This way people were free to do as they please without restraint, and this was what made them free. This was a wrong view of freedom as it could cause chaos and limit others freedoms as a society. The Harm Principle would not be able to lead to a healthy public life in our present day. Freedom now is justified by being able to voice an opinion and taking stands for, or against an motion. To posses the freedom to have a family, choose your own job and go to school are major items that make a country free compared to a country that is not. Freedom is about living one's life without the fear of potential harm and to have the ability to go out in public safely. Mill believed that all people should have an individual freedom which would let them make their own decisions as long as they did not harm another. These decisions ultimately should reflect a high amount of happiness for one's self and others around them. This would mean being able to trust every individual to make positive decisions that …show more content…
One may agree with this idea and say that freedom of action is good because people will always be happy. This may not always the case. People need boundaries to keep them in line and actually make the right decisions for them and their lifestyle they live. By the government setting laws that a person can not break ensures that goodness for all can be maintained and everyone can live free. Surprisingly enough, restraints can be good and can spread happiness more efficient than a person having individual liberty/freedom to make their own decisions in hopes that it is the right one and does not harm another. Mill does not see this and does not accept it. He refuses to acknowledge that by giving up some freedoms means the potential gain of state protection. Today, we view this protection, provided by the government, as a freedom. It allowed society to live their life in peace and, not be afraid to go out and be