In the summarized material below, I crossed off a few passages that read as commentary. Summary should be a straight delivery of the facts and nothing more. Something of an exception to this is that it must be made clear that the summary is coming from someone else, that the words and ideas belong to someone, so provide attribution, such as "Mill writes . . .." This should be done regularly, but not overdone.

Everyone has their own opinion on what the true definition of what liberty really is. John Stuart Mill expresses his views of liberty, and how it affects those who govern and how it affects those who are governed is in the first essay of his book On Liberty. One of Mill’s major ideas throughout this essay was that leaders or those in power should have the same ideas and interests of those they lead. Another one of Mill’s ideas is that leaders should have very little power over what those in society do unless it affects others in a negative way. Government should have no right to tell their civilians how they can and cannot live their lives, unless it in some way negatively impacts another.

In chapter one of Mill’s book On Liberty, he defines liberty as “the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.” In simpler words, putting a limit on the amount of power those in authority have over the individuals they rule. Mill goes on by explaining that the definition of liberty has been molded to the different rulers that have come and gone over time. Mill states that back in the era of ancient Greece and Rome that their definition of liberty was “protection against the tyranny of rulers.” During this time, rulers and those that they ruled didn’t exactly have friendly relationship. They didn’t really see eye to eye when it came to their most important interests. Even though those in power at the time were there to protect, lead those in the society, their different interests didn’t go unnoticed. In order to try and create barriers on how much power the leaders actually had over society, rights were created for the people that they leaders couldn’t bend or ignore.

After a while, Mill goes on to explains that those under rule of tyrants wanted a change. They wanted to have a word in what went on in the lives of those in power, better known as a Democracy. This was good for the people. They now had leaders who they chose; they shared the same interests, and same beliefs. The leaders had the peoples trust on their side. This process of authority going from being in charge of society, and having complete control, to the leaders being forced to work with those in society, and work towards pleasing the individuals created a new problem “The tyrant of the majority.” This problem meant, no longer was only the government trying to force its ideas of the correct way to live down individual’s throats; it was now the society, and the public starting to influence individuals of how to live. Meaning that now it was society that had in turn become the tyrant. Turning what seemed like a good idea, into the individuals now no longer being influenced by politics, but now by those around them, of how to dress, act, and live. Mill then asks what steps could be taken to protect the individuals from influence from society? Every culture handles this situation differently by their standards.

Mill says the main objective of this essay is to explain how he believes power should used over those they rule over. He states that everyone has liberty of thoughts, but when it comes to expressing how they feel about their ideas, the limitations come into play. Liberty of thoughts is just one of the three types of liberty that Mill explains in his book. The second is the pursuit of one’s happiness, and lastly the liberty to live with others so long as they do not bring harm to those around them.

In Mills book On Liberty he says that the interests and ideas of the leaders should be the same as the interests and ideas of those they have authority over. I strongly agree with this statement. I don’t believe you can really have the trust of the people you rule unless you agree with their thoughts and ideas. Another reason I agree with this is because if the leader is going to do their job affectively their decisions need to benefit those in the society around them. For example, if those in authority are liberals, and everyone they have power over is a conservative, the leaders won’t go against what they believe just to make everyone else happy. To them it wouldn’t be fair. They would base their decisions off their feelings, which in turn would cause a lot of problems between the leaders and the civilians.

For the reasons stated above I strongly agree with Mill when he states that he believes that the interests and ideas of leaders should be the same as the interests and ideas of those they have authority over. If they don’t have their same interests then they won’t ever have the people’s trust. It is not possible to truly lead any number of people without having their trust and their support. The job of the leaders is to lead the people. This won’t happen unless they have the same mindset as the people they are leading. No one wants to follow a leader they don’t believe in, it just doesn’t make sense. Mill also stated that those in power should have very little influence over what the individuals do in society, unless it brings harm to others. I believe this statement is very true. I agree with this statement because no one has the right to tell someone how they can and cannot live, except for themselves. Just because those in power had either been born into their position of power, or it had fallen into their hands doesn’t mean that, that gives them the power to tell others that they do not know how to act.