Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

socialsciences.mcmaster.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 110 posts

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#31

Post by virmundi »

supernova87a wrote: post #23
arminiusreturns wrote: post #17

A classic everyone should read, especially today. Individual liberty is increasingly disregarded, belittled, and discarded, and I find that extremely dangerous. JSM is one of the handful of pillars of that thinking whose eloquence makes it accessible to all.

>A classic everyone should read, especially today. Individual liberty is increasingly disregarded, belittled, and discarded, and I find that extremely dangerous. JSM is one of the handful of pillars of that thinking whose eloquence makes it accessible to all. Wow, well I have to voice some public disbelief over this statement. Maybe you just write it as a reflex? You think personal liberties are at a low point? I mus…

[flagged]

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#32

Post by xpe »

supernova87a wrote: post #23
arminiusreturns wrote: post #17

A classic everyone should read, especially today. Individual liberty is increasingly disregarded, belittled, and discarded, and I find that extremely dangerous. JSM is one of the handful of pillars of that thinking whose eloquence makes it accessible to all.

>A classic everyone should read, especially today. Individual liberty is increasingly disregarded, belittled, and discarded, and I find that extremely dangerous. JSM is one of the handful of pillars of that thinking whose eloquence makes it accessible to all. Wow, well I have to voice some public disbelief over this statement. Maybe you just write it as a reflex? You think personal liberties are at a low point? I mus…

I generally agree with the comment above. At the same time, I think it is worth remembering this is a charged topic for many people.

Let's try get some more context before we make assumptions about what the earlier commenter meant. What was their context, for example? They might agree with your characterization of modern-day developed countries (if this is what you mean). Let's listen.

I think reasonable, educated people know there have been times in history where individual liberty was trampled upon. Some of the worst examples correspond to a lack of political representation and/or authoritarianism. Many people, for good reason, do not forget these awful moments in history.

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#33

Post by xpe »

lvs wrote: post #28
arminiusreturns wrote: post #17

A classic everyone should read, especially today. Individual liberty is increasingly disregarded, belittled, and discarded, and I find that extremely dangerous. JSM is one of the handful of pillars of that thinking whose eloquence makes it accessible to all.

Absurd. Just put a mask on for goodness' sake.

Please aim higher with your comments.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#34

Post by pedrosbmartins »

supernova87a wrote: post #23
arminiusreturns wrote: post #17

A classic everyone should read, especially today. Individual liberty is increasingly disregarded, belittled, and discarded, and I find that extremely dangerous. JSM is one of the handful of pillars of that thinking whose eloquence makes it accessible to all.

>A classic everyone should read, especially today. Individual liberty is increasingly disregarded, belittled, and discarded, and I find that extremely dangerous. JSM is one of the handful of pillars of that thinking whose eloquence makes it accessible to all. Wow, well I have to voice some public disbelief over this statement. Maybe you just write it as a reflex? You think personal liberties are at a low point? I mus…

I agree with you, but if you exchange personal liberty for personal privacy in OP's comment, it does get a bit closer to reality. We have been giving up privacy on behalf of individualism (for the sake of consumption, as you state), and I guess that down the road it might just bite our personal liberty, one way or another.

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#35

Post by imustbeevil »

rjkennedy98 wrote: post #30
imustbeevil wrote: post #25

> 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 inju…

> Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannising are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionari…

I tried to quote as much as possible because basically every paragraph hedges the former. This is the paragraph that immediately follows yours:

> But though this proposition is not likely to be contested in general terms, the practical question, where to place the limit—how to make the fitting adjustment between individual independence and social control— is a subject on which nearly everything remains to be done.

> All that makes existence valuable to any one, depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people. Some rules of conduct, therefore, must be imposed, by law in the first place, and by opinion on many things which are not fit subjects for the operation of law.

It seems pretty clear that absolute free speech is absolutely off the table. We can agree that the pendulum has swung too far, without spiking it in the other direction.

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#37

Post by ngcc_hk »

LeonB wrote: post #19
young_unixer wrote: post #11

"Mill’s thinking on women’s rights was influenced by his wife, Harriet Taylor Mill (1807-1858). In 1869 Mill published his famous essay 'The Subjection of Women', in favour of equality of the sexes." https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transforming... You know what's funny? He was early in the fight for sex equality, but if he lived today he would probably be qualified as a sexist by the "progressive" mob…

If he was alive today he would probably update his views- just as he updated them in his lifetime.

Yes. That is the difference between a good and a bad one. Inconsistent one may say. But that is life. Even for philosopher.

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#38

Post by nine_k »

supernova87a wrote: post #23
arminiusreturns wrote: post #17

A classic everyone should read, especially today. Individual liberty is increasingly disregarded, belittled, and discarded, and I find that extremely dangerous. JSM is one of the handful of pillars of that thinking whose eloquence makes it accessible to all.

>A classic everyone should read, especially today. Individual liberty is increasingly disregarded, belittled, and discarded, and I find that extremely dangerous. JSM is one of the handful of pillars of that thinking whose eloquence makes it accessible to all. Wow, well I have to voice some public disbelief over this statement. Maybe you just write it as a reflex? You think personal liberties are at a low point? I mus…

> You think personal liberties are at a low point?

They are again under attack, as is free speech, mostly out of outwardly good intentions such as preserving justice, public safety, or even, ironically, inclusion.

This is a perpetual conflict, though.

> Everything that is marketed to us, that enters our political discourse, ... "You do your way", "how you want it, when you want it", etc

...as long as it's politically correct, and there's no vocal minority which is opposed to your doing that — again, out of some best intentions. Liberty inherently creates conflicts like that, because people are not going to want the same thing. Liberty is when you are allowed to do something that others might not like, and reciprocally must tolerate other people doing something you don't like. A lot of people are uncomfortable with this.

> JSM was writing in an age where tyranny

A tyranny of majority is a thing :( Consider all the minorities who were disenfranchised not by dictators but by majority of local voters back in the day.

> I shudder to think how your head would not explode in a real authoritarian country.

I was born in the USSR. I can compare. I see the vast difference. I also see certain disconcerting similarities.

Post reply on HN