I could have underlined the entirety of the excerpt of John Stewart Mill's 'On Liberty'. Except then I'd be back where I started. Instead, here's a distillation with quotes in Italics and my comments in periwinkle. (I actually follow the chronology as presented, so if you desire to know the context in which the quotes come, it shouldn't be too hard.)
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 civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.
If you make a move to kill me, I can protect myself by either killing you or calling the law, who will keep you from killing me even if that means that you are imprisoned for the rest of your life. However, if you make a move to kill yourself, I mayn't stop you unless you plan to do so by driving a bus into a nursery school.
Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
Can this be more explicit?
Those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury.
Thou must prevent those who would take advantage of children or fools. And ensure that said innocents don't harm themselves. Beware grandmothers who set their wards on kitchen counters; when they melt their shoe onto the stove, you are liable and shall be punished for said sinful act.
A ruler full of the spirit of improvement is warranted in the use of any expedients that will attain an end, perhaps otherwise unattainable.
Um, wait a minute. How does said ruler know that these things will benefit me? And how does said ruler classify people as barbarians in the need of improvement? So long as I have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion, a ruler may do nothing more than facilitate the exercise of that capability. And if I'm disallowed to participate in free and equal discussion, well, there will be a small scale rebellion. And by small, I do of course mean a total coup, wherein those who tried to silence me will be permanently silenced in a gruesome and educational manner. Wait a minute. I just used any expedients that will attain my improvements. . . Oh yeah, I am justified because I enabled free and equal discussion. At least there was no circular reasoning involved. . .
I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions.
Not to tread on questionable ethics or Bill Clinton, but that depends on how you define utility. I mean, look at the miasma around Terry Schiavo. In that case, what was grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being? Man being mankind? Or the individual in question? And how can anyone outside of that person judge?
But there is a sphere of action in which society, as distinguished from the individual, has, if any, only an indirect interest; comprehending all that portion of a person's life and conduct that affects only himself, or if it also affects others, only with their free, voluntary, and undeceived consent and participation. [...] It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; [...] secondly, [...] liberty of tastes and pursuits; [...] Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite.
Herein find an arguement for the legality of all currently illegal substances for human consumption. By making them legal, crime associated with said substances will neccessarily decrease. If one chooses to ravage one's own body, what business is it of even the family members near to that person? They may simply choose not to participate in interaction with said individual, and seek aid should that person choose to force his company upon the family. As for affected children, the state may protect them from physical harm, as the state already does.
No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions. Then follows that opinions aren't exempt either if they instigate a mischievious act. Just because an opinion instigates doesn't mean that other thinking human beings will act. And if they do, so long as the person whose opinion informed their actions does not participate in said actions, so what? A person is responsible only for his own actions, not for the actions of fellow humans. Remember the sovereignty principle?
The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people. I define nuisance as repeated badgering. Painting those of us who wear fur coats red, thereby ruining our beloved fur, and calling us murderers classifies. Wearing a fur coat does not. Protesting gatherings by shouting at participants as they try to enter peacefully classifies. Attending a controversial gathering does not so long as one does not attack the protesters.
Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing. Brave New World? Anyone?
