فى مكانتى؟؟ و الاسوء-من وجه نظر الكاتب-ماذا يفعل من هم اعلى منى مكانه اذا وضعوا فى هذا الموقف؟...عشقنا القولبه..استملحنا ان نصنف فى تصنيفات مجتمعيه نفعل ما يريده المجتمع ..صنعنا من انفسنا نسخ اخرى

و تذكر عن هؤلاء من خرجوا من الركب هم من تعرف اسماؤهم الان...من اخترع و من ابتكر و من امتلك الناصيه لم يكن جزء من الركب...غرد وحيدا ...لذا تذكرته الانسانيه التى تنسى سريعا..كما يعبر الكاتب: لا يستطيع العبقرى ان يتنفس الا فى جو حر

يميل المجتمع دائما الى اخضاع افراده الى المعيار المتوسط..يحتقر من يحيدون فى اى اتجاه...من يرتفع يجاهدون لانزاله اكثر مما يجاهدون لترقيه من انخفض..ان شرف الشخص المتوسط و حلمه هو الحفاظ على مكانه طيله عمره لا اكثر...ربما فى سبيل ذلك يكبت اى ما يراه "شذوذ" عن المجتمع ليبقى فى مكانه الدافئ فى المنتصف بالضبط..ان تصير جزء
من الركب..قطعه من القطيع...بلا اصوات اعلى بلا شذوذ عن اللحن العام

لا ترفض "الفعل" غير التقليدى...فربما صار هو التقاليد فى زمن ما...فلا لزوم ان يصير المجتمع كله على وتيره هؤلاء المتوسطين
####################
الفصل الرابع: حدود سلطه المجتمع على الفرد

فى هذا الفصل -الرائع- يذكر واجب الحدود بين حريه الفرد و واجبات المجتمع و فى هذا الفصل توضع القاعده التاريخيه الشهيره بالليبراليه: انت حر ما لم تضر

بمعنى -و هذا هو المثال الذى فضله الكاتب للتدليل- اذا بدد شخص امواله و اسرف اسراف مبالغ...لا يحق للمجتمع او القانون ان يعاقبه الا اذا طال هذا التصرف من حقوق الاخريين كأن يفشل فى تسديد ديون او ان يعرض عائلته للفقر و العوز...فالعقاب المجتمعى و القانونى لا ينبع قط من تصرف الشخص لكن عقاب على تبعات هذا التصرف على الاخريين

قتل شخص لشخص لسرقته و اعطاء الاموال لعاهره لا يختلف عن سرقه شخص لتوسيع التجاره...فالقتل هو من اضر المجتمع و ليس تصرفات الشخص الخاصه

يرى المؤلف ان شرب الخمر فى البيت لا يعاقب عليه القانون...لكن شرب الخمر لشرطى وقت العمل جريمه..و يضيف ان العمل الاول يندرج تحت باب الاخلاق العامه و ليس القانون

المجتمع يملك فترات الطفوله و المراهقه ليعلم هذا الشخص الصواب و الخطأ فى التعليم و التربيه و لكنه لا يملك التسلط عليه بعد تلك الفتره...فالمجتمع الذى لا يقوم بشقه الايجابى فى التربيه و التهذيب خلال فترات المجتمع الاولى لا يستحق ان يصير جلاد لمن افسدهم هو

ترى من خلال تلك الامثله فجون ستيورات يرى المجتمع كجزء مشارك فى عمليه بناء الانسان...يرى به اكتر من دور الجلاد الذى يترصد لمواطنيه لعقابهم...يرى به معلم مسؤول عن اخطائه

يرى ايضا ان الافعال تنقسم ل3 اقسام و انواع: الاول هو من يؤذى نفسه فقط و هو ما يرى المؤلف عدم احقيه المجتمع ان يعاقبه عليها بعد انتهاء فترتى التوجيه و التربيه المجتمعيه قبل سن الرشد

و النوع الثانى هو الافعال التى تؤذى الاخريين مباشره و هو النوع الذى يرى ان المجتمع يجب ان يعاقب هذا الشئ قانونيا حتى تتسق حدود الحريه

و النوع الثالث: هو ما بين النوعين الاولين..حيث يؤثر الفعل "نفسيا" على الاخريين...يرى المؤلف ان يتغاضى المجتمع عن عقاب هذا النوع كضرب من التضحيه لاعلاء قواعد الحريه ...و يعلى المؤلف فى هذا النوع بذات دور المجتمع فى التربيه و التقويم ما قبل سن الرشد او النصح و الموعظه بدون التأثير على فرديته و حريتها

