Liberty Books

John Stuart Mill, 1806-73, worked for the East India Co. helped run Colonial India from England. Minister of Parliament 1865-68 he served one term. Maiden speech was a disaster his second was great success. He was first MP to propose that women should be given the vote on equal footing with the men who could vote. He got 1/3 support, England gives franchise to women after U.S. He was a great Feminist, his essay "Subjection of Women" is written with great passion and prose. It was a brave position for him to take he was ridiculed for it. He favored democracy, and letting more men from lower classes the right to vote, but believed that people that are more educated should have more votes then less educated because they would make better decisions about what government should do. He would have wanted to extend education to the masses, so that all may have gotten 2-3 votes and so on. He didn't think it should be extended to where a small elite could carry the day on votes. The idea was that if the working class, and middle class, where divided on an issue, the people with more intelligence would have the power to tip the balance. Mill thought that people with more education would probably not only be better able to make political decisions, especially in terms of intellectually being able to see what would be best for the government to do, but that they would also be more concerned about the common good publicly then people in general. He was intensely educated by his father James. John could read Greek, and Latin at 6 yrs.; his Dad tutored him at home. Dad thought environment was everything. He was treated like an adult, never played games with kids; he had a very cerebral upbringing. He had a period of depression in his twenties, it changed his philosophy, and he recognized the importance of developing feelings along with the intellect, this is something that he stressed in his work. He read poetry to get out of depression; he became devoted to poetry and became a romantic. He fell in love with a married woman Harriet Taylor, was a platonic relationship, after her husband's death they married 3 years later and probably never consummated the marriage maybe due to his having syphilis. His dedication to "On Liberty" is to her, very devoted to each other. Both buried together in Avignon France where they used to vacation.

Mill as a moral theorist subscribed to a theory we call Utilitarianism. It means---In some way morality is about the maximization of happiness. Whether actions are right or wrong depends on how happiness can be most effectively maximized. I say in some way, because there are allot of different kinds of Utilitarians. Allot of different ways of saying exactly how it is the maximization of happiness comes into morality. Therefore, happiness is clearly an important idea for Utilitarians. Mill has a hedonistic view of happiness, he thinks that happiness can be defined in terms of "pleasure in the absence of pain." What is distinctive about Mill in this area is that he believes that some kinds of pleasure are better than others are, and add more to a person's happiness than other kinds of pleasures. He believes in what he calls, "higher quality pleasures." These are pleasures, he says, that we get from the exercise of faculties that only human beings happen to have. So the intellect, imagination, the moral feelings, these are the sources of higher quality pleasures people use. His view seems to be that a certain quantity of intellectual pleasure just adds more to your happiness, and a given quantity of some lower pleasure like a kind we would share with the animals such as sensation, taste, sexual pleasure, etc. His "higher quality pleasures" in a way echo Aristotle's ethics. The idea of those things that make us distinctly human that are the real key to our happiness, that is in Mill also. It is not as limited to reason and intellect as Aristotle thinks. Mill recognizes the importance of the appreciation of beauty, aesthetic pleasure, and moral pleasure. He frankly owes a debt to Aristotle that he never properly acknowledges, never gives him proper credit.

"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.


There are different parts of his defense of this, different arguments that he gives. He has a long chapter on freedom of speech and press. He has some very specific reasons why he thinks those freedoms are important. Always in the background for Mill is the idea of development, and making it possible for more people to enjoy these higher quality pleasures. How do we help people develop their distinctly human faculties, in ways that will help them enjoy their higher quality pleasures? Because for him that is the way, we maximize the total amount of happiness that is enjoyed in the world, and that is the object of morality as far as he is concerned. Utilitarianists believe that maximizing happiness is ultimately, what morality is all about. That does not mean maximizing your own happiness that means maximizing the total amount of happiness that is enjoyed, not only by yourself but also by everybody else as well.

Roger Kimball, in his book "Experiments Against Reality" wrote, "On Liberty" was published in 1859, coincidentally the same year as "On the Origin of Species." Darwin's book has been credited--and blamed--for all manner of moral and religious mischief. But in the long run "On Liberty" may have effected an even greater revolution in sentiment.

I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, and history.

Joseph Hamburger, who passed away in 1997, has left us a rich legacy by virtue of his trenchant analysis of the complete Mill. While most scholars have focused on On Liberty and his essay on Utilitarianism, Hamburger has chosen to focus on the entire corpus of Mill's work.

Hamburger is the only scholar who has successfully argued that Mill, long considered amongst the pantheon of great liberal thinkers, offers us a look at the conservative strain of Mill's thought. This is arrived at through a close textual analysis of Mill's less well-known but no less salient work, thereby giving us a more balanced view of this important 19th century thinker. A must read for those who wish to understand Mill as he understood himself.

