| >> |
04/15/12(Sun)21:24 No.1301449
File: 1334539446.png-(256 KB, 1600x500, Czechoslovakian sheep's milk c(...).png)
 THE
subject of this Essay is not the so-called Liberty of the Will, so
unfortunately opposed to the misnamed doctrine of Philosophical
Necessity; but Civil, or Social Liberty: the nature and limits of the
power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the
individual. A question seldom stated, and hardly ever discussed, in
general terms, but which profoundly influences the practical
controversies of the age by its latent presence, and is likely soon to
make itself recognized as the vital question of the future. It is so far
from being new, that, in a certain sense, it has divided mankind,
almost from the remotest ages, but in the stage of progress into which
the more civilized portions of the species have now entered, it presents
itself under new conditions, and requires a different and more
fundamental treatment. The struggle between Liberty and Authority is the
most conspicuous feature in the portions of history with which we are
earliest familiar, particularly in that of Greece, Rome, and England.
But in old times this contest was between subjects, or some classes of
subjects, and the government. By liberty, was meant protection against
the tyranny of the political rulers. The rulers were conceived (except
in some of the popular governments of Greece) as in a necessarily
antagonistic position to the people whom they ruled. They consisted of a
governing One, or a governing tribe or caste, who derived their
authority from inheritance or conquest; who, at all events, did not hold
it at the pleasure of the governed, and whose supremacy men did not
venture, perhaps did not desire, to contest, whatever precautions might
be taken against its oppressive exercise. Their power was regarded as
necessary, but also as highly dangerous; as a weapon which they would
attempt to use against their subjects, no less than against external
enemies. |