يجب الفصل بين الاخلاق و القانون..هكذا يرى المؤلف و اجدنى اتوافق مع معظم ما قاله...فليس كل ما هو غير اخلاقى يجب ان يكون غير قانونى...بل ان كثير مما هو اخلاقى يكون ايضا غير قانونى...لذا فالفصل بين عقوبات الاخلاق شئ و عقوبات القانون الجنائى شئ اخر
######################
اما عن الفصل الخامس: التطبيقات...فلا استطيع تلخيصه ابدا...و ادعوك لقراءته شخصيا لتستمتع بمحوارات ميل مع نفسه و مع قارئه دون فرض رأى معين تاركا مساحه ممتعه للنقاش و التفكير فهو ليبرالى تاركا سقف للحريه حتى فى كتابه

و اولا و اخيرا تذكر ان
On Liberty was published in 1859
*******************
تحديث بتاريخ 9 فبراير...بعد 3 شهور من قراءة الكتاب بى دى اف قررت الحصول عليه ورقيا و اخيرا وفقت فى هذا...لى جولات اخرى مع هذا الكتاب

SONG THEME
نص حاله -اصاله
نص ديمقراطيه...نص حريه...نص راحه
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnxkXY...

********************
الكتاب للتحميل
http://www.4shared.com/office/r-CV_Ad...

و بترجمة مختلفة
http://www.4shared.com/office/OssJAyW...(less)

18 likes · like · see review

Jun 23, 2011 Stephen rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: easton-press, all-time-favorites, 6-star-books, polly-sighs-and-pubic-policy, 1800s, life-changers, classics-european

WARNING: Some of my political views are discussed in this VERY LONG review. I don't think there is anything offensive but with politics, you never know. Therefore, in case anything I say upsets anyone, I have included several very CUTE kitten photos by way of apology.

6.0 stars. On Liberty has secured a spot on my list of “All Time Favorite” books. I have gone through a pretty significant political re-examination over the last several years (maybe a lot of us have). A few years ago, if you were...more

45 likes · like · see review

Mar 25, 2013 Steve aka Sckenda rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Recommended to Steve aka Sckenda by: Great Books of Western World

Shelves: favorites-classics, philosophy, great-books, 19th-century, political-philosophy, government, freedom, progressive

John Stuart Mill was ahead of his time. In 1859, he published “On Liberty,” which is a declaration for freedom, tolerance, and individuality. It is a short and very accessible work that contains the intellectual underpinning of modern liberal democracies. Although a philosopher, Mill is highly readable, especially when one starts at the beginning. Mills articulated ideas that I have long cherished, and he writes with conviction and polish.

I have selected some of my favorite quotations that illu...more

28 likes · like · see review

May 15, 2013 Lona rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

الحرية كلمة قليلة الأحرف ولكني كلما نظرت وتأملت وتعمقت في معناها وجدت أنها بحر عميق من الصعب الوصول لقاعه. هل فعلاً يمكن للإنسان أن يكون حُرَّا بالمطلق؟ شخصياً أرى أن الحرية "شيء" مرن تلتقي عالمياً في نقاط جوهرية وتختلف على مستوى المجتمعات في أنماط مختلفة يصوغها كل مجتمع حسب خصوصيته، وهذا ما وجدته في هذا الكتاب الفريد. هو كتاب قليل الصفحات ولكنه ثقيل المحتوى، أثناء القراءة وجدت أنه يتكلم عن أشياء بديهية ولكن هذه البديهيات ازدادت عمقاً مع كل صفحة، هو فعلاً كتاب من النوع "المُولِّد" للأفكار والتسا...more

8 likes · like · see review

Apr 23, 2013 Nasser Moh'd rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: الفكر-و-الفلسفه

مثل هذا الكتاب يجب ان يدرس في المدارس وان تقام لأجله المحاضرات
بحث فلسفي في حرية الفرد واكثر ما عجبني حول سلطة المجتمع على حرية الفرد
لن تقوم لنا قائمه او عزه الا بمثل هذه الحريات

( اذا اجبرت الفرد على موقفك فانت حرمته من معرفة موقفه الخطأ وتغييره وايضاً حرمة نفسك من معرفة ما اذا كان رايه هو الصواب)

مشكلة الكتاب اعتقد في الترجمه لاني عانيت من بعض المصطلحات والفقرات ..الغير متناسقه

9 likes · like · see review

Jun 27, 2011 Capsguy rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: british-irish

It's amazing how it appears as if the older the work, the more relevant it is to today. Sure, this is anything but 'old' in comparison to Socrates and other writers, but this over 150 year old document still serves well today, definitely worth the few hours reading and I recommend it to everyone.

It is logically structured and written with ease of reading and understanding without the sacrifice of the quality of his argument.

