Mill and Libertarian Ideas

The Libertarian party animal is a porcupine. Pretty Sweet.

In John Mill’s treatise “On Liberty”, he bring up the idea that freedom of speech and believe is essential to the workings of a functional society.  He asserts four main points as too why this is true. Below are his theories as to why any type of freedom of speech is necessary.

1.)    No ideas should be put down since we cannot for certain know them to be true or false.

2.)    Even if the presented idea is false, it may contain at least a portion of truth.

3.)    An idea should be contested since it will ultimately endure through these persecutions if it is in fact true.

4.)     He attests that challenging the idea is necessary in order to find real truth

J. S. Mill

Mill continues to emphasis the point that by silencing a particular expression of an “evil” idea, we are robbing society of a potential truth. This emphasis of freedom of speech points to the idea that John Stuart Mill is in some ways a Libertarian.

                In one of my classes in high school we discussed the fundamental beliefs of Libertarianism. After covering the basics of this governmental approach, I thought it was a great method. Beliefs such as limited government, laissez faire, lower taxes, pro-choice, pro-same-sex marriage, and living your life as you please made me think this idea was great. This seems like the best of both worlds. Democrat and Republican views together? How could you go wrong? As long as you don’t violate the rights of others, you are in the clear. This is exactly what I thought when I first learned about this view towards the world.

                My new allegiance to this party was suddenly changed, however, when my presented us with a very twisted approach to Libertarianism. The article (that I cannot remember the name of) began by discussing whether it is right to ignore seat-belt laws (which the Libertarians would deny) since it could possibly harm others. This law clearly interferes with personal freedom. However, is this small annoying seat-belt enough of a reason to risk your own life and possibly the life’s of others?  In a similar story (although a bit more inappropriate) the piece challenges the legality of prostitution. The individual should, as the Libertarian approach explains, be able to use their body as they please as long as they do not infringe on the liberties of others. Being a highly rejected practice, prostitution questions the basis of Libertarian beliefs. The article becomes a lot more interesting when the author touches on a story of a man looking to sell his liver. Only allowing organ donations, the United States made this illegal in order to stop people from mutilating (and possibly killing) themselves. The Libertarian platform, however, would uphold this idea since it falls under the umbrella of their party’s values.

                Some of you may express that this is not too radical of an idea. If this does not faze some of you brave-hearted citizens, then maybe the next story may move some of you undaunted souls. The article ends on a story of a man (with a clearly unorthodox mind) who put out an advertisement over the web for a volunteer to be eaten. Yes, eaten. The man offered a sum of money to anyone who voluntarily would be killed and eaten. Some of you may think that this would not generate any willing souls. You are most certainly wrong. Surprisingly, a number of people responded to his advertisement. At this point, I began to see how a Libertarian approach can unravel a litany of unthinkable horrors that would be completely legal.  The cannibal did not break any laws according to the Libertarians. He legally created a contract with another human and, with consent, murdered and consumed him.

Hello Clarice...

                This example of Libertarianism truly makes me wonder whether freedom of idea and speech should be enforced. John Stuart Mill insists that even if the idea or believe is entirely preposterous (like eating another human) it should still not be censored. At this point I do not agree with the entirety of Mill’s theories. If the world functioned as a Libertarian society, people could possibly sell their arms, legs, livers, or life out of desperation.