In John Stuart Mill's “On Liberty,” the idea of ​​liberty is examined through a lens applicable regardless of the form of government. John Mill, son of James Mill, the father of utilitarianism, had a difficult childhood that heavily influenced his political ideologies. His harshly studious upbringing revolutionized the way his ideologies were formed, and he was highly developed politically from a young age. His work bears the hallmarks of liberal political theory, showcasing individualism, strong advocacy for freedom and the rights of the individual, and a strong belief in laws to limit the worst of human behavior. However, his work seems to be full of contradictions. His ideas of freedom and freedom of expression are exclusive. While boasting the right to liberty for all people, Mill's “On Liberty” limits the scope of liberty to certain classifications of people, political situations, and man's intentions. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Mill defined freedom by separating it into three seemingly overlapping areas; for him, freedom was exemplified through the protection of the rights of the individual against tyrannical rulers. The first piece of freedom is that of the “inner dominion of conscience” (Mill 598). This covers freedom of both thought and feeling, including opinions, morals and sentiments. The second principle concerns the “freedom of tastes and interests” (Mill 598). Mill described this freedom as the ability to freely set one's life plans, without the impediment of other individuals. The condition that applies to this freedom is that it can be revoked if the freedoms of another individual are violated. The third and final distinctive freedom was the ability to unite the liberties of several individuals into a united front, as long as the intent of the united liberties is harmless. It is also implied that the unification of freedoms is voluntary. It is through these three forms that Mill defines freedom. To further illustrate the necessity of liberty in society, Mill states that no society, “in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever its form of government” (Mill 598). Through these words, Mill demonstrates his belief that society can only function under these circumstances. Although Mill's argument appears to be based on the idea that all human beings, regardless of classification, deserve freedom, his argument is limited. Aside from the text, Mill's involvement in the British East India Company impedes his argument about the right to liberty. for all people. The British East India Company, known for its harsh colonization and involvement in the slave trade, is undoubtedly a multinational corporation founded on limiting the freedom of other people. According to Mill's text, it is acceptable to "leave aside those backward states of society in which the race itself may be regarded as minor" (Mill 597). Close examination of the text predicts that it was applied primarily to white Europeans. This implicit racism does nothing to help Mill's ideology as a whole. To imply that a race may not deserve freedom simply because it is perceived as backward compared to the race in power is clearly to violate the most basic part of Mill's argument. Another group excluded from Mill's freedoms includes the young and those who still require the care of the state (Mill 597). Mill confirms the logic of this statement by assigning the role of freedomto the care of the individual. If the individual needs to be protected from himself, this is the intrinsic role of freedom. However, the three principles of freedom do not apply to this subgroup of people. Mill states that “those who are still in a position to need assistance from others, must be protected from their own actions as well as against external harm” (Mill 597). Those who are incapable of reasoning, including their respective states' legal definition of a minor, are stripped of the normalized freedom that Mill applies to everyone else. According to Mill's theory, that freedom is only meant to be replaced by a different freedom of protection, but does not follow the path that Mill laid out for the rest of acceptable society. Another limitation of Mill's principles of liberty arises in the political state. While the previous limitation was about who the freedoms apply to, this limitation is about how the freedom should be granted. In a political climate where there is a powerful majority and a dissenting minority, the power dynamic can be difficult to manage. To further complicate the situation, Mill intrudes on the application of liberty to this specific situation. Mill states that self-government is more of a misnomer than an accurate representation of people ruling over themselves. Instead, those “who exercise power are not always the same people over whom it is exercised” (Mill 594). The will of the people is often misunderstood as “the will of the largest or most active part of the people…that which manages to be accepted as the majority” (Mill 594). Mill goes on to state that the tyranny of the majority must be prohibited by enforcement of the liberties of individuals. It introduces the idea of ​​majority rule, a system of minority rights, which is strictly respected in modern democracies around the world. In this sentiment, Mill addresses the ideas of positive and negative freedoms, which can be described as the freedom to do something and the freedom to be safe from others. It takes the negative liberty of preventing society from encroaching on the rights of the minority, while allowing the positive liberty of the majority to assert the power it rightfully claims, in accordance with a specific power dynamic. The protection of the individual towards society is emphasized once again in Mill's language. Any “company can and does execute its mandates; and if he gives wrong mandates instead of right ones, or any mandates in things in which he ought not to meddle, he practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression” (Mill 596). He continues to write that some protections from the government are needed, but he also calls for protections from the will or opinion of the majority. This is firmly intertwined with Mill's first pillar of freedom, the right to the inner dominion of conscience. Although Mill balances the positive and negative freedoms of countering society for the better of the individual, he is still taking away the freedom of one group to allow for the freedom of another, something inherently contrary to his argument. The final contradiction found in Mill's “On Liberty” is the limitation placed on man's intentions. While this belief is in accord with that of theorists before him, his ideology goes a step further than those before him. Mill seeks to limit man's liberties based on the degree of intent to harm another being. This brings the question of limits into the picture. As with morals and standards, who should determine the limit of acceptable harm? Mill states that the only case in which it would be acceptable to force a being's obedience.