As mentioned by Mill, he's not necessarily bringing anything new to the...more

8 likes · like · see review

Apr 09, 2011 محمود أغيورلي rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

عن الحرية - جون ستيورات ميل -
--------------
ان الحماية من طغيان الملك او الحاكم ليس بالشيء الكافي .. فهنالك حاجة للحمياة ايضا من طغيان الرأي والشعور السائدين .. وحاجة للحماية من نزعة المجتمع نحو فرض افكاره وممارساته الخاصة على هؤلاء الذين ينشقون عنها
------
ان المجتمع يمنع تشكيل اية فردية لا تتناغم مع طرقه .. ويجبر جميع اشخاصه ان يكيفوا انفسهم حسب نموذجه الخاص
------
ان السلوك الوحيد الذي يجب على الحكومات منعه .. هو السلوك الذي يعتبر منتجا للشر او مسببا للضرر لشخص آخر .. اما في الجزء الذي يخص الفرد...more

7 likes · like · see review

Nov 17, 2010 DJ rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This book is a classic. Giving due credit, I must acknowledge Prof. Keith Eubanks for inadvertently turning me on to Mill. I think Eubanks once quoted Mill, perhaps in his course syllabus, and I found the quote (something about expecting more from students, and how they will perform to these higher standards given the expecatation and opportunity) intriguing.

Anyway, if you're interested in learning where I get a lot of my thoughts on being an individual, read this book (or read essays/books by...more

4 likes · like · see review

Feb 19, 2013 Michael Shoemake rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Notes:

Tremendous rhetorical talent. Engages with his potential critics well. The instances of values dissonance are especially striking given how much Mill's work informs many of our modern views of the world.

There are some weak points in his argument, but most are not weak because they are wrong -- rather, he relies quite heavily on some premises that he doesn't even explicitly mention, let alone justify; and this is not a matter of his being concise.

Ex: Mill argues that while confidence in one...more

1 like · like · see review

Jan 07, 2013 Timothy Ferguson rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: librivox

Mill is one of those authors who you feel that you’ve read, even though you have not, because other people quote and misquote and reinterpret his basic thoughts in their own work. He is, of course, is the guy who says you should be allowed to do pretty much whatever you like, provided you don’t hurt anyone, and that the government should leave you alone. The thing which struck me most strongly while listening to On liberty is Mill’s defence of the right of people to own poisons. The recent, sad...more Mill is one of those authors who you feel that you’ve read, even though you have not, because other people quote and misquote and reinterpret his basic thoughts in their own work. He is, of course, is the guy who says you should be allowed to do pretty much whatever you like, provided you don’t hurt anyone, and that the government should leave you alone. The thing which struck me most strongly while listening to On liberty is Mill’s defence of the right of people to own poisons. The recent, sad events at Sandy Hook were probably close to the surface of my thoughts, because I was aware that a version of Mill’s arguments have often been used by people in favour of a private right to bear high-powered weapons.

The book is beautifully written, and in the Librivox version it is exceptionally well read, but it has obvious flaws which Mill seems not to have spotted. He believes that people should be allowed to have hazardous things like poisons because the process of registering the purchase makes crime less likely. The criminal’s purchase of poison is known and noted. When a poisoning occurs, his obvious access to the means makes him a prime suspect,so that society can censure his actions.

Mill’s argument seems to fail in three basic ways, and these faults extend to it as a pro-gun argument:

If everyone has arsenic, when someone dies by arsenical poisoning, the fact you have a list of thousands of potential suspects doesn’t help you work out which one did it. That is, he inadvertently assumes poison is a luxury item, so that the list is small, or that in the circle of people around a victim, few will have access to poison for its legitimate use. Guns being so prevalent in America, neither of these things is true.

If everyone has poison, it seems trivial for a criminal to steal some poison. His views work on a Chris Rock “Charge $5 000 for a bullet” level, because then everyone has the same right to poison as they have to a Porsche. If someone runs over you in a stolen Porsche, it’s still easy to work out which Porsche it was. If someone runs over you in a Toyota Corolla, not so much. When everyone has a right to a dangerous thing, and exercises that right, then security breaches seem inevitable.

Mill assumes that the thing which dissuades murderers is the thought of the ultimate legal sanction. He makes no account of murder-suicides, where society has no possibility of sanctioning the killer.

So, his argument fails when the mass of people choose to use the rights he claims they have. It fails, because once everyone has the dangerous thing, be it a gun, or poison as it was in his original discussion, then the safety provided by registration and inspection no longer constrains the actions of the criminal. Also, his ultimate sanction, which is meant to prevent people buying things which have some sort of legitimate purpose and then retasking them for murder, has no deterrent effect.

Much of the rest of the book is still excellent: it’s defence of the right of people to live in ways considered abhorrent by their neighbours is still well-structured. The Librivox readers do excellent work here. It’s an intriguing book, which I recommend highly. The defence of the right to own and use poisons, though, sees to be shot through with problems.

The Librivox recording of this is excellent.

This review originally appeared on book coasters.

(less)

like · see review

Sep 20, 2012 Ned rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Mill's inconsistent treatment of liberty is so schizophrenic that is seems to be written by two different people, a Dr. Jekyll and a Mr. Hyde. His flashes of brilliance are marred by his incongruous forays into authoritarianism. It is incredible to me how anyone can read this book and come away viewing it as a legitimate defense of liberty. Mill is clearly guilty of wanting to have his cake and eat it too, and the resulting work is a litany of completely irreconcilable rules for civil society.