John Stuart Mill, 1806-73, worked for the East India Co. helped run Colonial India from England. Minister of Parliament 1865-68 he served one term. Maiden speech was a disaster his second was great success. He was first MP to propose that women should be given the vote on equal footing with the men who could vote. He got 1/3 support, England gives franchise to women after U.S. He was a great Feminist, his essay "Subjection of Women" is written with great passion and prose. It was a brave position for him to take he was ridiculed for it. He favored democracy, and letting more men from lower classes the right to vote, but believed that people that are more educated should have more votes then less educated because they would make better decisions about what government should do. He would have wanted to extend education to the masses, so that all may have gotten 2-3 votes and so on. He didn't think it should be extended to where a small elite could carry the day on votes. The idea was that if the working class, and middle class, where divided on an issue, the people with more intelligence would have the power to tip the balance. Mill thought that people with more education would probably not only be better able to make political decisions, especially in terms of intellectually being able to see what would be best for the government to do, but that they would also be more concerned about the common good publicly then people in general. He was intensely educated by his father James. John could read Greek, and Latin at 6 yrs.; his Dad tutored him at home. Dad thought environment was everything. He was treated like an adult, never played games with kids; he had a very cerebral upbringing. He had a period of depression in his twenties, it changed his philosophy, and he recognized the importance of developing feelings along with the intellect, this is something that he stressed in his work. He read poetry to get out of depression; he became devoted to poetry and became a romantic. He fell in love with a married woman Harriet Taylor, was a platonic relationship, after her husband's death they married 3 years later and probably never consummated the marriage maybe due to his having syphilis. His dedication to "On Liberty" is to her, very devoted to each other. Both buried together in Avignon France where they used to vacation.

Mill as a moral theorist subscribed to a theory we call Utilitarianism. It means---In some way morality is about the maximization of happiness. Whether actions are right or wrong depends on how happiness can be most effectively maximized. I say in some way, because there are allot of different kinds of Utilitarians. Allot of different ways of saying exactly how it is the maximization of happiness comes into morality. Therefore, happiness is clearly an important idea for Utilitarians. Mill has a hedonistic view of happiness, he thinks that happiness can be defined in terms of "pleasure in the absence of pain." What is distinctive about Mill in this area is that he believes that some kinds of pleasure are better than others are, and add more to a person's happiness than other kinds of pleasures. He believes in what he calls, "higher quality pleasures." These are pleasures, he says, that we get from the exercise of faculties that only human beings happen to have. So the intellect, imagination, the moral feelings, these are the sources of higher quality pleasures people use. His view seems to be that a certain quantity of intellectual pleasure just adds more to your happiness, and a given quantity of some lower pleasure like a kind we would share with the animals such as sensation, taste, sexual pleasure, etc. His "higher quality pleasures" in a way echo Aristotle's ethics. The idea of those things that make us distinctly human that are the real key to our happiness, that is in Mill also. It is not as limited to reason and intellect as Aristotle thinks. Mill recognizes the importance of the appreciation of beauty, aesthetic pleasure, and moral pleasure. He frankly owes a debt to Aristotle that he never properly acknowledges, never gives him proper credit.

"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.


There are different parts of his defense of this, different arguments that he gives. He has a long chapter on freedom of speech and press. He has some very specific reasons why he thinks those freedoms are important. Always in the background for Mill is the idea of development, and making it possible for more people to enjoy these higher quality pleasures. How do we help people develop their distinctly human faculties, in ways that will help them enjoy their higher quality pleasures? Because for him that is the way, we maximize the total amount of happiness that is enjoyed in the world, and that is the object of morality as far as he is concerned. Utilitarianists believe that maximizing happiness is ultimately, what morality is all about. That does not mean maximizing your own happiness that means maximizing the total amount of happiness that is enjoyed, not only by yourself but also by everybody else as well.

Roger Kimball, in his book "Experiments Against Reality" wrote, "On Liberty" was published in 1859, coincidentally the same year as "On the Origin of Species." Darwin's book has been credited--and blamed--for all manner of moral and religious mischief. But in the long run "On Liberty" may have effected an even greater revolution in sentiment.

I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, and history.

