Analysis & Criticism of JS Mill's On LibertyThe perception of liberty is a problem that has been disorienting the human race for a long time. It seems that with every aspiring leader comes a new definition of freedom, some more realistic than others. However, we have seen that some people tend to understand what true freedom is. One of these researchers was the English philosopher and economist JS Mill. Mill's On Liberty provided a great example of what he believed liberty was and how it should be protected. In this essay, we will examine Mill's ideals regarding liberty and point out some points where he may not have been realistic. For Mill, freedom is defined by “the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the world”. individual." Mill's position is that society can only intervene when the action of the individual causes harm to others. Interference for any other reason is unjustified and only hinders the development of society in its together when these freedoms are preserved, the end result is freedom, and true freedom, according to Mill, is to pursue one's own good in whatever way one sees fit, provided that it does not harm others. Herein lies the problem: it is human nature to believe that you are right and the other person is wrong. This concept, which seems to be ingrained in all of us, leads to disapproval, which leads to anger. , which in turn leads to repression This is the only thing that should be avoided Throughout history, there are examples of governments or societies stifling the voice of opposition Even if we think we have. reason, this does not give us the right to prevent others from expressing their own opinions and ideas. To take away an individual's ability to think and feel for himself is to deprive him of the greatest part of life. . Along with this, you deprive yourself of the knowledge they possess, stunting your growth as a person. According to Mill, we dare not silence the voice of opposition because there is a good chance that voice is correct. The truths of life are an ever-evolving concept. Things believed to be true fall away time and time again, and if we honestly try to discover these truths, we must listen and argue at every point in the document...it would be structured like, with the three branches and the currency. Rather, Mill has an ideal that he would like to project onto a society. Both believe that a government's priority is to protect the freedom of its citizens, and if it fails to do so, it is the duty of the people to relieve it of its power. I myself agree with much of what Mill says. We need to let people express themselves even when what they say and do makes us angry. For what we say and do, I still make them angry, and no one would want to be silenced. Tolerance is a virtue that we all need in our everyday lives. But the problem is implementing this in a society that advocates freedom of speech, but does not always support it. People here don't want to hear those who object. Even if we don't directly silence their voices, we don't take the time to hear what they have to say. Isn't that the same as suppressing someone's ideas, not taking the time to hear the ideas and form an informed opinion about them. “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?” Wouldn't the same thing apply to someone who talks and no one listens??