Th...more Mill's inconsistent treatment of liberty is so schizophrenic that is seems to be written by two different people, a Dr. Jekyll and a Mr. Hyde. His flashes of brilliance are marred by his incongruous forays into authoritarianism. It is incredible to me how anyone can read this book and come away viewing it as a legitimate defense of liberty. Mill is clearly guilty of wanting to have his cake and eat it too, and the resulting work is a litany of completely irreconcilable rules for civil society.

The brilliant:

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

How elegant. But Mill is a double-edged sword:

"Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end."

And:

"Though society is not founded on a contract, and though no good purpose is answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from it, every one who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest. This conduct consists, first, in not injuring the interests of one another; or rather certain interests, which, either by express legal provision or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights; and secondly, in each person's bearing his share (to be fixed on some equitable principle) of the labors and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members from injury and molestation. These conditions society is justified in ENFORCING, at ALL COSTS to those who endeavor to withhold fulfilment."

Mill at once complains about expected group conformity, then turns around and suggests that community scorn is a justifiable weapon to be used against non-conformists. He talks of liberty, then of the duties we owe for the "general welfare." On Liberty could as just as well have been written by a Marxist theorist.(less)

like · see review

Sep 12, 2011 Erik Graff rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: everyone

Recommended to Erik by: Timothy Little

Shelves: philosophy

This book was read for, or at least during, Tim Little's course in European History at Maine Township High School South. Being one of the first books we'd ever read in political philosophy, it was doubtlessly very influential. Later, in graduate school, I had occasion to read the author's Utilitarianism as well.

Tim Little himself was a very influential figure at our school. He'd been around a while, so many of my older friends, themselves influential, had had him for Advanced Placement history....more

like · see review

Jun 20, 2011 Bruce rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Whether or not one is sympathetic toward or convinced by his philosophical positions, Mill’s arguments are always worth listening to. They are inevitably clearly articulated, logically arranged, and elegantly expressed, and their reading is a pleasure as well as an opportunity for mature and considered reflection. This particular work is based on two maxims. First, “the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself.” A...more

like · see review

Apr 18, 2011 Patrick rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Amazon Review:

"On Liberty" is Mill's is his most widely read and enduring work. It is an indispensable essay on political thought, which strenuously argues for individual liberty. He is defending what he calls the "liberty principle." It is a principle that guarantees individuals quite a bit of personal freedom. "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical...more Amazon Review:

"On Liberty" is Mill's is his most widely read and enduring work. It is an indispensable essay on political thought, which strenuously argues for individual liberty. He is defending what he calls the "liberty principle." It is a principle that guarantees individuals quite a bit of personal freedom. "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." These quoted sentences in John Stuart Mill's book, "On Liberty," embody the crux of his argument; that the power of the state must intrude as little as possible on the liberty of its citizenry. In essence, Mill was against using the power of the state through its lawmaking apparatus to compel citizens to conduct themselves in ways that society deems moral or appropriate. Mill thought that people had not only a right, but also a duty to develop their intellectual faculties, which is indispensable to maximize their happiness. He believed that society improved for all its citizens when they where left unfettered to the maximum extent possible, allowing them to use their imagination and intellect to improve themselves. Mill postulates a theory that societies usually institute laws based primarily on "personal preference" of its citizenry instead of established principles. This lack of clarity of opinion often leads to the government frequently interfering in the lives of its citizens unnecessarily. For Mill, there are very few times when the state can infringe on the personal liberty of others. Firstly, the state has the right to promulgate laws that prevent a person's actions from harming others. Secondly, the state must protect those citizens who are not mature enough to protect themselves, such as children. Thirdly, he exempts, "... backward states of society in which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage." In Mill's view, immature societies need a benevolent leader to rule them until they have developed to a point where they, "... have attained the capacity of being guided to their own improvement by conviction or persuasion ..." Mill said this third exemption did not apply to any of the countries in Europe. Mill believed that forced morality by the state on its citizen's liberties was destructive to their inward development, and could even lead to a violent reaction by them against the government.
(less)

like · see review

Feb 09, 2010 Samuel rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Excellent short book that tells us about the harm principle: you should be free to do what you want as long as you do not harm others. I think the basic idea in this book is that each person should be free to develop his or her own potential in a society where government and public opinion have limits. In other words, people should be free to do whatever they want even if their decisions are stupid, selfish and destructive. On liberty is an optimistic book about individual flourishing and the de...more

1 like · like · see review

Jun 27, 2009 Marcus rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Near the beginning of On Liberty, John Stuart Mill states the over-arching idea of the book:

...the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightful

...more Near the beginning of On Liberty, John Stuart Mill states the over-arching idea of the book:

...the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. [...:] The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

In many cases, he is consistent with this statement. For example, he is against state education: "A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation; in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body."

