not citing the same concept. This distinction is necessary when comparing their positions regarding the amount of freedom man should have in a political society. What one philosopher considers an overt or perverse abuse of liberty the other may consider the action completely legitimate and justifiable. John Locke believes that men should be virtually unrestricted and free in political society. Locke's rational for this position lies in the twin foundation of man's naturally good inclinations and the specific and limited ends Locke believes political societies ought to have. According to Locke the only freedoms man should lose when entering into a political society are to judge and punish those who infringe on his liberty and estate. (Ebenstein 381) In Locke's ideal society this fails to limit or remove any freedom from the individual, it only removes the responsibility of protecting these freedoms from the individual and places it on the state. John Stuart Mill believes that men should be strictly limited in political society. Mill differs from Locke in the basic principle that individual who enjoy the benefits of living in political societies owe a return for the protection society offers. Mill believes for society to function properly, conduct of societies members should "not injure the interests of one another; or rather certain interests; which either by express legal provision, or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered rights" (Ebenstein 537) Mill furthers this statement by proclaiming that society may go even further. "As soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicial the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the general question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering in it, becomes open to discussion." (Ebenstein 537) This declaration virtually allows the state the authority to intervene in every instance of human interaction and have total power to alter ...
