Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site ea.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!mwm
From: mwm@ea.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Were not drifting; were being tugged - (nf)
Message-ID: <9800028@ea.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-Aug-84 01:51:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ea.9800028
Posted: Thu Aug 16 01:51:00 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 19-Aug-84 02:23:26 EDT
References: <366@hogpd.UUCP>
Lines: 44
Nf-ID: #R:hogpd:-36600:ea:9800028:000:2000
Nf-From: ea!mwm    Aug 16 00:51:00 1984

#R:hogpd:-36600:ea:9800028:000:2000
ea!mwm    Aug 16 00:51:00 1984

/***** ea:net.philosophy / ecsvax!dgary / 12:28 pm  Aug 12, 1984 */
A little strongly stated, but I tend to concur.  Obtaining freedom is
loads harder than just putting limits on government.  Wish I could get
all Libertarians to read John Stuart Mill's On Liberty.  That may be
asking a lot from people who consider Ayn Rand a philosopher, however...
:->

D Gary Grady
USENET:  {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
/* ---------- */

I tried to find a copy of "On Liberty". The local libraries copy was missing,
and my favorite book store (not a very good book store, but there isn't
much choice around here) didn't have a copy - or any other Mill, for 
that matter. They did have Rand. I can't tell you whether she deserves to
be called a philosopher, as I haven't read any of her works.

On the other hand, I did find the following comment on "On Liberty", from
the Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 14 of the Macropedia, pg 270:

	In [On Liberty] he stated the case for the freedom of
	the individual against "the tyranny of the majority,"
	presented strong arguments in favor of complete freedom
	of thought and discussion, and argued that no state or
	society has the right to prevent the free development
	of human individuality.

Sounds like he has completely dropped his fathers stance (the greatest
happiness for the greatest number) and adopted a libertarian viewpoint to
me. Or has EB completely misinterpreted what Mill was trying to say?  If
that's so, let me know, and I'll go looking for a copy again, and evaluate
it for myself; otherwise I have more important things to do.  Or maybe you
were holding it up as a parody of libertarian thought?

As for putting limits on government not being sufficient for freedom,
you're right. You have to put the same limits on individuals. In the US,
this second form has mostly happened, and even been over-extended in
places. Since it's the government that is doing the over extending, that
makes the government a doubly prime target.