It seems like he is taking a strong moral stance, one that falls in line with libertarianism or possibly even anarchism. Later in the book however, it becomes apparent that, while Mill has lot in common with libertarians, when it gets down to the details of implementation, he diverges. His definition of what type of conduct is "amenable to society," and therefore a candidate for regulation, is more broad than what most libertarians would accept.

For example, Mill is generally in favor of free markets. He believes governments shouldn't be able to restrict people from gambling or buying alcohol or sex. Interestingly though, he says that selling those same things falls under the realm of "society," and are thus, by his definition, fair game for minimal government regulation.

Other examples of where Mill sees governmental intervention as appropriate are for things "which, if done publicly, are a violation of good manners, and coming thus within the category of offenses against others, may rightly be prohibited." Perhaps most tellingly he, like his mentor Jeremy Bentham, also believes that society can take "antecedent precautions" such as prohibiting people who have committed crimes while drunk from drinking.

Based on this, we can be fairly sure that Mill is not an anarchist and his views on what society can or cannot regulate seem to indicate that both economically and socially he is willing to make exceptions that would make him, if a libertarian at all, a moderate one.

Mill is no lover of democracy, to paraphrase him: "no government by a democracy in its political acts or in the opinions, qualities, and tone of mind which it fosters ever did or could rise above mediocrity, except they let themselves be guided by a more highly gifted and instructed One or few."

It seems that Mill would probably be happy with a good king who used his power only judiciously, or perhaps a very limited aristocracy or a government, like in Plato's Republic, by philosophers with little self-interest.

It was difficult for me to get really excited about Mill. I have a hard time seeing how his "classical liberalism" combined with his dislike for democracy could be practically implemented. Personally, at this point, I'm still drawn to seeking a morally pure political philosophy where there are no arbitrary boundaries on when liberties can or can't be infringed on for the greater good of society. Unfortunately the more I look, the less I find.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Aug 22, 2012 Haytham Lashin rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: to-read-in-original-language

يقول صلاح جاهين :
إقلع غماك يا تور وارفض تلف
إكسر تروس الساقية و اشتم وتف
قال : بس خطوة كمان .. وخطوة كمان
يا اوصل نهاية السكة يا البير تجف
عجبي !!!

أرقني دائما السؤال او الحد الذي يفصل بين حرية الفرد وقدرة المجتمع ع فرض قيود عليه ، وهذا كان موضوع الكتاب .. يحاول فيه الكاتب وضع تعريف لهذه الحريه المجتمعية .. وما فهمته من رأيه لا يختلف كثيراً عن المثل او القول الذي يقول "انت حر مالم تضر". وجون ستيوارت ميل يقول يوضح انه يجب ان نضع حد فاصل بين حرية الفكر وحرية الفعل ، فالفرد حر له مطلق الحرية في أفكاره...more يقول صلاح جاهين :
إقلع غماك يا تور وارفض تلف
إكسر تروس الساقية و اشتم وتف
قال : بس خطوة كمان .. وخطوة كمان
يا اوصل نهاية السكة يا البير تجف
عجبي !!!

أرقني دائما السؤال او الحد الذي يفصل بين حرية الفرد وقدرة المجتمع ع فرض قيود عليه ، وهذا كان موضوع الكتاب .. يحاول فيه الكاتب وضع تعريف لهذه الحريه المجتمعية .. وما فهمته من رأيه لا يختلف كثيراً عن المثل او القول الذي يقول "انت حر مالم تضر". وجون ستيوارت ميل يقول يوضح انه يجب ان نضع حد فاصل بين حرية الفكر وحرية الفعل ، فالفرد حر له مطلق الحرية في أفكاره وفي معتقداته ، ولكن هذه الحرية مقيدة بعض الشئ من المجتمع عندما تصل لحرية الفعل _في الواقع ان حرية الفكر وحرية الفعل كلاهما مقيدتان من المجتمع ببعض القيود لكن قيود حرية الفعل اكبر _ فحينما يعتدي الفرد بحريته ع حرية شخص اخر بطريقة او بأخري يجب ع المجتمع ان يتدخل ليمنع هذا الاعتداء . الجزء النظري في الكتاب رائع ، فعندما تقرأه يخيل اليك ان الحياه سهله ممتعه وان مبادئ الحرية لا يعوزها تفكير كبير للإقتناع ، لكن الكاتب نفسه عندما يصل الي حيز التطبيق لهذه المبادئ في الحياه الواقعيه يقع في اخطاء تعتبر هيا اعتداء صارخ للمجتمع ع حرية الافراد او ربما ع حرية مجتمع تاني .
فهو مثلا يبيح الاستبداد ، اذا كان هذا الاستبداد مستخدم في حكم الامم الهمجيه ، وذلك لأن الامم الهمجيه _ في رأيه_ مثلها مثل الطفل او الشاب قبل مرحلة البلوغ ، تحتاج من يرشدها الي الاصلاح .. وقد يكون هذا الارشاد عن طريق الاستبداد ، لكن يعود الكاتب ويناقض نفسه ثانيةً _او ربما فهمي انا لأفكار الكاتب هو من تناقض_ويقول انه لابد من اتاحة حرية المناقشه في كل شئ ، لان بالمناقشه تظل الافكار والمعتقدات حيه ، وانه لا توجد فكرة ما فوق مستوي المناقشه .. فإنه ان كانت هذه الفكره صحيحه ، فبالمناقشه تظل الفكرة حية ولا تتحول الي مجرد كلمات وغطاء من التعصب بلا تفكير ، وان كانت الفكرة خاطئه من المناقشه يتضح لنا الجانب الصحيح.
ويعود ثانية الي اكثر الاشياء ثقلا علي النفس في هذا الموضوع ، وهو الخروج من حيز الكلام النظري الي التطبيقات ، وكما ذكرنا سالفاً ان الكاتب يري ان الفرد حر تماما في افكاره وفي افعاله مالم يتعدي بذلك علي حرية فرد اخر ، لكن عندما يدخل في حيز العالم الواقعي نري ان الكاتب يؤيد الفكرة التي تقول "انه ليس من المعقول ان يقضي مبدأ الحرية بأن يكون المرء حراً في ان لا يكون حراً" وانه من حق المجتمع ان يمنع الفرد من التنازل عن حريته بمحض ارادته الحره ،فمن حق المجتمع ان يمنع الفرد من ان يبيع نفسه مثلا.

