Tree of Liberty Book Club; Come One, Come All--I'll Bring the Refreshments

Hi ATS
I hope everyone is having a good day. I've read that Thomas Jefferson planted quite the garden in his latter years, but I'm fairly certain that trees, or any plants for that matter, don't thrive when watered by blood.
It's my position that the tree of liberty could be refreshed with the scholarship, discussion, debate, and self reflection of patriots. I invite everyone to join me in reading and discussing John Stuart Mill's brilliant essay "On Liberty."
We could read/discuss about 12 pages a day (there's a lot of meat to process), starting with the first chapter "Introduction" and be done in 9-10 days. I've already read it but want to hold off on any commentary until others have a chance to read and join. In case you're wondering if this philosophy is worth your time/effort, I'll post the first paragraph after the link as a sneak peak. Hope everyone joins the ATS Tree of Liberty Book Club! All ideas are welcome.

eet.pixel-online.org...

The subject of this Essay is not the so-called Liberty of the Will, so unfortunately opposed to the misnamed doctrine of Philosophical Necessity; but Civil, or Social Liberty: the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual. A question seldom stated, and hardly ever discussed, in general terms, but which profoundly influences the practical controversies of the age by its latent presence, and is likely soon to make itself recognised as the vital question of the future. It is so far from being new, that, in a certain sense, it has divided mankind, almost from the remotest ages; but in the stage of progress into which the more civilised portions of the species have now entered, it presents itself under new conditions, and requires a different and more fundamental treatment.

a reply to: zosimov

Next paragraph which gives would be readers (myself included) a hook:

The struggle between Liberty and Authority is the most conspicu-
ous feature in the portions of history with which we are earliest familiar,
particularly in that of Greece, Rome, and England. But in old times this
contest was between subjects, or some classes of subjects, and the Gov-
ernment.

Will return shortly Z.

I've heard discussions from some modern day scholars and philosophers, and it's obvious that they're familiar with Mill's writings. Sometimes you'll hear (almost) direct quotes.
There are full audiobooks available for those who may want to kick back and listen. My eyes get easily fatigued these days, so I'm turning more and more to audio books.

Excellent thread, BTW.

a reply to: JinMI

The struggle between Liberty and Authority

Amen!
Everybody wants what's best, but who gets to decide what's best?

I'm happy to see you two! Thanks for the great contributions so far. Since it looks like a few people might be interested in this discussion, I'm going back to reread the Introduction and take notes of the stuff I'm interested in discussing.
There's so much I saw that I wanted to talk about

a reply to: zosimov

I'm down. My Mill reader is boxed in storage so I'll have to order a copy.

To add to the list of myriad things I'm reading or that are on standby.

a reply to: SirHardHarry

Great! Happy to have you!

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: SirHardHarry

Great! Happy to have you!

We'll see how it goes lol.

Might be more of a personal discussion, depending.

Gotta love Dover Thrift Editions.

a reply to: SirHardHarry

Found a copy then?

I bought mine online (used) not too long ago; looks like I could have gotten it cheaper new.

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: SirHardHarry

Found a copy then?

I bought mine online (used) not too long ago; looks like I could have gotten it cheaper new.

I did.

Never go wrong with Dover Thrift Editions.

I remember there was a rack in college (I think) with a bunch of DTE classics, between $1-2$ each, which is where I got Walden, Bagavad gita, Notes from the Underground, Winesburg Ohio, various plays, sundry philosophy, Wilde, Shakespeare, etc. All In storage now.

a reply to: SirHardHarry

I did a perusal of my shelves and only saw 2 Dovers (Joyce's Dubliners and Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics). I'll keep an eye out next time I need a classic.
Which knowing me won't be too long.

Friends, I'm going through rather slowly and taking notes; maybe even a question or two, and will be back on later to share and read anything I may have missed.

Enjoy the read!

Ok, well I wrote a few pages of notes, but I'll try to condense it a bit here.

