THE ESSENCE OF LIBERTY

The subject of Civil or Social Liberty as to the limits of power that society has over individuals; has been a topic of controversy from the dawn of civilization. John Stuart Mill a philosopher of the nineteenth century cites this was not a new subject, though rarely discussed and has had a profound impact on civilized cultures.

Mill states that in early European history that the ones in power either inherited it or conquered others to obtain the power. The people in power were oppressive and considered dangerous. The aim of the people was to set limits on the ones in charge and create a check and balance system to over see the ones in power. Men thought that the people with the power should be delegates of the people, therefore having the same ideas and interests of the people they had power over. Mill brings up the question then “Why would people need limit the power over themselves, because people needed to be protected from the ones in power.

Furthermore Mill explains that the majority used their public authority to carry out its mandates and if for the wrong causes political oppression. This was defined as the tyranny of the majority. This was oppressive to the minority and left no protection. There was a need to limit the interference to the individual independence, to find the limit and maintain it was the key to protection. Mill points out then” where to place the limit and fit the individual freedom and social control”. What are things that are blamable or cause harm? Mill states that most of the control was because of illegitimate self-interests or fears. Morality emanates from interests and feelings of class superiority. Mill reveals that powerful peoples like and dislikes determined the rules of general observance. They did not concern themselves with whether the rules should be laws for individuals. Mill notes Religious Liberty is the freedom of conscience and indefeasible right. When the churches had conflict the battle usually produced no winner and had to tolerate most disagreed issues. Government interference was usually missed used and condemned. Mill affirms that one has independence over their own body and mind, this does not apply to children below the age of manhood or womanhood as outlined by law or barbarians.

Mill reveals that the object of his essay as to the governments absolute power in dealing with individuals to compel them, by any means, force of legal penalties to prevent harm to others. That subjection to control of a person is to keep them from harming others and is therefore punishable. But one might be liable for not doing something he should do to protect others, an example not to protect a child or defenseless individual. The exception to control of a person would be if the person would act better if left alone, or if controlling the person would cause harm to others. Freedom is the Liberty of conscience, but publishing opinions concerns other people. One has the liberty to plan life, doing what he likes as long as it does not harm another person. No society is free unless liberties are not respected.
Are involved.
Mill reports that in ancient commonwealths survived by control of individuals. They needed this control to battle enemies and against internal commotion. Religion has had the most power when moral are involved. There has been an increase of the force of opinion and legislation of society’s power over individuals for the good of all, but Mill stresses that there is a need for restraints against mischief. One branch of liberty is the Liberty of Thought: speaking and writing.

When considering the idea of Liberty and society’s power to control an individual, to what extent can society interfere without intruding on an individual’s right? Here is a thought to consider. Back in the 1980’s and earlier, people whom choose to smoke had no limits, except in restaurants; where smoking and non-smoking sections were established. This seemed to satisfy most patrons, one could request to be sat in a non-smoking section. Sometimes to get a seat in non-smoking, a person would have to make a choice to wait for a seat to become available; this was usually expectable to the patron.
Upon entering an eating establishment you are greeted by a hostess; whom asks the question “Where you would like to be seated smoking, non-smoking or either” if you did not have a preference. About ten or so years ago, it was found that second hand smoke was just as dangerous to non-smokers as to the smoker themselves. This finding has had a tremendous effect on where one can and cannot smoke. Society (possibly non-smokers) decided that there should be a ban on smoking within twenty-five feet of doors and windows of public buildings. I being a now re-formed smoker myself, think that designated areas should be enforced. While walking between the student union building and the math and science buildings, I have to walk through numerous individuals having a cigarette break. I feel that I have the right to get to my next class with out choking on the exhaled smoke of others, some not even courteous enough to throw their cigarette butts in the proper receptacle but littering the walkways and grounds. Then the maintenance and school administration has the need to recruit volunteers to pick the cigarette butts up that are scattered throughout the college grounds. One might think that adult students would be more responsible, for their habit. I am not against the smokers, they have the right (even if it is not the healthiest) to smoke; I mean that it is not against the law. I enjoyed smoking when I was younger, but chose to quit.

Some smokers feel that their rights have been violated by the ban in the public arena. I feel that companies and schools should have areas or enclosed courtyards for smokers. That if a person is so desperate for a cigarette, they should use the designated area where non-smokers do not have to pass through to get to their destinations. And if an individual is not courteous enough to put their cigarette butts in the proper receptacle, should be cited for littering (which is against the law in our city streets and state highways).

What should be the limit of society on individuals? One can make a choice in liking, disliking or tolerating another person’s actions or beliefs. If we disagree with the rights of a person to smoke, can we totally ban them from this habit? Just because we think that smoking is a smelly and an unhealthy addiction. Does an individual have the right do with their own body as they wish, even though the Surgeon General has declared that smoking could cause cancer? Do we have the right to demand that everyone have regular health screenings? These screenings are expensive and not fully covered by insurance, leaving a costly balance for the individual. Many people decide that they do not want the procedure or they feel they cannot afford it. Also many are turned away because of the lack of insurance. How then do we provide for everybody’s right to seek and receive medical assistance, or is this right only available to the wealthy who can afford the ever-rising cost? Should this too be a power that government can control and force individuals to purchase insurance?