¶ … Liberty, Mills approaches the issue of governmental and societal tyranny. He approaches three basic areas in which liberty in important, in addition to discussing the problem of tyranny which can abridge those liberties. In this work Mill provides a historical look at the ways in which tyranny has been played out, and details its evolution from a tyranny of the despot to a tyranny of the majority. Tyranny arises, he suggests, whenever there is an abridgment of the rights of individuals to make free expression and action, so long as they do not do harm to others. This tyranny has it source in the desire of the majority to see their own inclinations and believes replicated in the world around them, and subsequently in the power which they invest in social structures and governmental authorities. Mills presents a complicated picture of the future of tyranny -- on the one hand despotic tyranny from above has been decreased as democracy becomes more common, yet on the other hand majority tyranny from below has increased as the people realize their power. Despite the possibly popular face of tyranny today, Mills argues that it remains a particularly harmful social phenomena because it depresses the opportunity for socio-cultural evolution. The basic problem of tyranny has always been with humankind, and may in fact be the foundation of our society. Mills suggests that tyranny may be the only way to cement primitive "barbarian" cultures, and that where civilization is so lacking that it is as if all the people are like children in development it may be necessary to so restrict their freedoms so as to let the society survive. However, this is not the case, he adds, with any society where his book might be read or understood. As mankind left the primitive stage, it remained true that tyranny was necessary for the protection of the people. In this early form of tyranny, there was a single ruler (or ruling force) to...

"To prevent the weaker members of the community from being preyed on by innumerable vultures, it was needful that there should be an animal of prey stronger than the rest, commissioned to keep them down. But as the king of the vultures would be no less bent upon preying upon the flock than any of the minor harpies, it was indispensable to be in a perpetual attitude of defence against his beak and claws." (Mills, I.2) It was in this defense that cultures first began to put limits on absolute rule, implementing political liberties that the ruler was bound to respect, or even using some form of constitutional checks on his control. Eventually, in the name of liberty, most European nations embraced some form of representational government "by the people," labeling these democracies. The idea was to free the world from tyranny, for how could people tyrannize themselves? Yet even democracies, as it turned out, were prone to tyranny. "The 'people' who exercise the power are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised; and the "self-government" spoken of is not the government of each by himself, but of each by all the rest... 'the tyranny of the majority' is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard." (Mills, 1.4) Hence, government by the people might not eliminate tyranny, but rather create a situation in which tyranny was enacted on the minority and enforced by the majority. In fact, such a tyranny could even be worse than despotism, because it gave the strong hand of the law to the private prejudiced of the cultural minority, and also gave a sort of legal sanction to the majority judgments (so that they were both subjectively and legally normative) so that state and majority opinion were constantly reinforcing. Tyranny here arose from the majority seeking to enthrone what they believed to be morally or normatively correct upon the actions and expressions of the remainder of society. The cultural desire to convince others of…