"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and that one had a contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he would be in silencing them if he could" – John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

In a previous installment of this "Never Ending Story," I waxed philosophically about the contemporary worship in America and, indeed, the world of the false god called "youth". I endeavored to show that while the exterior accouterments of the human body can most assuredly be entertaining - at least for a time, it is only when one "pops the hood" and examines the internal components of nature’s greatest creation - the human animal - that one can appreciate the true magic of the machine we call Homo sapiens.

Indeed, there is (when closely and honestly examined) much to be said for the mellowing process of age. Time takes the dangerously sharp edge off youthful temper and cools the self-destructive fires of lust, hate and bigotry. Further, almost magically, the passing years cause the negative passions to wither and the positive emotions (e.g. love, friendship, patriotism) to reach full flower. Allow me to elaborate:

There was a time, not too long ago, when I truly, viscerally hated (no other word suffices) performers who, as they are prone to do, publically espoused their liberal ideology. Worse, at least in my view at the time, they parlayed their supposed "celebrity" status to lend credence to their beliefs, regardless of how ill-informed and biased they may actually be when scrutinized. Every time Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon (or her hubby, Tim Robbins), Barbara Streisand or, my most recent bete noir. Michael Moore spoke, I would scream at the television, throw cushions at their images and, finally, turn the channel in disgust, raising my blood pressure concurrently. I would spend the next 20 minutes trying to regain some measure of composure and finding enough aspirin to keep me from lapsing into a migraine. All the time, frustratingly aware that, despite my personal protestations, I accomplished absolutely nothing to diminish the audience of the speaker or the expression of his opinions.

Fortunately, with the enforced inactivity of old age, I have more time to read and reflect on just why this reaction occurs and how, ultimately, it is self-defeating and illiberal. Since I often struggle with putting complex notions in common words, I found someone who, long ago, explained why even the speech that we hate the most should be heard and - more - analyzed and dissected. For, only with this approach can the truth of any dispute be discovered. Dismissing ideas and philosophy out of hand, for the simple reason that we disapprove of the speaker, ultimately injures only the person who is too enraged to listen to differing opinions. Closing off one’s mind to opinion - no matter how hateful they might be to our ears - deprives you of the opportunity to enforce the truths that you hold to their opposition.

There was no greater discourse on the desirability of the free expression of even unpopular opinions in a society that John Stuart Mill’s "On Liberty". There was perhaps no stranger bird in the arboreum of English philosophy than Mill but, despite his quirks and eccentricities (which, of my own, I am quite proud), was a brilliant and prolific mind. Even today, a century and a half after its publication, Liberty remains an easy read and displays irrefutable logic. Even for a mind slowed by almost sixty years of abuse, I was able to digest its main ideas in just two readings which, I haste to add, is quite an accomplishment for me these days.

If for no other reason, John Stuart Mill should be remembered for bringing the phrase "the tyranny of the majority" into the mainstream of philosophical debate. This important concept, first coined by Alexis de Tocqueville as an early criticism of the possible ills of a democracy, has intermittently been realized in the most free of societies, including America. The suppression of free expression by Presidents Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt (some would add Bush the Younger) is infamous and remain dark shadows on America’s claim as "the home of the free". Admittedly, the periods where the central government most actively and rigorously crushed the very idea of free speech were in times of war but this, I hope most will agree, is the very time when debate and discussion of issues is most urgent. The old saw that to protest the rationale for America waging war "lends aid and comfort to our enemies" is, I hope you might agree, hardly 100% truthful. One can question the decision to go to war without being "anti-American" or, in any sense, "anti-solider". Governments make war, not the brave, serving soldiers. It is just such times as these that the arguments Mill makes for free speech speak to his reader most clearly.

Mill says many things worth repeating. My printout of the work looks like a grammar school collage of yellow highlighting and heavy underlining, sometimes in combination. This occurs sometimes happens when I read a work more than once. But, since space and your interest are both limited, I will reduce my excerpts to just a few of my favorites so that you can decide for yourself whether to read "Liberty" of not.

In Chapter 1, Mill starts off by stating that human liberty is, in fact, three separate "provinces":

• "the inward domain of consciousness, demanding liberty of conscience in the broadest sense"
• "liberty of thought and feeling, absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or theoretical, scientific, moral, or theological, and..."
• "liberty of expression and publishing opinions"

He agrees that the third facet of liberty is different as it has the potential to affect other people but argues that it can’t in practice be separated from the trinity that is "liberty of thought".

In Chapter 2, Mill presents his arguments to prove his premise and is the best section of the work. In essence, and admitting forthrightly that I can explain his thesis no clearer than he, he writes:

"But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they [those who dissent from the opinion] are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ...

"We have now recognized the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion, on four distinct grounds; which we will now briefly recapitulate.

"First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.

"And not only this, but fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but encumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience."

His fourth point is most important. If what we hold as an opinion on a subject or question is, actually, the closest to the actual truth of the matter that exists, to deny further debate prevents "the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction" to this truth. He goes on to quote an unnamed author who poetically describes this condition as "the deep slumber of a decided opinion."

I am taken with those words. For I am, more guilty than most, the prideful owner of many decided opinions. And, as I think of them, I am sometimes at a loss as to why I actually hold them so tightly. I hold conviction to them in my heart, I feel they are true in my gut and I always rely on them when appraising the words of others. But, when I stop for a moment and start to dissect exactly why they are my personal dogma, I often face a blank wall. And, as Mill notes: "The fatal tendency of mankind to give up thinking about something when it is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors."

So, I have tried - and it is a struggle - to be, at least, a little more open-minded in my waning years. To listen to the opinions of others - not matter how hateful they may be to our ears and our hearts - can serve a purpose. It allows us the chance to reexamine our own beliefs and bring them out of their slumber. It gives us the opportunity to compare what we "know" to be true with what someone else purports to be an alternative truth. All our personal truths need not stay locked away in a dark box, unchallenged. If they are valid beliefs, they can easily withstand the bright light of disputation without wilting. Otherwise, if keep unexamined, they become cold, inanimate dogma rather than a living, vibrant belief.

Argumentation is fertilizer for truth and poison for fallacy. I say, let the enemies of your personal beliefs speak their minds. Truth can never be forever defeated by fallacy. No matter how famous, handsome, rich or influential its peddler may be.