A question [...] likely soon to make itself recognised as the vital question of the future. [...] it has divided mankind, almost from the remotest ages; but in the stage of progress into which the more civilised portions of the species have now entered, it presents itself under new conditions, and requires a different and more fundamental treatment

First of all, I was wondering about that first paragraph, particularly the allusion to the "vital question of the future" and to different "stages of progress," too.
What specifically about our current stage calls for a revisit of the meaning and scope of individual liberty?
To what extent does societal compulsion enforce action or restraint on others against their will? I thought the following quote was thought provoking:

Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.

When is restricting others' rights the right and valid thing to do? (I like how he's answered that last question so far) Here's an interesting quote from the essay in that vein:

All that makes existence valuable to any one, depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people.

and a good answer too:

That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.

Does society today have more or less or just as much influence on an individual's freedom than the time of writing (1859)? Is there a bigger threat to our liberty and individuality than societal pressures and if so, what do you think that is? How does society help or hinder these threats?

Ok, enough questions for now
Interesting quote:

Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion

Brilliant quote regarding the domain of individual liberty:

It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological. The liberty of expressing and publishing opinions may seem to fall under a different principle, since it belongs to that part of the conduct of an individual which concerns other people; but, being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself, and resting in great part on the same reasons, is practically inseparable from it.

I'll be adding more ideas later.

Feel free to post any additions/musings as you go

I tried to find a quote or two to pull from this paragraph, but really every line is so valuable I decided to post it in full.
To put it in context, Mill has argued that some limits on freedom, either through governmental force (law) or through public censure/opinion must be enforced to secure the happiness and individual sovereignty of all.
He's just brought up the fact that no two times in history, and hardly any two countries for that matter, treat this issue the same way, yet most societies accept their own standards as the right and natural course.

This all but universal illusion is one of the examples of the magical influence of custom, which is not only, as the proverb says, a second nature, but is continually mistaken for the first. The effect of custom, in preventing any misgiving respecting the rules of conduct which mankind impose on one another, is all the more complete because the subject
is one on which it is not generally considered necessary that reasons should be given, either by one person to others or by each to himself. People are accustomed to believe, and have been encouraged in the belief by some who aspire to the character of philosophers, that their feelings, on subjects of this nature, are better than reasons, and render reasons unnecessary. The practical principle which guides them to their opinions on the regulation of human conduct, is the feeling in each person’s mind that everybody should be required to act as he, and those with whom he sympathises, would like them to act. No one, indeed, acknowledges to himself that his standard of judgment is his own liking; but an opinion on a point of conduct, not supported by reasons, can only count as one person’s preference; and if the reasons, when given, are a mere appeal to a similar preference felt by other people, it is still only many people’s liking instead of one. To an ordinary man, however, his own preference, thus supported, is not only a perfectly satisfactory reason, but the only one he generally has for any of his notions of morality, taste, or propriety, which are not expressly written in his religious creed; and his chief guide in the interpretation even of that. Men’s opinions, accordingly, on what is laudable or blamable, are affected by all the multifarious causes which influence their wishes in regard to the conduct of others, and which are as numerous as those which determine their wishes on any other subject. Sometimes their reason—at other
times their prejudices or superstitions: often their social affections, not seldom their antisocial ones, their envy or jealousy, their arrogance or contemptuousness: but most commonly their desires or fears for themselves—their legitimate or illegitimate self-interest.

I've bolded the lines I thought particularly incisive, but the whole paragraph is excellent.

I'm looking forward to reading the next 12 or so pages of Chapter 2 "Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion"

This is really great stuff.

General comment: We are progressing...slowly

The original brainwash has been SERVICE TO SELF over a Jesus/Bhudda kinda thing.

On chapter 2!

Side notes:

Quadrivium and Trivium

and Hillsdale College for FREE online college

Related in the big scope to the overall wisdom.

a reply to: melissagee7

On chap 2, too!

I am so happy you're here

a reply to: zosimov

This is a really interesting book that is worth paying attention to. She hurt my feelings too much. All these actors, they were crazy bright and wonderful.

It is very interesting for us.

SPAM