Ben Jonson Book

WARNING: Some of my political views are discussed in this VERY LONG review. I don't think there is anything offensive but with politics, you never know. Therefore, in case anything I say upsets anyone, I have included several very CUTE kitten photos by way of apology.

6.0 stars. On Liberty has secured a spot on my list of "All Time Favorite" books. I have gone through a pretty significant political re-examination over the last several years (maybe a lot of us have). A few years ago, if you were to line up everyone on goodreads according to political beliefs, I would guess that I would be found at the more conservative end of the spectrum. However, recently, I have come to see that I disagree with "LARGE CHUNKS" of both political parties and find myself embracing a more "libertarian" philosophy. Without going into a detailed thesis of my political beliefs, I am going to share a few basic beliefs so that you will understand where I am coming from in relation to the theories that Mill argues in favor of in this book.
.
.
.
The following is a political advertisement on behalf of S-PAC (Stupid Political Asshats of Congress) …which is sponsored in part by the WTF Association whose motto is, "When you can see it but just can't believe it….WTF."


Social Issues:

On social issues, I think you can generally sum up my feelings as follows:
I believe, with certain exceptions, everyone should be free to do whatever they want so long they are not causing harm to anybody else and this freedom necessarily extends to control over their own body. I know that is pretty simplistic but the nuances would take forever to explain so hopefully I can explain the basic gist. For example, I think people should be able to:
(a): Eat whatever you want (does not seem to be a problem for people in the U.S.);
(b): Drink what you want (of course, we run into the whole "cause no harm" thing once you get behind the wheel);
(c): Smoke cigarettes and cigars if you want…with reasonable restrictions for places where people either have no choice in being (e.g., work, school) or "little" choice (e.g., an airplane or mass transportation).
(d): Do drugs if you want… I may not like this one but it would be "hypocritical" of me to distinguish this from the whole "free to live as you want and control your own body" philosophy (however, the "cause no harm" requirement still applies).
(e): Love who you want…provided we are talking consenting ADULTS***. For me, this is a no-brainer. Two consenting adults caring for one another...let's move on.

***Point of clarification #1…I said consenting ADULTS. Pedophiles and NAMBLA spokesmen can go ahead and sit back down…or better yet:



(f): Abortion….uh, I think I just stumbled upon one of the third rails of politics. However, like the drug issue I think it would be hypocritical of me to argue an exception to the whole "control over your own body" philosophy and therefore, regardless of what one personally believes, I don't believe you should have the right to impose that belief on someone else and thus a person should be "free to choose."***

***Point of Clarificaiton #2... I can hear the "do no harm" contingent screaming on this one and I understand the argument but (for me at least), the other interests don't overcome the fundamental freedom over one's own body.

Okay, this is getting a little heavy, so I would like to take a short break to look at another cute animal photo:


Ahhhhh, that is cute. Okay, I feel better.

Economic Issues:

Being consistent and applying the same reasoning as above to economic issues will probably make me sound very conservative, but it is really just a consistent application of the concept of individual freedom. Basically, I think that people should be free to keep what they earn, except for some reasonably allocated portion needed to DEFEND*** the Country and to protect the rights of people to live their lives free from oppression by their neighbor.

*** Point of Clarification #3...I said DEFEND the Country. That does NOT mean the equivalent of getting a bunch of your buddies together, grabbing a pile of gold from the money room and storming off next door because you think they MIGHT be the next Mordor.


Now I certainly understand that for a lot of people this is just too limited a governmental role and they feel like there are things the government NEEDS to do. I certainly acknowledge that the government does a lot of things that help a lot of people. For me, the problem arises when I step back and start with the basic premise that every dollar the government has must be TAKEN from someone (e.g., through taxes, tariffs, or borrowing from our kids). Now when those "taxes" go to benefit everyone (e.g., defense, police, courts, etc.) then it is simply a matter of figuring out how to fairly allocate the burden among the people.

However, when money is taken from one group and given it to another group, suddenly you are in the position of necessarily imposing one group's values on another. Suddenly it is necessary to "lobby" the government so that your group is the one that comes out on top. Thus, you get the rise of the "special interest" group, the name calling, the buying of influence through "campaign contribution" and everyone fighting for control over the public teat. Basically, you get our current political system which just seems broken to me.

Well, I have probably said more about myself than most of you care to know. Hopefully, I haven't offended anyone even if you don't agree with anything I have said. Thank you for listening to me ramble and, as a form of appreciation, I offer you another cute kitten picture:

.
.
.
Well, with that VERY LONG introduction, I now come to the book itself.


On Liberty is in many ways a "bible" for libertarian philosophy and encompasses many of the ideas I mentioned above. In the book, Mill takes the position that, with certain limited exceptions, people should be free to think what they want, believe what they want, worship (or not worship) as they want, speak and write freely and conduct their own personal lives without interference from the government. Mill argues that the government's role should be to create the environment whereby people can be free from the oppression of their neighbor and should not intrude in or exert control over the day to day lives of its citizens.

In addition to his strong defense in favor of freedom of the press, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly and debate, Mill also passionately argues that all of the very assumptions that we live by should never be held so sacred as to be excluded from debate. Mill argues that only by examining our beliefs and subjecting them to rigorous debate and evaluation can we achieve true wisdom. I thought that was a wonderful way of saying keep an open mind and always be willing to challenge your assumptions.

One final thing I wanted to mention that I found fascinating for a book written in 1859, was Mills position on women's rights. Mills categorically believed that the right to be free and live your life as you choose applied equally to both women and men. He spoke of the "oppression" of husbands over their wives as being absolutely contrary to the principle of individual freedom. I found him to seriously ahead of time on that subject and it just made me appreciate his positions even more.

Overall, I have rarely found myself more in agreement with a book on political theory and am sure I will be reading this again in the future. HIGHEST POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION!!!