Talk:John Stuart Mill
From Academic Kids
You know, this article does not presently exemplify the virtues of the neutral point of view. --LMS
In order to deal with that, to some degree, there are now clear links to political economy and some attempt to frame Mill's contribution (with Smith and Ricardo) in defining the classic factors of production...
Thus, the controversy can live over in political economy and other links taken from there, but the classical analysis (of nature, human, and tool/capital-equipment contributions to production) is properly credited as an invention of Smith, Ricardo, and Mill.
Which i think it is.
"Mill proved insensitive to the inequalities of capitalism in that he thought the lower classes could be made smaller through [population control]?. His theory of `trickle down' economics did prove to a higher [standard of living]? for all, but as it pushed the GNP? outward, it widened the gap between the working class and the elite. Furthermore, while an idea of [upward mobility]? may have been perceived, the actual problem of inequality never actually went away. This view continues to inspire [capitalist parties]?, who are less sensitive to [outcome inequality]? than [socialist parties]?, and emphasize instead [equal opportunity]?."
That ain't neutral; that stuff is controversial.
- agreed. someone has obviously hacked it. only the last sentence was mine - and it refers only to relative sensitivities to outcome vs opportunity issues in general. I don't know who thinks they know anything about economics but they should read capitalism before commenting so generally on it in some biographical page.
Hmmm. This article seems to have been largely written from a Marxist point of view, and places an entirely too economic spin on a philosopher whose ideas have impact far beyond the economic. As I understand it, Mill's major contribution was his codification of the idea that people should be allowed to do what they want unless they are adversely affecting others. This is only peripherally an economic idea - indeed, comparatively little of On Liberty mentions economics. Unfortunately, I don't think I'm really competant to revise the article. --Robert Merkel 05:18 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)
Yes. It is a competent but almost unreadable account of Mill's contribution to Marxian political economy. With some editing, it would make a decent summary of the critiques of Mill by socilaist thinkers. As an entry describing the whole man and his thought, it needs a top to bottom re-write. Tannin
| Contents |
Socialism and Mill
If i'm not failing, Mill was not anti-socialist and in On Liberty he opposes the view wich sees economic freedom related to civil freedom (and therefore untouchable) (See the last chapter of the book!). He was favourable to the concession of full political rights to the working class.
He saw economic liberty as a different part of the liberty and says that the concept of free trade and commerce rests on equally solid ground as the concept of free speech.
Lol i just did a beginning article on it because I thought there was none :). Here is the article I made from scratch, I think there are a few parts that should be added perhaps.
John Stewart Mill was a very influential philosopher of the 1800's. John Stewart Mill wrote about a variety of topics and issues including liberty and utilitarianism.
Historical Background
John Steward Mill was born in London England in 1806. He was a very bright child and son of another famous intellectual of the time, James Mill, who also developed the idea of utilitarianism.
Works by John Stewart Mill
One noteworthy book by John Stewart Mill published was On Liberty, about the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual. One argument that John Stewart Mill formed within this book was the harm principal, that is people should be free to engage in what ever behaviors they wish as long as it does not harm others. Adherents of this philosophy are often called libertarians. Although the term libertarian is broad, usually it is inclusive of the idea that behaviors that are non harmful should be legalized (i.e. the harm principal). Some current behaviours that some libertarians are advocating be made legal on this basis are prostitution, and drug use including currently illegal drugs.
John Stewart Mill only speaks of negative freedom in On Liberty, a concept formed and named by Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997). Isaiah Berlin suggests that negative freedom is an absence or lack of impediments, obstacles or coercion. This is in contrast with his other idea of positive freedom, a capacity for behavior, and the presence of conditions for freedom, be they material resources, a level of enlightenment, or the opportunity for political participation.
Thus Mill argued that it is Government's role to only remove the barriers, such as laws, to behaviors that do not harm others. Mill did not put forth an argument of conditions that allow for the actual exercise of freedom, like perhaps the freedom of a poor citizen to have a productive job though government funded of education.
Harriet Taylor
How disappointing that this page does not even mention Harriet Taylor, acknowledged to be the co-author of many of Mill's works. Her influence on Mill's thought was nearly as profound as Bentham's, perhaps more so. In addition, the Victorian scorn heaped on Mill and Taylor's "relationship" formed the basis for many of the arguments in On Liberty, especially the components on the "tyranny of thought and custom."
- You are right. So... Put it in! It's a WIKI! Regebro 17:40, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Not many people are aware of the real John Stuart Mill: a closet homosexual and serial philandederer who derived pleasure from attacking people, whilst dressed as a pantomime dame. He put forward several theroies under the scattered principles of utilitarianism, he wrote discourses on the relationship of utilitarianism with liberty , virtue, rubber fetish gear and justice. Once quoted as saying I am the very embodyment of evil, come suckle thyself at my sinister teet. he was perhaps the greatest role model for children of the age and kids all around England had posters of him with his favourite peantagon tanktop collection bluetacked to there wardrobes. A true champion of the early gay and lesbian rights, his doctrine of the faith, was an adventurous depart in a world coming to terms with the decline of christianism was published early in his 35th year, emensely popular with the down-trodden masses as its value for lighting coal fires and keeping out the draft under doors was unparalelled, the fluffly cloud shaped paper that it was printed on, was the first of its kind in the civilised world and became the staple parchment of choice for all budding future deciples of the antichrist.
erm!?? i certainly never learnt about Mill's rubber fetish -- not sure if this resembles anything slightly true and even if it does... is it really relevant??
- Nope. Obvious vandalism.--Regebro 20:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Eminent Victorians
"Mill is one of the subjects in Eminent Victorians by Lytton Strachey."
Not according to the Wikipedia article on Lytton Strachey, which lists the subjects of said text as Cardinal Manning, Florence Nightingale, Dr. Arnold, General Gordon. Which is it?
"an advocate of utilitarianism"
JS Mill was brought up in a utilitarian household and greatly influenced by utilitarian thinking. However, most of his work was actually inspired by the problems he saw with the Utilitarian movement. Although his thinking could be described as a modification or offshoot or Utilitarianism, he is generally regarded as being part of a new Liberal movement. Thus, this phrase in the introduction is highly misleading. Unfortunately, I'm not entirely sure what would be a good sentence to replace this.
Positive and Negative liberty in "On Liberty"
I think there ought perhaps to be some mention of the elements of Positive liberty in Mill's writing. He presented himself as a negative theorist (although of course he didn't use that term, living in the 19th century and all) and so that's the orthodox view, but there's been enough criticism of that self-image (from Isaiah Berlin, the very man who made the distinction, among others) to be worthy of mention here.
Image
This image is distorted, it is too narrow. The real image was significantly wider. Perhaps someone could find the proper dimensions of the image/painting.
