I think that Mill believes liberal citizens are free to argue anything they want that does not affect the freedom and liberty of others. People are free to have their opinions regarding whatever subject, and as long as they dont push for something that will harm someone, they will be fine. A good example of this would be abortion. I think Mill would argue that someone who might be against abortion can share its views on why they think its wrong, yet as long as they do not try to force others to see to this (by making it illegal), they can still be pursuing liberty. Speech is still free, as long as they do not try to force their restrictions on others.

From what I gather, it seems like nick is on a good page in that politics is the main arena for discussion of what is best for its citizens, that is, how to best protect personal liberties without enfringing up on any other citizen's right to personal liberty. I particularly like nick's example of anti-drug laws/prevention education... its one that came to my mind while reading. It seems that in a liberal tradition, those policies would be left to a social sphere... where lobying for personal persuasion is more appropriate, instead of, like nick mentions, a legal one.
amy_lee

I think Mill wants to do more than just limit argument but I think it goes to an idea of eliminating established truth in his which public argument is based upon. I agree with Christiens assertion about that Mill's open disdain for custom and anyone or any group which tries to impose tradition which he may or may not believe in and have desire to submit to. I fail to see how Mill can draw the line so far back to hold that only harm are issues which need be discussed, but what is the idea of harm based on if Mill disagrees with most of what the unwritten laws of society like right and wrong?

Civic humanism acknowledges that truth may not be absolute, and that because of its contingent nature we ought to debate it publicly in order to determine what seems at least the better, if not best, set of rules and values to adhere to. As everyone is a citizen, they are subject to regulation insofar as their personal/private goodness is a constituent part of the good of the state. Mill derives a different assumption from the premise of unattainable truth: that issues of good are best left to the individual, and that the state's only interest is in protecting this freedom for each citizen from the possible usurpations or infringements by others. This is Mill's maxim that ""each person should enjoy maximum liberty, consistent with the like liberty of others". Therefore, public debate pertains only to the regulation of these aforementioned infringements. Since by "public debate" I assume we're referring to the community which determines political thought and thus influences policy, I hesitate to include any moral discussion which doesn't involve basic rights/principles upon which the polity is based (such as our Bill of Rights). I think things like anti-drug education and so on, under liberalism, are to be left to social groups which operate in the personal realm of persuasion, rather than the legal one.

It seems like Mills doesn't think public debate should have any limitations so long as it does not harm anyone else and their liberties. He talks about the Liberty of Thought in the end which I think he was implying that we should all have the freedom to think what we want and then be able to write and speak of these things freely. Did I just misinterpret that?

I think that we are all on the same page about what Mill thinks liberalism should encourage us to debate publicly.
I beleive that Mill would encourage us to talk about or debate publicly, those things that affect the rights of others.

That's why Mill's "one very simple principle" is "that the sole end for which mankind are warranted...in interfering with the liberty of action...is self-protection" (9). He's setting a very clear boundary for what constitutes private and what constitutes public--consider that he means "protection" as both physical and mental. An issue becomes public only when we violate someone's protective shield. And furthermore, to debate an issue that runs no risk of violating anyone's protection is to debate opinions only. It's interesting how much the realm of public discourse has narrowed from "pursuit of the truth."

Mill draws a distinction between that which people are wrongfully compelled to do and that which they are obligated to do in order to be responsible to society as a whole. People have duties in society, such as the responsibility to help someone who is in danger; this is where Mill appeals not to individual rights, but to individual obligations. He writes, “A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction” (11). This fits in with his idea of utility—“the permanent interests of man as a progressive being” (10). One has obligations to society because if he did not fulfill those obligations, he could potentially harm other people. If his inaction causes harm, then his inaction is detrimental to society as a whole. His contributions to society are importantly. Similarly, his participation in “free and equal discussion” help establish what is best for society in general. It would be possible for him to participate in a discussion about what is beneficial for the society as a whole without imposing his own belief and value system on unwilling people, as this would fall under Mill's definition of what infringes on the individual rights of citizens.

According to Mill’s description of liberty, people should be free to discuss the function of society as a whole, which exists independently from individual actions and virtue. In the liberal public sphere, people should be free to “unite for any purpose not involving harm to others” (12). A number of issues that concern the public at large could fall into this sphere. There is a time and place for individual beliefs, preferences, opinions, etc.; these beliefs should simply not infringe on the rights of others.

An idea that came to mind while reading Mill was the use of illegal drugs. Strictly speaking, using an illegal drug is not harming anyone but the person using the drug; smoking marijuana, for instance, impairs the mental and physical faculties of the user, but not necessarily of anyone else (if no one is around). Mill tells us that “the only part of the conduct of anyone for which he is amenable to society is that which concerns others” (9). After all, the individual has absolute control over that which concerns him; “over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign” (9). Marijuana is illegal, however, partly because of the harm it does to the community at large. If smoking marijuana were illegal simply because one individual personally objected to it, then the rights of the individual would be threatened based on one person’s beliefs. But if the community in general agrees that drug use is detrimental to society and not just to the drug user, then we can see why drug use is illegal. If other members of the community are being negatively affected by the action, then the individual has moved beyond the sphere of his “own body and mind” and has begun affecting others in the community. “Free and equal discussion” in a community could establish public perceptions of what affects the community at large.

Mill explains that ones own preferences are dictated by personal morality, taste, or propriety and thus should not be forced upon any other people because one persons personal beliefs do not have anything to do with another persons actions or beliefs. He states that individuals have no right to tell another what they can or cannot do, UNLESS one persons actions will directly affect another person. People still have the right to suggest to others what they should or should not do, but they cannot punish or condemn someone for not taking their advice and continuing with their destructive/silly actions. Therefore, Mill would not encourage public debate in regards to citizen behavior, customs, tastes, or mores if they do not directly affect others.

The only time that society can have a say on a persons actions is when those actions affect others. For example, I have the freedom to punch the air as many times as I want without anyone telling me what I can or cannot do but the moment that my fist touches another person I have entered a new realm of liberty. When my actions affect another person, society has the right to have slight control over my conduct. In that same way, someone who steals from others is directly affecting their ability to be free from outside harm and thus should be disciplined and punished.

According to Mill, liberalism would encourage us to debate publicly only those things that directly affect others such as violence towards others and theft or robbery. In these instances, society would have the right to impose punishments for those who participate in these actions. I don’t think that Mill would encourage banning arguments/discussions about actions that do not directly affect others, but he would not encourage discussions that lead to negative repercussions if that person does not comply. For example, individuals would have the right to speak of the negative effects of a drinking or drug problem, but they would not be able to regulate ones intake of alcohol or drugs or punish them for continued use. Liberalism would also encourage us to debate publicly any actions of those who “require being taken care of by others” such as children and the mentally handicapped. Once a person is of the mindpower to live their life on their own, however, Mill states that society does not have the right to control their individual actions.