Jacob Burckhardt (1818-1897) was one of the most brilliant historians of the 19th century. Burckhardt was a professor of history and the history of art at the University of Basel from 1858-1893. He believed studying customs and manners of an era were more insightful than studying institutions. He also thought that by studying literature and art of a historic period one would see it contained a more meaningful truth than the history of events. This book is composed from a series of notes for lectures Burckhardt delivered from 1865-1885 at the U. of Basel. This book is a defiant counter-cultural look at human history from antiquity to the time of Napoleon. Burckhardt does not judge history by modern day standards, but seeks to find each historical epoch's own intrinsic meaning to the intellectual and artistic treasure of mankind. The historian's job is to observe, contemplate and enjoy. Although; not quick to judge the past, Burckhardt was quick to ridicule the "smugness" of his present times. Burckhardt had grave misgivings about "popular egalitarian democracy", watching it corrupt culture and politics. Burckhardt was an environmentalist worried about the ravaging of the earths natural resources during the industrial revolution. Additionally, Burckhardt was very wary of the growth of the "state" politically and believed it was only a matter of time before the tyranny of the `state' would steal mans liberty. Yet, Burckhardt was no pessimist, he was a "philosopher of freedom", believing man could rise above the bleakest of circumstances.

He is an astute observer and is fascinating to read. His lectures have the clarity and historic scope like that of Lord Acton's works. I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in political philosophy, and history.

Paul Kens has written a lively, entertaining, and scholarly intellectual biography of one of the most fascinating justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, Stephen J. Field. Kens traces Field's career from his days as a young attorney just landed in gold-rush-crazed San Francisco in 1849, to his appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court less than fourteen years later, and on to the end of the century. Along the way, Kens discusses the political and economic events that shaped the thinking of Field and those with whom he did intellectual battle. Throughout, the book deals with an issue central to law in the economic realm: Does the economic power with which society might legitimately be concerned stem from government alone, or do other, private sources of power warrant a governmental response? Field clearly answered this question in one way, whereas for much of their history Americans have answered it in another. It may be a question that, every generation or so, Americans must answer anew....

Kens provides a balanced view. It would be easy to characterize Field as an apologist for the wealthy establishment--and he was so characterized by contemporary critics. But that characterization was not correct. Field's logic led him to take politically unpopular stands, especially with respect to issues of race, immigration, and corporate power. His concern about the potential abuse of government caused him to defend a strong role for federal judicial oversight of state legislation--recognizing that state legislatures might be even more likely than Congress to adopt special-interest legislation.

The appearance of Kant's great critiques initiated a revolution in philosophy, and yet for many he is beyond reach, as if contained and reformed by his successors, and their transformations of his starting point. Beginning with Rheinhold and Fichte this process began, and within Kant's own lifetime the core of his system was being overshadowed. Their contributions, ending with Hegel, are, of course, of great interest, and yet a subtle process of taking Kant as superceded has been their legacy, and it is quite misleading. This has tremendous ramifications even in our own time, for we can see that even post-Deweyan pragmatism with its 'naturalized hegelianism' is built on this secondary strain (to say nothing of this in Marxism). Ameriks thus produces a very interesting review of Kant's 'modest system' and its remorphed descendants wherein the resurrected phoenix of metaphysical absolutes produces its spectacles. Kant is accused of foundationalism now, and yet his 'modest system' in Ameriks' phrase is actually the original of most of this later attacks.

This is the fourth installment in the Chroma Series, and doesn't disappoint. I can't wait for the next one

This is a wonderful book about the Statue of Liberty. It is very moving and I am very impressed with it. I teach ESOL students so immigration is a factor in all my students lives whether they are living here for the rest of their lives or just visiting here for a couple of years while their parents attend university here. I am also a big fan of Doreen Rappaport who wrote wonderful picture books about Martin Luther King Jr. and John Lennon. Lady Liberty tells her story by covering life stories of major figures involved in the creation of the statue. This is quite effective. I learned more about the making of the statue than I had before and I felt very in tune with the people who made the statue happen. The French governments and the US governments weren't all that interested in the project, they had other concerns on their minds and it was more of a bother than anything anyone wanted. It was the pushing of some people from both continents to make it happen and the rest liked it. The courage of the creators was enormous because at any time, people could have convinced them to call it quits. Human creatively and determination is always a good tale.

H. L. A. Hart, who was a contemporary of Lord Patrick Devlin, criticized him for his very rigid position on the government's role in enacting and enforcing morality laws against its citizens. Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart lived from 1907 to 1992. Hart was one of the most influential philosophers of law in the twentieth century, and he taught at Oxford University. His 1963, book "Law, Liberty and Morality" is a refutation of Devlin's theories of the government's role in criminalizing private moral misconduct. They both debated on opposite sides of the British government's 1957, Wolfenden Report which looked into the subject of decriminalizing homosexuality and prostitution. Devlin was the only member of the committee of fourteen who voted against decriminalizing the two acts in question. Hart, though not a member of the committee nevertheless, was very influential in the governments relaxing its laws against homosexuality in 1967. Though Hart is supportive of the idea that society did have some common moral values worth supporting, he is troubled by Devlin's far-reaching statement that, "immorality jeopardizes or weakens society." In fact, Hart accused Devlin of holding the position that any change in a society's morality would bring about its demise. Devlin balked at Hart's accusation, and retorted that he only believed the idea that any change in a society's morality could bring about its demise. Hart is definitely in agreement with John Stuart Mill's concept of liberty when he writes, "...society can not only survive individual divergences in other fields from its prevalent morality, but profit from them."

