Some classical liberals and libertarians have criticized it for its apparent discontinuity[specify] with Utilitarianism, and vagueness in defining the arena within which individuals can contest government infringements on their personal freedom of action.

After suffering a mental breakdown and eventually meeting and subsequently marrying Harriet, Mill changed many of his beliefs on moral life and women's rights.

[5][6] Mill suggests that he made no alterations to the text at this point and that one of his first acts after her death was to publish it and to "consecrate it to her memory.

He divides this control of authority into two mechanisms: necessary rights belonging to citizens, and the "establishment of constitutional checks by which the consent of the community, or of a body of some sort, supposed to represent its interests, was made a necessary condition to some of the more important acts of the governing power.

"[9] Because society was—in its early stages—subjected to such turbulent conditions (i.e. small population and constant war), it was forced to accept rule "by a master.

"[10] Despite the high hopes of the Enlightenment, Mill argues that the democratic ideals were not as easily met as expected.

[11] Second, there is a risk of a "tyranny of the majority" in which the many oppress the few who, according to democratic ideals, have just as much a right to pursue their legitimate ends.

[14] In conclusion to this analysis of past governments, Mill proposes a single standard for which a person's liberty may be restricted: 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.

And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.

[21]Mill spends a large portion of the chapter discussing implications of and objections to the policy of never suppressing opinions.

Supposing it were possible to get houses built, corn grown, battles fought, causes tried, and even churches erected and prayers said, by machinery—by automatons in human form—it would be a considerable loss to exchange for these automatons even the men and women who at present inhabit the more civilised parts of the world, and who assuredly are but starved specimens of what nature can and will produce.

Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing.

[33]In the fourth chapter, J. S. Mill explains a system in which a person can discern what aspects of life should be governed by the individual and which by society.

Rather, he argues that this liberal system will bring people to the good more effectively than physical or emotional coercion.

[40] Where some may object that there is justification for certain religious prohibitions in a society dominated by that religion, he argues that members of the majority ought make rules that they would accept should they have been the minority.

[43] Just as with living in a society which contains immoral people, Mill points out that agents who find another's conduct depraved do not have to socialise with the other, merely refrain from impeding their personal decisions.

He begins by summarising these principles: The maxims are, first, that the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself.

Advice, instruction, persuasion, and avoidance by other people if thought necessary by them for their own good, are the only measures by which society can justifiably express its dislike or disapprobation of his conduct.

Secondly, that for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishment, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection.

He believes that if the government ran the economy, then all people would aspire to be part of a bureaucracy that had no incentive to further the interests of any but itself.

He considers the right course of action when an agent sees a person about to cross a condemned bridge without being aware of the risk.

[60] Mill believes that government run education is an evil because it would destroy diversity of opinion for all people to be taught the curriculum developed by a few.

[69] Criticisms of the book in the 19th century came chiefly from thinkers who felt that Mill's concept of liberty left the door open for barbarism, such as Thomas Carlyle,[70] James Fitzjames Stephen and Matthew Arnold.

[71] In more recent times, although On Liberty garnered adverse criticism, it has been largely received as an important classic of political thought for its ideas and accessibly lucid style.

Enhanced by his powerful, lucid, and accessible prose style, Mill's writings on government, economics, and logic suggest a model for society that remains compelling and relevant.

"[72] As one sign of the book's importance, a copy of On Liberty is the symbol of office for the president of the Liberal Democrat Party in England.

[73] The historian Peter Marshall described On Liberty as "one of the great classics of libertarian thought", due to its exaltation of individual freedoms.

[74] Mill makes it clear throughout On Liberty that he "regard[s] utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions", a standard he inherited from his father, a follower of Jeremy Bentham.

Mill makes clear that he only considers adults in his writing, failing to account for how irrational members of society, such as children, ought to be treated.

[17][40] Plank has asserted that Mill fails to account for physical harm, solely concerning himself with spiritual wellbeing.