Critical Account of Mill’s Liberty Principle

There are basically two extreme views about people's freedom in society. Anarchist believes fundamentally that the state does not have the power to restrict the people, people who support full control of the government should ignore freedom and the state will implement the laws and policies of that choice I believe that I should be allowed to do. John Stuart Mill outlines that his book "On Freedom (1859)" has another option. He has formulated a formula that allows individuals to have some restrictions on their freedom, and is now called the "principle of freedom".

John Stuart Mill's article "On Freedom" explains the importance of freedom in this life; he is all important about freedom so that we can understand his general principles I experienced a problem. The principle of concern in this article is the principle of harm; that is, when society is the only thing to hamper people's freedom, their behavior will hinder others. I am going to cover all the relevant questions used in Mill's article described in Mill's theory, and I think that his theory is generally correct and is the greatest maximum of life How to believe. In his essay, Muller's "simple principle" is elaborated through thought, argument and action chapter. It is harmful. Mill keeps declaring freedom, not superiority, not truth

J. S. The notorious principle of Mill's freedom "Hazard's Principle" is also controversial from the views of traditionalists and revisionists. In chapter 4 of "On Freedom," Mueller thinks that people's behavior should not be free like opinion. "According to his wish, the sole purpose that power can be rationally exercised in any member of the civilized community is to prevent harm to others," he said. Since it hurts the society anyway it is acceptable to restrict freedom at any time. By making "hurting others" a legitimate reason for state intervention, the legal authority of the country can expand and exceed the need to respect individuality.