Does Mill Uphold The Harm Principle?

John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) is an advocate of utilitarianism. Many thinkers have considered that occasionally force may contribute to greater collective utility than individual freedom. Can Mill defend this utilitarianism and uphold the harm principle?
Mill starts Chapter 1 of On Liberty by stating that "The subject of this essay is… the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual." This clarifies that his interest is not with the conditions of a "free society," but with the conditions of a civilization in which people can be free, and not just "politically" free, but able to develop as individuals. And so, he is interested in how society exerts power over people.
Mill pleads for "one...

simple principle, as entitled to govern... the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control." That assumption, the harm principle, is that "The only purpose for which power can be... 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." We may yet question, implore, and protest people who appear bent on doing themselves harm (as we discern it) or are developing in a manner we do not prefer. But we should not apply either the law or moral censure to change their conduct unless they are inducing harm to other individuals.
Through the drug addict, one could see the notion that utility and freedom can contradict. If society dissuades someone from trying an addictive drug, e.g. opioids, society subsidizes further to their utility (and the collective utility) than if society lets them seek the drug. This is no objection since Mill did not set forth that collective utility and individual freedom never contradict.
Foremost, the harm principle eliminates some freedom for this purpose. Mill identifies freedom, protected by the harm principle, can struggle with utility in certain conditions. His response is to guide readers towards the broader picture:
The spirit of improvement is not always a spirit of liberty, for it may aim at forcing improvements on an unwilling people; and the spirit of liberty, as far as it resists such attempts, may ally itself... with the opponents of improvement; but the only unfailing and permanent source of improvement is liberty since by it there are as many... independent centers of improvement as there are individuals.
If readers think Mill’s appeal to utility is what is best in this or that individual instance, we misread him. It is what gives to utility that appeals to him. Preventing someone from having an addictive drug is one case of stopping individuals from taking part in acts that can threaten their health; do we need to do this? Utility, for Mill, appeals to our concerns as progressive beings. This means our learning—and an exceptional source of learning is through our faults.
But is Mill right that liberty is a "source of improvement?" For example, is he correct to consider allowing diversity will encourage people to discover better means of living, ones that will induce them to be successful? Mill thinks individuals pick up from their and others’ mistakes so that diversification will add to the recognition of what is desirable. But in the time since Mill wrote, we can propose that there has been greater diversity—the evolution of pluralistic civilizations—but no considerable development in happiness or healthy living. Is individuality in the sense of pursuing our own good in our own practice such a wonderful quality? Or would families be happier with substantial social instruction on how to get along?
We can concur with Mill that judgment and determining of oneself is a key part of happiness. But do we need as much freedom as Mill contends for to get these benefits? If not, he has not maintained the harm principle.
If freedom and utility conflict, we run into a decision between them. If we appeal to utility and inhibit freedom, Mill will call for us to say on what basis we claim to know what contributes most to utility "in the largest sense." Or we defend freedom even when it conflicts with utility, e.g. arguing that we have certain rights to freedom that is more important than utility.
Charlotte Perkins Gilman in Women and Economics (1898) showed an unprecedented interpretation of economic relations within the home.

Gilman, the American authoritative sociologist, and economist, was a lucrative writer who came to attain a wide popular audience in her time, promoting views on developments in the economics of household relationships to her readers.
Gilman's appeal, like Mill, was from an individual viewpoint. She depicted the socio-economic system which demanded both women and men to restrict their productivity to adhere to outmoded customs. Gilman's microeconomic view of societal economic oppression was a result of her enduring sense of personal economic injustice.
Gilman said the household was a means that men exploited to support the subjugation of women. Gilman feels that the primary hindrances to freedom for women center on the circumstance that women fully depend on men for their survival (unique in the animal kingdom). Because of this relationship, women must pay off their debt to men through “domestic services,” i.e. sex. Owing to these sexual overtones, female activities have become controlled by men, giving up the dissemination of power to the men. The household and the domestic role of women carried within it supported this subjugation. The enduring wish for women to tend to and educate her children extends this arrangement. As an end, Gilman thinks this handicap cannot be surmounted through granting female suffrage, but that there would have to

be a shift in society taking place at the legal and social level.
With the varied aspects households do in civilization, someone must be on duty to stay faithful to the construction scheme as what transpires in the household is paramount to an offspring's capacity to serve society throughout his development.

On a construction site, the site manager is an on-site manager. He or she is performing every day to make certain projects are adhered to, tasks are wrapped up, and individuals are working out what they need to do. The site manager and the general contractor reach out to support the construction plan to make sure on task and on time. They brainstorm, and then the manager inspects the on-site work. This diversification at home requires an on-site manager; someone demands to have the time and the vitality to devote to each member of the household and work the distinctive facets of home. This is the crux of the work description for a mother, the site manager. This is the utility for which the mother traditionally

provides.
While two incomes can contribute to further expenses, such as more holidays, nicer cars and outsourced support, when the money’s taken care of and households save and invest, it can cause increased fiscal security for everybody. If one spouse gets laid off, not all is surrendered. There is the economic protection of the alternative partner—and savings—to further keep the lights on while a different position turns up.
Fiscal autonomy is crucial to any marriage. It reduces conflict over money matters and grants each spouse with further freedom and flexibility to make decisions if the marriage breaks down and he or she needs to self-support. One needs not bring in an equal wage or more wealth than your partner. One requires to collect enough so if you had to back yourself one day, you could. This could mean working part time and tending for offspring part time, but unless one has a considerable inheritance planted someplace, it cannot mean withdrawing from the labor pool fully.