What is the value of liberty according to J.S.Mill? Do you agree?
Stefan Stefanov NBU

John Stuart Mill was known as an economist, philosopher and influential contributor to social and political theory. He was famous for his writing on individual liberty and utilitarianism. He believed individual liberty is essential in evolving society as well as unleashing the truth. Mill’s ideas stretched to governing every aspect of human liberty promoting change, innovation, and the development of societies, his arguments can be easily used in any dispute over rights and freedoms. His greatest concern was that society will morph into a “collective norm” where human innovation would not exist. Although his notions became problematic he was still able to clarify the benefits that came with individual liberty. Mainly, Mill’s emphasis the abolishment of tyranny whether politically or socially while promoting a simplistic yet effective view on social growth and individual liberty. He was a very radical politician for his time. He once proposed in parliament that women should have the right to vote just as man. The vote did not pass and actually he was made fun for his absurd proposition. It went so far as to speculate with his sexual orientation since only “such a person could have these strange ideas”.
Mill however did not approve of the movement for universal suffrage and did not believed that a woman should be completely independent.
In his essay “On Liberty” explains his thoughts on the subject. There searches for the appropriate level of power a society can have over any person. He rejects the idea of social contract previously founded by Jean- Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, yet acknowledges “the rights and duties” concept, the idea that everyone must return a benefit to society if he receives one.
Mill also offers a distinction between punishment by law and punishment by opinion. He states that although some acts are hurtful to others, their extent does not justify governmental intervention. In these cases, public opinion may be punishment by itself: “The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going the length of violating any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law. (Mill 1859)
Mill then clarifies that he believes in the virtues of goodwill and in personal intervention on behalf of others. What he opposes is governmental efforts to force such behaviour from people. He encourages individuals to take a “free” initiative to help others to get back on the right track: "It would be well, indeed, if this good office were much more freely rendered than the common notions of politeness at present permit, and if one person could honestly point out to another that he thinks him in fault, without being considered unmannerly or presuming." (Mill 1859)
But then again, he asserts that any behaviour that affects no one but the person acting and/or other people by consent, should be both legally and socially accepted, explaining that each person knows what’s best for himself more than other people do.
Later, Mill describes as “acceptable penalties” any action that go from avoiding a person to warning others about that person, for the only reason that they are simple natural reactions to that person’s behaviour, unintended to punish him. Yet, “moral reprobation” or “social exile” remains inadmissible. In other words a perpetrator may be target for dislike and disgust, but must not be vengefully punished.
Mill finds that there is a distinction between the part of a person's life which concerns only himself and that which concerns others. Something many will refuse to admit by stating that all actions, after all, have potentially public influence and may hurt those who depend on the person. Mill replies that when an action violates one’s obligations, thus affecting or “harming” society, he can justly face moral and legal reprobation, not for the consequence itself, but for failing to meet one’s duties. For this, Mill offers drunkenness as an example: “No person ought to be punished simply for being drunk; but a soldier or a policeman should be punished for being drunk on duty.” (Mills 1859). But, if an action only indirectly affects society without violating any fixed obligation, then "for the sake of the greater good of human freedom," (Mills 1859), Mill declares that society must be silent to the the harm an individual does to himself.
John Stuart Mills (1859) On Liberty Stefan Stefanov NBU