 Chapter 1, Introduction The subject of this essay is not the so-called liberty of the will, so unfortunately opposed to the misnamed doctrine of philosophical necessity, but civil or social liberty, the nature and limits of the power that can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual. This is a question seldom stated, hardly ever discussed in general terms, but it profoundly influences the practical controversies of the age by its latent presence, and it is likely soon to make itself recognized as the vital question of the future. It is so far from being new that in a certain sense it has divided humanity almost from the remotest ages, but in the stage of progress into which the more civilized portions of the species have now entered, it presents itself under new conditions and requires a different and more fundamental treatment. The earliest struggle between liberty and authority is the most conspicuous feature in those portions of history with which we are familiar, particularly in that of Greece, Rome, and England. But in old times this contest was between subjects, or some classes of subjects, and the government. By liberty was meant protection against the tyranny of the political rulers. The rulers were conceived, except in some of the popular governments of Greece, in a necessarily antagonistic position to the people whom they ruled. They consisted of one governing person, or a governing tribe or caste, who derived authority from inheritance or conquest. They did not hold it at the pleasure of the governed, who did not venture, or perhaps did not desire, to contest their supremacy and any precautions that might be taken against its oppressive exercise. Their power was regarded as necessary, but also as highly dangerous. A weapon which they would attempt to use against their subjects, no less than against external enemies. To prevent the weaker members of the community from being preyed upon by innumerable vultures, it was necessary that there should be an animal of prey stronger than the rest, commissioned to keep them down. But because the king of 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 defense against his beak and claws. The aim of patriots, therefore, was to set limits to the power which the ruler should be allowed to exercise over the community. This limitation was what they meant by liberty. It was attempted in two ways. First, by obtaining recognition of certain immunities, called political liberties or rights, it was to be regarded as a breach of the ruler's duty to infringe upon them. And if he did infringe, specific resistance or general rebellion was held to be justifiable. A second, and generally later expedient measure, was the establishment of constitutional checks by which the consent of the community, or a body of some sort supposed to represent its interests, was made a necessary condition to some of the more important acts of the governing power. To the first of these modes of limitation, the ruling power in most European countries was compelled, more or less, to submit. It was not so with the second. To attain this, or when already in some degree possessed, to attain it more completely, became everywhere the principal object of the lovers of liberty. And so long as humanity was content to combat one enemy by another, and to be ruled by a master on condition of being guaranteed more or less efficaciously against his tyranny, they did not carry their aspirations beyond this point. A time came, however, in the progress of human affairs, when people ceased to think it a necessity of nature, that their governors should be an independent power, opposed in interest to them. It appeared to them much better that the various magistrates of... Sample complete. Ready to continue?