John S. Mill’s purpose in writing On Liberty was to better define the boundary separating individual freedom and social regulation. People often have varying opinions about whether or not he is right. As detailed as Mill tried to be there are some weaknesses in his principle; however, his strengths outweigh his weaknesses.
             No thought is “fool proof,” no matter how much time a person takes formulating it. The same went for Mill’s harm principle. The difference in the flaws with his argument and other people’s flaws, is that is was not his fault. God made each person different, both physically and mentally. We are all affected by things differently, based on our religion, ethnic background, parents, friends, and intelligence, just to name a few. There are an infinite amount of things that makes everyone different. For this reason, it is not Mill’s fault that social harm will never be able to have an all-inclusive definition. There will never be an agreement on social harm, because it is impossible to incorporate everyone. Although this flaw makes the distinct line he is trying to draw impossible to do, he is still very close.
             The only other possible weakness could be a fear of tyranny of the majority. Mill’s talks about how majorities trample individuality. But this doesn’t take into effect that men are a progressive being. We intrinsically want to better our society and ourselves. This is the reason why tyranny of the majority would never last. History shows us cases when tyranny of the majority occurred; however, every time the majority tried closing down the “market place of ideas,” history also shows that it has never been successful. The Jews were liberated from Egypt, Newton proved the sun was the center of our solar system, and our forefathers founded a new government. No matter whether or not it was religious freedom, freethinking, or political freedom individuality has stood the test of time. In th...