علي كل الكتاب جيد جداً ، لكن الاسلوب ممل بعض الشئ ، لست ادري ع التحديد اذا كان اللوم علي المترجم ام علي الكاتب ام علي القارئ نفسه :D
وان كنت اميل الي ان اضع اللوم ع المترجم ، كما اعتقد ان الترجمه ليست جيدة ولكن ليست سيئه ايضاً .. ربما نقول مقبوله. (less)

3 likes · like · see review

Jul 25, 2012 Brandon rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

J.S. Mill was my first "favourite philosopher". His work is a powerful argument for the freedom of individual conscience and action, as well as for the betterment of society. His defense of freedom of expression and personal liberty resounds with power and profundity even today; and indeed, we need it just as much today as we did when he wrote it. It is the work which shaped the modern Liberalism of which I consider myself a part, and has had a lasting affect on me and the way I see the world.

Th...more J.S. Mill was my first "favourite philosopher". His work is a powerful argument for the freedom of individual conscience and action, as well as for the betterment of society. His defense of freedom of expression and personal liberty resounds with power and profundity even today; and indeed, we need it just as much today as we did when he wrote it. It is the work which shaped the modern Liberalism of which I consider myself a part, and has had a lasting affect on me and the way I see the world.

This book is perhaps most well known for his defense of personal liberty of opinion or action against the "tyranny of the majority", as well as the principle that a person should not be prevented from doing any activity, or having any opinion, unless it does harm to others. Defining exactly what counts as "harm" has been a matter of debate throughout the years, but no one can deny that this was a revolutionary idea at the time, where one could be criminally charged for publicly expressing certain opinions or for certain acts that affect no one but oneself.

But Mill was not focused solely on the individual. Though he was adamant that personal autonomy was to be safeguarded, he was also (like his Utilitarian forebears) deeply concerned with improving society and the lot of all people. His Principle of Utility, often thought to apply only to individual actions (that is, an action is morally correct just in case it is the action which maximises overall happiness), is actually a principle lying behind his vision of public policy and the public good: that any action taken for the public good should not be based on rules and principles that do not in the end lead to the betterment, that is the greatest happiness (construed in a broad sense) for the greatest number of people. (I will likely have more to say about this in my review of Utilitarianism.)

Understanding this, and his affection for (if not identification with) socialism late in his life, is key to not taking this book to be a foundation for Libertarianism. For Mill, the freedom of the individual was key, but only in the context of a maximally happy society. The majority cannot tell you what to do, or how to act (so long as you aren't hurting anybody), but just the same, we need to arrange society so that the greatest number of people are as well off as they can be. Adjudicating between these two things has been the task of Liberalism ever since, and is, in my view, a fundamental insight which Mill has handed down to us. One which others, like John Rawls, have expanded and given firmer shape.

On Liberty is thus a fundamental text in political and philosophical thought; it is also a fundamental text in my life.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Aug 06, 2012 Norm Davis rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Zealous atheists.

Recommended to Norm by: John Finn

Shelves: college-courses, non-fiction, philosophy, religious

At first I was rather excited to have found this book online as it is suggested reading in a civics class. Diving in and reading I would find myself nodding my head thinking, “yes, yes, this is the way of things.” And so much of it was true.
Then the atheist/anti deist rhetoric starts and the book wavers between the routine predictable anti-religion dogma sprinkled with a few words of common sense then back to the anti-religion.
It is “outright” anti-religion as its primary theme. Then it is p...more

like · see review

Sep 28, 2012 Jim Leckband rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

If I had my way everyone who wants to vote should be required to read "On Liberty".

