In 1859, English political philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote a highly influential, if controversial, book “On Liberty.” Historian Peter Marshall praised its exaltation on individual freedoms, calling it a “great classic” in libertarian thought. “On Liberty” articulated Mill’s famous “harm principle” which asks to what extent may society limit the “freedoms” of individual members of the community. Mill’s answer: One may act as one chooses, unless harm is likely caused to another in which case the state may legitimately prohibit such act. In balancing state control and personal freedom, the only restriction on the individual, for Mill, is to prevent that individual from physically harming another: psychologically offensive behaviors, no matter how weird, are allowed. Hitting a person, drunk driving, or secondhand smoking, thus, are prohibited for the harm they likely do to another. But psychologically different or eccentric lifestyle choices: such as eating insects, wearing nose rings, or tattoos are allowed, leading critics such as poet Matthew Arnold to accuse Mill of opening the door to “barbarism.”
I do not myself subscribe to extreme freedom, and do not agree with Mill that acts which tend to harm oneself are allowed under the harm principle. I do not believe in assisting voluntary euthanasia, or polygamy for one (acts which the harm principle allows). Still, I can follow Mill’s logic, that the harm principle opens up doors of unintended opportunities for societies, particularly diverse multicultural societies. This is so as the principle allows individuals ample freedom sphere to explore, commit mistakes, or try different ways of making a living, so long as they do not harm others. I can see three long-term libertarian benefits.
Optimum tolerance in a multicultural society. By allowing all behavior except those causing harm to others, Mill advocates a deep appreciation and toleration for differences among individual humans and cultural groups. It’s okay to wear a turban, church veil, or headscarf. In Mill’s society, people do not have to wear the same type of clothing, nor fear being censured just for being different. No person, group, or subculture is “othered” for espousing different set of religious or cultural beliefs. Discrimination, or worse, persecution is avoided, for being different is not feared but tolerated. For students, it’s okay to take a gap year right after high school graduation for students to reflect their life direction, and not be forced to enroll in nursing or law for instance.
Avoiding the danger of censoring or suppressing the truth. The harm principle guarantees full freedom of expression, unless that freedom harms others, such as shouting “fire” in a crowded movie house. To restrict freedom of expression for fear (say, of being labeled anti-government or subversive), or by being criticized or ostracized, is to run the risk of potentially suppressing the truth. By truth, I do not mean an abstruse philosophical concept, but a correct diagnosis of a real-world problem. On April 24, 2013, the eight-storey Rana Plaza commercial building collapsed in Dhaka in what was described the “deadliest accidental structural failure in modern human history” with over a thousand dead. The structure housed five garment factories with heavy equipment “more than the structure could support.” A day before the collapse, large cracks were already found in the building, but the factories “ignored the warning” and “forced the workers to return to work the following day,” trapping thousands in the process. Mill said the opinion “suppress[ed] by authority may possibly be true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course, deny its truth, but they are not infallible.” An alert population, vigilant of the significance of a free exchange of information, could have preempted the disaster, or any human-induced disaster for that matter.
Nonconformism and empowerment of the individual. Mill warned the “tyranny of the majority” could easily overpower individual initiative. The majority with its twin tools of criticism and ostracism are a deadly force to resist. Conformism leads to groupthink, a kind of herd mentality whose desire to conform to group consensus blunts that critical thinking needed for correct decision-making and problem-solving. Mill said, “he who lets the world … choose [a] plan of life for him, has no need of any other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation.” When conformity becomes the norm, people no longer question. Community stagnation sets in. Mill recognizes humankind’s “imperfections.” Without sharp evaluative thinking individuals are known for, the mistakes become uncritically if dogmatically accepted for as long as it takes.
—————-
Dr. Gil Marvel Tabucanon is currently teaching jurisprudence and legal theories at Macquarie University Sydney.