¶ … Stone's treatise on Liberty fascinating particularly since I have been much intrigued by philosophers' depiction of an ideal metropolis (with, therefore, ideal liberty) in general, and with Leibniz's political jurisprudence (and ideal liberty) in particular. Leibniz, draws on Ulpian's Roman code for basis but goes beyond that in extrapolating and arguing that ideal liberty should constitute not only strict Justice but also Charity (i..e national welfare). He then goes on to state that the highest strata of liberty is one where the country is regulated per a City of God. What this, essentially, means is that Justice and Charity should be combined with ethical attributes (that he called Piety).

Comparing this to Mill's definition of liberty presented by Stone I see an interesting correspondence as well as contrast.

Mill states that the government is only justified in restricting behavior that impedes others. Connecting that to contemporary concerns one may argue that therefore the government should not interfere in curbing addictive behavior (for instance). One can, however, rebut this by counter-arguing...

Therefore, even thoguh some individuals point to Mill's theory as restraint for government, it seems to me that Stone is correct in indicating that the individual is ultimately part of a whole and his actions have ripple effects on others. Justice ( to the individual), Charity (taking in mind others) will result in Leibniz's state of Piety.
One generally thinks that certain select areas, business administration, being one of them would be, at least, one field that is unchanging in one's world. Although social, it does have a scientific basis, and as Frederickson (2008) shows, can be explained via five models.

Nonetheless, it seems to me that Kuhn's insights…