Chapter one of On Liberty can be summarized by the struggle between the minorities and majorities for both social and civil liberties. John Stuart Mills wrote “The aim, therefore, of patriots was to set limits to the power which the ruler should be suffered to exercise over the community; and this limitation is what they meant by Liberty”. In other words equalizing the enforcement of laws and opinions. This belief would allow the minorities to have their own voice as both a body of diverse opinion as well as the individual opinion without the fears associated with a dictatorship of the majority encroaching upon the lives and beliefs of the minority. Mills also wrote that these limits were a necessity to ensure “The power of the government would not be abused to their own advantage" but instead would work for the people and with the peoples best interests and concerns in the forefront.

Patriots of the time had two goals in mind in order to achieve liberty; the first being to have certain immunities called “Political Liberties or Rights” recognized by the people and their rulers. The second was to establish a list of constitutional checks, which with the consent of the community, is intended to represent its interests and views to be the more important act of a governing power. Rulers and governing bodies were compelled to agree and enact with the first goal but not so with the second.

Rulers were customarily opposed to the thoughts and beliefs of the people; yielding a natural resistance to the thoughts and limitations of power. The majority of people began to believe a ruler or governing power should not be an inherited, or innate, characteristic, but rather be an elective choice of the community, disposable at their will, to represent both the individual as well as the minorities best interests. Mills writes, “The nation did not need to be protected against its own will. There was no fear of it tyrannizing over itself” meaning the community would not willingly elect something into action that would interfere with or harm their own ways of life and relevant beliefs. Mills moves to say “Their power was but the nations power, concentrated and in a form convenient for exercise”; liberty and freedom must be taken into consideration without equivocation to political position when laws are both dictated and enacted.

A community is defined as “a social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and often have a common cultural and historical heritage”. However the social group that makes up the strongest party within the community will commonly dictate the laws and opinions, political or otherwise, their rulers enforce. A shared fear among the people are the dangers of a collective opinion commonly known as the “Tyranny of the Majority”; a social despotism of a domineering society. People believed that there must be protection not only over governing bodies but also that of prevailing opinion and feeling of the majority. The limits set on liberty would need to constantly observed and monitored to ensure a balance of justice between the differences among the masses and that of the smaller parties to allow a healthy medium for living. Careful consideration should be taken regarding the tendency of society to impose its own ideas and practices on the rules of conduct outside of civil penalties and further limitations set to best prevent the tyranny of prevailing opinion, but where is the line drawn between individual independence and social control?

Mills suggests “All that makes existence valuable to any one, depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people”; self evident was the need for certain rules of conduct to be enacted on multiple aspects of both opinion and law. What those rules were to be was the more important aspect of the discussion. General rules of conduct and the laws enforced were an integral part of “custom” and therefore deemed that no reason or justification was necessary; custom, it seemed, was not to be questioned or altered but accepted as the way things are and have always been.

The one constant state of tyranny was that of religious and theological beliefs and views; the Universal Church was the first to have demonstrated a form of social tyranny in this aspect and was as little permitting of change in theological differences and opinions as those of the church itself. A consistent effort was made to change, or alter, the thoughts and feelings of mankind on particular points that were unorthodox to the beliefs and views of the church. Great writers define religious freedom as “An indefeasible right” and denied that an individual should be accountable to others for their own religious belief. However, because of the ability for mankind to expel what it does not understand, or see as just, freedom of religion was rarely practiced or accepted and yielded many quarrels and disputes among the people. In the instance where the majority is able to feel the power and opinions of the government as their own individual liberty will become more exposed to invasion from the government as well as that of public opinion.

In conclusion, the outcome for mankind both as an individual as well as a whole is the concept of self-protection and preservation. Mills defines this as “The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others”. This means we must allow people to live as they see fit for their own lives as long as it does not encroach, or harm in any way by means of direct or indirect actions or lack of, upon the lives and beliefs of others. If there is a need for discussion of an individual belief or theological or political view then discuss without bias, hatred or anger and approach with an open mind; but do not compel or force the individual to perform a task or enact a belief that contradicts their own. Allow the people to be diverse without fear of persecution or viewed as indifferent.