But, hold on. One of Mill's points is that the State should do the least in coercing the individual. By forcing reading a book I would be having the State take away some Liberty from the people!

But, hold on. Mill says that the State has the onus to do what it needs to secure the Liberty of the people as a whole. A people who don't KNOW what Liberty entails cannot safeguard its existence! Take That! Requiring the r...more

1 like · like · see review

Jun 28, 2009 blake rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: political-science

Apart from the small print and huge paragraphs, this is a supremely readable and insightful tome of political philosophy. I can agree in general with his ideas, but in response to all of those free market neo-liberals worshipping at his feet I would point to page 80:

Whoever succeeds in an overcrowded profession, or in a competitive examination; whoever is preferred to another in any contest for an object which both desire, reaps benefit rom the loss of others, from their wasted exertion and thei...more

like · see review

May 20, 2013 Khlood rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

ماهو نطاق حرية الفرد داخل مجتمعه؟
ما مدى أحقية المجتمع في فرض عاداته على الفرد؟
متى يمكن أن يكون التناصح أمر مشروع بين أفراد المجتمع؟
متى يحق للمجتمع التدخل لتقليص حرية أفراده؟

يجيب الكاتب عن تساؤلات طالما أشغلت البشرية حول الحرية، حدودها وتبعاتها مع الإستشهاد بأمثلة كثيرة مرّت عبر التاريخ تثبت سلبية الحرية أحيانًا وإيجابيتها في مواضع أخرى.

قاعدتا جون ستوارت ميل العامة حول الحرية هما: أن الفرد ليس مسؤول أمام المجتمع عن أفعاله، طالما أنها لاتخص أي شخص سواه فالنصيحة والتوجيه والإقناع والاجتناب من قبل ا...more ماهو نطاق حرية الفرد داخل مجتمعه؟
ما مدى أحقية المجتمع في فرض عاداته على الفرد؟
متى يمكن أن يكون التناصح أمر مشروع بين أفراد المجتمع؟
متى يحق للمجتمع التدخل لتقليص حرية أفراده؟

يجيب الكاتب عن تساؤلات طالما أشغلت البشرية حول الحرية، حدودها وتبعاتها مع الإستشهاد بأمثلة كثيرة مرّت عبر التاريخ تثبت سلبية الحرية أحيانًا وإيجابيتها في مواضع أخرى.

قاعدتا جون ستوارت ميل العامة حول الحرية هما: أن الفرد ليس مسؤول أمام المجتمع عن أفعاله، طالما أنها لاتخص أي شخص سواه فالنصيحة والتوجيه والإقناع والاجتناب من قبل الآخرين إن اعتقدوا أن ذلك ضروري لأجل مصلحتهم، هي الإجراءات الوحيدة التي يستطيع المجتمع أن يعبر من خلالها عن كرهه المبرر أو رفضه لسلوكه.
ثانيا، أما بخصوص الأفعال التي تلحق الضرر بمصالح الآخرين فإن الفرد مسؤول عنها وربما يخضع للعقاب الاجتماعي أو القانوني إذا ما رأى المجتمع أن هذا العقاب أو ذاك ضروري لأجل حمايته.

يقول جون ستوارت ميل:"إن البشر جميعًا لو اجتمعوا على رأي، وخالفهم في هذا الرأي فرد واحد، لما كان لهم أن يسكتوه، بنفس القدر الذي لا يجوز لهذا الفرد إسكاتهم حتى لو كانت له القوة والسلطة".
ويبرر جون ذلك بقوله:"إننا إذا أسكتنا صوتًا فربما نكون قد أسكتنا الحقيقة، وإن الرأي الخاطئ ربما يحمل في جوانحه بذور الحقيقة الكامنة، وإن الرأي المجمع عليه لا يمكن قبوله على أسس عقلية إلا إذا دخل واقع التجربة والتمحيص، وإن هذا الرأي ما لم يواجه تحديًا من وقت لآخر فإنه سيفقد أهميته وتأثيره".

في زمن تداخل المفاهيم وكثرة اللغط حول مفهوم الحرية "الليبرالية" قد تساعدك أفكار ستوارت إلى ما يرضي عقلك من استنتاجات وأجوبة حول حقك في الحرية و طبيعة وجودك بين فرديتك ومجتمعك.

(less)

1 like · like · see review

Aug 19, 2009 Lewis rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy

A man ahead of his time John Stuart Mill wrote this with the understated help of his wife and lifetime accomplice Harriet Taylor.
'The only purpose for which power can be rightly excercised over any member of a civilised community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant'
In this Mill's finest work he discusses the right and important role of indivdual liberty and the benefits to society. Without this liberty, he says, the wo...more

1 like · like · see review

Jul 14, 2012 Megan Anderson rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I don’t like utilitarianism. So I thought I’d disagree with most of Mill’s arguments. Which I did, for the first two works. But with this one I was pleasantly surprised. I’m glad I stuck with the book because I loved “On Liberty”. I’m probably conditioned to love it as an American, because the Bill of Rights was heavily influenced by Mill.