The other aspect of the disagreement between Devlin and Hart was in the arena of how much of an impact religious values should dictate in a society's moral values and laws. In his book, Devlin asked the question, how citizens were supposed to derive moral values if they did not rely on religious authority. He answered, that lawyers had generally ignored the question and had generally accepted the notion that Christian morality remained just as acceptable to society as a whole today as it had been when the church was the sole arbiter of morality in the past. Devlin also takes philosophers to task for thinking that a human being's conscience can fill the void that religious morality would leave if it were no longer in force. "It cannot, unless some way be found of making up a collective conscience." Devlin seriously doubted that humankind would ever be able to find a collective conscience. However, he did not want to stifle people's freedom in asking questions about what the state's role should be regarding moral values. In fact Devlin writes that, "The unending search for truth goes on and so does the struggle towards the perfect society." Instead of outlawing all immoral acts, Hart advocated for a more nuanced approach in answer to Devlin's question on when society should outlaw immorality. Hart separated immoral acts into two types--public and private. Hart supported outlawing public immoral acts, such as prostitution, to preserve public decency. However, he was not in favor of outlawing private acts considered by society as immoral, such as homosexuality, since these acts took place out of view of the public and thus, protecting decency would not be a concern for society in that instance. Hart's argument provided a more balanced approach between society's demand for correct moral behavior and the desire for individual liberty.

I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, and history.

H. L. A. Hart, who was a contemporary of Lord Patrick Devlin, criticized him for his very rigid position on the government's role in enacting and enforcing morality laws against its citizens. Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart lived from 1907 to 1992. Hart was one of the most influential philosophers of law in the twentieth century, and he taught at Oxford University. His 1963, book "Law, Liberty and Morality" is a refutation of Devlin's theories of the government's role in criminalizing private moral misconduct. They both debated on opposite sides of the British government's 1957, Wolfenden Report which looked into the subject of decriminalizing homosexuality and prostitution. Devlin was the only member of the committee of fourteen who voted against decriminalizing the two acts in question. Hart, though not a member of the committee nevertheless, was very influential in the governments relaxing its laws against homosexuality in 1967. Though Hart is supportive of the idea that society did have some common moral values worth supporting, he is troubled by Devlin's far-reaching statement that, "immorality jeopardizes or weakens society." In fact, Hart accused Devlin of holding the position that any change in a society's morality would bring about its demise. Devlin balked at Hart's accusation, and retorted that he only believed the idea that any change in a society's morality could bring about its demise. Hart is definitely in agreement with John Stuart Mill's concept of liberty when he writes, "...society can not only survive individual divergences in other fields from its prevalent morality, but profit from them."

The other aspect of the disagreement between Devlin and Hart was in the arena of how much of an impact religious values should dictate in a society's moral values and laws. In his book, Devlin asked the question, how citizens were supposed to derive moral values if they did not rely on religious authority. He answered, that lawyers had generally ignored the question and had generally accepted the notion that Christian morality remained just as acceptable to society as a whole today as it had been when the church was the sole arbiter of morality in the past. Devlin also takes philosophers to task for thinking that a human being's conscience can fill the void that religious morality would leave if it were no longer in force. "It cannot, unless some way be found of making up a collective conscience." Devlin seriously doubted that humankind would ever be able to find a collective conscience. However, he did not want to stifle people's freedom in asking questions about what the state's role should be regarding moral values. In fact Devlin writes that, "The unending search for truth goes on and so does the struggle towards the perfect society." Instead of outlawing all immoral acts, Hart advocated for a more nuanced approach in answer to Devlin's question on when society should outlaw immorality. Hart separated immoral acts into two types--public and private. Hart supported outlawing public immoral acts, such as prostitution, to preserve public decency. However, he was not in favor of outlawing private acts considered by society as immoral, such as homosexuality, since these acts took place out of view of the public and thus, protecting decency would not be a concern for society in that instance. Hart's argument provided a more balanced approach between society's demand for correct moral behavior and the desire for individual liberty.

I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, and history.