Mill's On Liberty is centrally concerned with avoiding social tyranny. But Mill's Principle of Liberty defines interfering, in the context of social pressure, as intentionally punishing and it seems to allow speech and actions that critics have thought would conflict with liberty in self-regarding matters. To critics, Mill draws distinctions among social influences where no genuine difference is to be found and he permits more social pressure than can be accepted by someone who values liberty highly. In this article, I explain where and why Mill draws the line he does between permitted and forbidden influences and show the line is coherent and tracks a genuine difference. I also show that although the Principle leaves residual social pressure, Mill has resources besides the Principle that can prevent social influences that threaten individuality while retaining beneficial social influences.

中文翻译：

---

密尔论自由和社会压力

米尔斯论自由主要关注避免社会暴政。但是密尔的自由原则在社会压力的背景下将干涉定义为故意惩罚，并且它似乎允许批评者认为会在自利事务中与自由发生冲突的言论和行为。对批评家来说，密尔在没有真正区别的社会影响之间进行了区分，他允许的社会压力比高度重视自由的人所能接受的要大。在这篇文章中，我解释了穆勒在哪里以及为什么在允许和禁止的影响之间划清界限，并表明这条界限是连贯的，并追踪到真正的差异。我还表明，尽管该原则留下了残余的社会压力，