Okay so I have just finished reading John Mill's "On Liberty" and I know he suggests that freedom of speech is not sufficient to guarantee liberty. But I wanted to know if you guys think he hints at a goal beyond liberty that can be reached through freedom of speech? Any opinions would be greatly appreciated, thanks!
Yea, Capitalism. A free market in which individuals do as they please, so long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. This is all that true capitalists (not crony capitalists like bankers or "guys on wall street"), but true capitalists who provide products that enrich our lives every day. They often give money and time to charity to help others. This is what a free society would look like for everyone.
Our liberties our guaranteed by the constitution. Not a privilege given to us by any man, but an inherent right of all men and women. The only way to "guarantee" liberty is through vigilance, and with this vigilance we can protect our rights, so ya he is right freedom of speech will not guarantee anything, you and your right to bear arms is your insurance policy against tyranny.
I think the main things he meant for us to consider about freedom of speech is that it's necessary for public discourse in order to find an ultimate truth on any particular topic. But not to the point as to incite harm on another, which infringes on that person's liberty. He tries to balance the conflict between the need for societal authority to maintain order but not to be the 'tyranny of the majority'. But he sort of leaves 'harm' up to interpretation. On one hand he says something to the effect of being offended by someone's behavior isn't equal to being harmed. But later says something about not doing something that may be considered offensive in public. As for liberty, he seems to talk about it as a thing with intrinsic value. But if the greatest happiness is the reward, then it seems to me that liberty is only a tool to achieve that happiness.
But I wanted to know if you guys think he hints at a goal beyond liberty that can be reached through freedom of speech? I don't think he does. Freedom of speech is not just morally good for its own sake, it has a purpose as well. Free expression is good because it allows all of us to have an opinion on matters public which affect us all. But I don't think Mill sees a goal beyond liberty. I think liberty for Mill was a good of itself. He did make the point that there is no untrammelled liberty, he called it “licence”, so he accepted that there are limits to liberty, nothing new now I know but I think Mill may have been pretty out there when he wrote the essay. Freedom of speech enhances human existence in society. Where there is freedom of speech it is usually accompanied by the recognition and protection of other rights which are beneficial. Where humans live in a society where freedom of speech is not protected or accepted they tend to live in a dictatorship and unless they're brainwashed from childhood they generally tend to be unhappy. So freedom of speech is necessary for human happiness. Wait a minute. I think I just contradicted myself. Perhaps Mill was saying that freedom of speech is necessary to human happiness, maybe that's a goal or at least an aspiration that is important. Oh well, as Francis Bacon said, "If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties." Interesting factoid, he was Bertrand Russell's godfather (Mill, not Bacon). Interesting factoid, he was Bertrand Russell's Godfather.
