On Liberty by John Stuart Mill and The Second Treatise of Government by John Locke are influential literary works, while outlining the theoretical framework of each thinker's optimal state they propose two contrasting visions of the very essence of man and his freedom. Locke and Mill have completely different views when it comes to how much freedom man should have in political society because they obtained different views on man's potential to inherit pure or evil behavior. In chapter two labeled “Freedom of Thought and Discussion,” Mill includes two separate topics in his writings. His first argument focuses on the assumption that repressed opinions could be true for everything we know; this topic takes place on pages 16-17. Man must be open to criticism as silencing a person's opinion harms humanity. Suppose the silenced opinion turns out to be true; this inflicts harm on humanity as humanity has denied the opportunity to exchange lies for truth. This particular topic is aimed at those who actually silence/challenge opinions; they assume they are infallible. Beliefs like these, shared beliefs if you will, lead people to believe they are never wrong. An example of this concerns those who no longer believe that the world is flat; this is a disowned belief that was once believed by many. The first objection to Mill's argument reinforces the idea of ​​voicing a contrary opinion. Man has no choice but to implement what he believes to be his best judgment; anyone can be wrong about anything. However, a person should not allow himself to be immobilized by the possibility of making a mistake; man does not presuppose infallibility. Mill's response to argument number one comes close to being able to respond to dissenters and being able to respond... middle of paper... without compromising the conclusion drawn because Mill claims the use of freedom of expression, allowing the nature of man to express ideas that do not require censorship to limit a person's thought process. John Locke and John Mill are two philosophers who left an indestructible mark on the concept of freedom and freedom. It is true that John Locke advocates greater freedom for man than John Mill. Their opinions are respectively at odds with each other as one position perpetuates a conclusion from the other. Locke fears that, in the long term, the state will gain too much control over man. He has a lot of faith in man, unlike Mill. While Mill does not necessarily distrust man, he longs for limited rights of the individual by the state. This nullifies all the rights that individuals are said to have because they allow themselves to follow the whims of the state.