John Stuart Mill Counter Argument

It can be argued that what John Stuart Mill argues is indeed correctly thought out and the best application to having the freedom of doing an action if it doesn’t cause any harm to anyone else. Therefore, there is no just reason to stop someone from doing an action if it doesn’t affect you in a negative manner. The counter-argument is that every action that has be done affects all individuals be it directly or indirectly.
Mill (1859) states that whatever society that has been established and doesn’t or hasn’t adopted this mindset isn’t free at all.
Mill also states that every individual has the right to express themselves through speech and stating their opinions. This comes as a fundamental right in any state that is free and nothing can be
This then means that it is also the ruling citizens objectives to try and prevent such infringements on another individual’s right.
If an individual decides to get naked and walk around a primary school in full nudity. The person has the right to be naked as it’s their bodies however, this infringes on the rights of children and people who see this happening. This is a good example where one can express themselves but over steps into other people’s lives and may translate to public indecent exposure even though that is the way the individual who committed the act, expresses themselves.
Mill also rejects the narrative where the individual gives the power to its society in exchange of rules, regulations and protection. He argues that the society may offer some sort of refugee and protection but this will always go back to the society having its on terms and abiding by certain parameters that are set out without the consent of its citizens
This argument supports Mills as society has put restraints and laws against taking that substance although it doesn’t affect anyone in any way possible and can lead back to the point that the individual should be allowed to participate in that activity and if they fail it is at their own cost not anyone else’s.
However, from another perspective having laws and regulation against the use of ecstasy also is put in place to create an healthy society for everyone which goes past focusing on an individual just being an individual in their own standing but trying to prevent the unnecessary outcome of failure in society and incorporates the laws to look out for individuals and limits individual’s actions.
Mill sees all or any restraint at all as an evil and shouldn’t be allowed because in society the majority benefits at the expense of the minority who must conform to the stipulations and regulations of the society. His thinking is based on the idea that in these societies it develops into a tyrannical state instead of a society where all the citizens can express themselves and a few can’t which isn’t fair to