Beyond Labels

At various times during sessions of Beyond Labels, we’ve discussed (explicitly or implicitly) the concept of “liberty”. In 1859, John Stuart Mill published a short book entitled “On Liberty”, in which he gave his definition of liberty. There are many other definitions, of course, but Mill’s definition had a big impact when he published it and continues to echo today.

We could discuss this, if anyone wants to, at any time since I don’t think it’s time-sensitive.

This is a summary of Mill’s definition, from his introduction to “On Liberty”, Penguin English Library (1984), pp. 68-69:

“The purpose of this essay is to assert one very simple principle as to the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion or control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection. 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. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of anyone for which he is amenable to society is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, as of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

Mill goes on to list some exceptions to this general rule, including the following:

• It applies only to mature human beings, not to children or minors (as determined by law)
• It does not apply to societies that are “in their nonage” (i.e. primitive or immature}. Mills writes: “Despotism is a legitimate form of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement and the means justified by actually effecting that end.”
• Society may compel people to perform “positive” acts for the benefit of others, such as to give evidence in court, or to participate in the common defense or in “any other joint work necessary to the interest of … society.”
• Society may compel any of its members to “perform certain acts of individual beneficence”, such as saving another person’s life or intervening to protect another person from “ill usage”.

The following are some questions we could discuss:

1. Is Mill’s general rule correct?
2. What’s left of Mill’s general rule once the exceptions are applied?
3. Are there any other exceptions to Mill’s general rule?
4. Are Mill’s general rule and exceptions reflected in American government and society today? Should they be? If not, why not?

On Monday, we’re going to try to resist the urge to discuss the flurry of initiatives announced and implemented by the new Trump administration to address a more local topic: the battle in Bar Harbor over managing the number of cruise ship visitors.

It’s a battle between two local interests:

• a group of merchants who have built their businesses around the stream of cruise ship passengers visiting Bar Harbor (think ship tender owners, T-shirt/souvenir shops, downtown eateries, passenger coach companies), and
• “regular” Bar Harbor residents who are focused on the disadvantages of having thousands of visitors to their town (downtown congestion, boom/bust dynamics depending on whether a cruise ship is visiting, the municipal costs (e.g., trash disposal) of accommodating a large influx of visitors.

It’s also an instructive case study in local government in Maine, with lots of interesting elements: citizens’ petition to adopt an ordinance, town council [allegedly] refusing to implement the town’s own ordinance, backroom deals amongst interested parties, conflicts of interest, lawsuits, etc.

I’ll point you to two good sources for the back and forth of this long-running saga:

• The Quietside Journal, a Substack publication that tracks local events on MDI, which has dozens of articles on the subject and, in particular,
• the Federal circuit court ruling upholding the citizens petition-driven ordinance (I’ve attached the link to the QSJ post on the subject, so you can read Lincoln Millstein’s take on the ruling and his link to an earlier court decision).

We’ll see if we can stay on subject on Monday.

For Monday, we may discuss one (or both) of two topics:

The TikTok “Ban”

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Friday, January 10 with regard to whether it should grant an injunction delaying implementation of a federal law mandating the divesture or closure of TikTok. The parties have been asked to brief and argue the following question:

Whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to [TikTok and owner ByteDance], violates the First Amendment.

We touched on the topic a bit at last week’s meeting, but the oral arguments–together with more advance preparation–may make this subject worth a deeper dive.

For a quick overview, here are links to the Wikipedia article, a SCOTUSblog post, and a Washington Post backgrounder. For those who want to dive a bit deeper, here are links to the Supreme Court dockets (24-656 and 24A587).

We can discuss:

• Should First Amendment rights ever be abridged in the interest of “national security?”
• If so, how high should the bar be set? Clear, compelling, and imminent national security risks? Or potential risks, that are much less clear, compelling, and imminent? Where should we draw the line?

DOGE

Incoming President Trump’s designation of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy as heads of a new “Department of Government Efficiency” (not a real Cabinet-worthy department) has triggered discussion about just how much spending could be reduced if the government were more efficient.

We can discuss two aspects:

• What can we expect of the actual Musk/Ramaswamy effort?
• More broadly, where do we think the government can be more efficient, and what would it take to implement those ideas?

Here’s the Wikipedia (the new Cliff Notes) take on the subject, together with a recent op-ed piece that speaks to a small part of the potential opportunity for increased efficiency.