John Stuart Mill recognized the potential of the majority to function as a sort of dictatorship in which the minority of citizens is tyrannized. He argued that in the past liberty meant protection against the tyranny of political ruler but that this was no longer so. Rather the nature of the tyranny imposed upon an individual was now the potential of a group of individuals, the minority, being tyrannized by another group of individuals, the majority.
Mill argued that in order to avoid this tyranny a Principle of Liberty is needed. In short, Mill argued that the function of Law is to protect individuals from the potential of harm. Individuals can be coerced only in order to protect the health and welfare of others. Consequently the law is appropriate where harm to others is a concern. The law is aimed at protecting individuals from those who would harm them or infringe upon their rights.
He advanced that state intervention is justified in order to improve genera living conditions in a society for instance with regard to the protection of the environment or the support of the arts.
Mill argued that a free marker economy has many benefits but that the defects in terms of poverty for many, that result from private ownerships of the means of projection may imply that we should institute the alternative of socialisms or public ownership of the means of production. Some would propose that we are witnessing this principle of Mill's political philosophy in our own day.
Further, He argued for the utility of liberty as a social institution Under such social order individual will be encouraged and this individuality in turns tends to produce innovations in knowledge, technology, and morality that contribute significantly to improving the general welfare.
Regarding objections to Mill, some have argued that Mills political philosophy is too vague to be useful. These critics would argue that Mill fails to distinguish clearly between what is private and what is public.
