John Stuart Mill's Liberty Chapter Summary

Liberty – the state of being free from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority – is a defining element of American values. The right to liberty from tyranny was a central motivation that fueled the American Revolution and the subsequent founding of the United States. The implications of and limits to liberty have been continually debated and evolved since the revolutionary era and are perhaps more relevant than ever today. One prominent issue pertaining to liberty is gun control. Established by James Madison in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment gave citizens “the right to bear arms.” Since then, some lawmakers and citizens have sought to restrict the right to bear arms in an attempt to preserve safety for all. As a result of such

Given that fact, liberty-insistent John Stuart Mill would initially raise concern with such limitations. Mill states the one condition that would make it acceptable to limit freedom in On Liberty, Chapter 1: “… the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually, or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (9). Mill goes on to assert that the individual is the only one who is sovereign over his body and mind, and on those matters the individual is not subordinate to society. Mill’s beliefs on liberty are essentially that the individual has a right to his own full liberty, as long as the rest of society is not interfered with or harmed by the individual’s action. In my opinion, based on his beliefs outlined in On Liberty, Mill would examine the issue of gun control by examining the negative impact that the absence of gun control and unchecked liberty of gun owners would bring to the population as a whole. Mill would not account for the utility gained by allowing complete liberty in the gun market because the lone determinant of an act of liberty is its effect on society at large, not the individual. I do believe that Mill would respect the Second Amendment and begin by evaluating a society without

The Second Amendment was written with militias and the security of a new state at mind. The constitutional right to bear arms still remains, but that right must be qualified in modern times where 18th century bayonets have been replaced with AR-15s. That transformation requires some form of gun control, and Mill’s answer is very logical; a citizen should be able to own certain types of reasonable guns (not an assault rifle or weapon with high-capacity magazine) as long as they do not inflict harm onto others. Of course it is possible for any gun to inflict harm, but by ensuring that the gun owner is both of steady mind and will use the product responsibly, we can limit severely the odds for disaster while preserving liberty and the right to bear arms. The only place that is left uncovered in Mill’s answer is the gun owner themselves. I believe that protecting the gun owner from himself is more important than Mill would, but by requiring background checks and the like to ensure that the owner would not harm the public, we can likely also discern whether or not the owner would hard themselves as well. Mill’s solution closely lines up with my own views, which are preserving the Second Amendment rights while adjusting for modern changes in firearms and