The basic premise is that the government should not impede an individual from doing as he or she likes unless it harms another person. This is the foundation o...more

like · see review

Oct 10, 2011 Ben rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

On Liberty was a radical book for the Victorians and I appreciate it's significance, but it was a tough read. I was in the trough and the crest throughout the whole book. In one moment I am enthralled by his citations and really original thoughts and then I was not.

J.S. Mill was the son of John Mill, the most prominent Utilitarian next to Bentham, and kept the "faith" in part, but was also changed by the times. Previously most political reformers wanted the power to be out of the hands of despot...more On Liberty was a radical book for the Victorians and I appreciate it's significance, but it was a tough read. I was in the trough and the crest throughout the whole book. In one moment I am enthralled by his citations and really original thoughts and then I was not.

J.S. Mill was the son of John Mill, the most prominent Utilitarian next to Bentham, and kept the "faith" in part, but was also changed by the times. Previously most political reformers wanted the power to be out of the hands of despots and oppressive few. When the power started to shift, J.S. Mill and others witnessed that the Common Many could be just as oppressive against liberty and individuality, maybe more so. So On Liberty is all the more interesting to read, it depicts not just fear of the common mob, but the State that represents it. Also he is British, but often references what is happening in the States.

The problem with his writings is that he abhors the idea that one side can be absolutely right. He fears what an unbalanced opinion can do. And then proceeds to lay down the same thing later in the book. It is kind of like that Simpson's episode where all the Mensa geniuses decide to run the government, and it leads to disaster. Mill believes it is okay for the State to only allow people to marry who can fully support their children. So only the wealthy can have large families? He believes that parents should educate their children, so the government should test the kids every year and initiate a penalty if they fail. That's like No Child Left Behind home invasion. My objection isn't against the examples, but with how he believes the state has the right to action if he agrees with it.

I am happy to have read this. The girl who gave it to me claimed to have read it, but I don't believe that. I think she read the Wikipedia page or something. Mill's sentence format is way too tedious. Here is one for you:
"There can surely, it can be argued, be nothing lost, no sacrifice of good, by so ordering matters that persons shall make their election, either wisely or foolishly, on their own prompting, as free as possible from the arts of persons who stimulate their inclinations for interested purposes of their own."
It is a swell sentiment and very true, but this is the least enigmatic of what is in the book.(less)

like · see review

Apr 04, 2011 Andrew Georgiadis rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: nonfiction

Pamphlets regarding 19th century English liberty have many lessons for the reader of today. We take much of our freedom for granted, and even the most pro-government liberals among us will cringe upon reexamining the insidious ebb of personal freedom at the oncoming wave of legislative intrusion into our personal lives.

JS Mill articulated that all-too-critical idea: that your freedom ends where another's nose begins. He readily admits that many questions of moral ambiguity are not easily answere...more

1 like · like · see review

Dec 23, 2010 David Holtkamp rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

If I had done more research on Mill, i would have realized that I have yet again ventured on a libertarian-focused book. Sometimes I think that the books I read are subliminally advising me to be a libertarian. However, I take comfort in Mill's own philosophy that the freedom of discussion and listening (properly) to both sides of an argument is essential to human individuality. So according to Mill, I shouldn't be afraid of studying principles that may be against what I personally believe, beca...more

1 like · like · see review

Aug 10, 2012 Keith Kendall rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: politics

This book just did not resonate with me. The logic seemed sound, but it also seemed like he was rehashing the same thing over and over. Some of the better points:
- Societies tend to demand conformity, assuming that their way is the "true" way.
- Societies mistakenly assume that they are better than all previous societies.
- Diversity is good as long as it is not harmful to society.
- When there is no opposition, people fail to grasp the arguments for their way of life, and the society becomes weak,...more

like · see review

Nov 23, 2011 Mason rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction

What Mill's up to here is trying to figure out how we should best balance the interests of society with the liberties of individuals. There's nothing particularly groundbreaking inOn Liberty, but he's a solid writer and he makes very tightly argued, logical arguments that are easy to comprehend.

In fact, a lot of his points are so deeply woven into how we in the West conceive of ourselves and our own political culture, that it would be easy to say, "he makes a compelling case for free speech, but...more

like · see review

May 19, 2008 Cortney R rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Considered one of the most articulate statements of classic liberalism. Mill is an influential proponent of "liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological."

1 like · like · see review

title link	preview: On Liberty
avg rating	preview: On Liberty Goodreads rating: 3.86 (9313 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1620303.On_Liberty?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348301884l/1620303.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1620303.On_Liberty?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]On Liberty by John Stuart Mill[/url]

On Liberty

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (125)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About John Stuart Mill

Books by John Stuart Mill

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About O slobode

Quotes from On Liberty