They are again under attack, as is free speech, mostly out of outwardly good intentions such as preserving justice, public safety, or even, ironically, inclusion.

This is a perpetual conflict, though.

> Everything that is marketed to us, that enters our political discourse, ... "You do your way", "how you want it, when you want it", etc

...as long as it's politically correct, and there's no vocal minority which is opposed to your doing that — again, out of some best intentions. Liberty inherently creates conflicts like that, because people are not going to want the same thing. Liberty is when you are allowed to do something that others might not like, and reciprocally must tolerate other people doing something you don't like. A lot of people are uncomfortable with this.

> JSM was writing in an age where tyranny

A tyranny of majority is a thing :( Consider all the minorities who were disenfranchised not by dictators but by majority of local voters back in the day.

> I shudder to think how your head would not explode in a real authoritarian country.

I was born in the USSR. I can compare. I see the vast difference. I also see certain disconcerting similarities.

By and large, supernova is correct I think in that the emphasis is on personal liberty, especially expressions which are not-normative ... more than ever before.

Communitarian ideals of 'duty' (ie 'Ask not what your Country can do for you, but what you can do for your Country') feel almost archaic these days. Like an old country song. We do not compel our children towards the community, rather to whatever expression excites them.

The push towards expression I think is mostly rooted in undoing some suppression in things like sexuality, but it extends to everything and as hinted in the OP the underpinning really is consumerism. 'Christmas' is actually a less important holiday than 'Easter' - but you'd never know it ... industry loves Christmas, or at least the parts that are non-controversial, and it wants to suppress everything else. This is the power of commerce. I work in Marketing and it's essentially a golden rule these days that nobody promotes a product based on features, it's promoted based on the basis of aspiration. Car commercials don't generally boast features, they take you on an journey of what driving XYZ car is like. (Think the Saab car, driving across the desert, with the Saab jet flying by, the driver portrayed as 'fighter pilot' - every little boy's dream job).

But nike also has a point - in that where there are sensitivities around minority groups (race, religion), it seems that almost any opinion can be construed as a 'transgression'.

Absent social rules to provide a basis for behaviour (some might say this is 'conformist') then humans I think will just do whatever suits them. We like to think of this in intellectual terms like 'having ideas' or 'avant garde art' - but for the most part it's just 'playing video games and Tweeting'. The 'PC' forces I believe are ideologically bent on a very specific kind of 'equalisation' wherein there's a kind of instinct to see any 'difference' as 'inequality' and therefore 'immoral'.

So I think those are the primary forces: lack of social agreement supported by commercial interest pulling us towards aspiration, and ideological forces promoting their specific version of 'moral equality'.

We are talking about deeply divided country back then in the middle of civil rights movement. Which happened when large parts of population were not free to speak their minds without very real threat to their safety. It is not change from people free to speak their minds to here. It is change from one group risks lynching, beating and economic consequences to another group risks economic consequences.

It was not only thing that was going on, obviously and it is not that everything is changing for the better. But the way we idealize the communitarian ideals of the past and their impact is mostly nostalgia - remembering good while ignoring bad. We are talking about good days of free speech of the past and then talk about suppression of sexual or racial minorities as if it would be unrelated. Or for that matter free speech of whites who pushed for equality - the consequences for them were could be quite high too.

And I think the push back or just not taking these liberty arguments all that much seriously has something to do with those arguments not being really serious about past either.

"But the way we idealize the communitarian ideals of the past and their impact is mostly nostalgia "

Not true.

Or rather ... of course we always make the past into 'nostalgia' but there's absolutely decrease in civic participation by almost all measures.

- Participation in local community groups is way down. - Voting participation is way down. - Direct political participation and Union memberships are way down. - Millenials are the first generation in modern times to not consider 'hard work' (which is a kind of contribution) as top 5 'important value' (Greatest, Silent, Baby Boomer, Gen X - all had this as a top 5 value).

Now - we can definitely argue the value of 'community groups, classical political causes and definitely 'self described virtues' ... but it's definitely directional.

At very least it's a function of opportunity: people just have so many choices, young people can literally do anything. Three generations ago one's scope of choice was extremely limited.

People can now chose to participate in a 'political meme' on Twitter instead of joining the local cause. There are obviously many advantages to this, but disadvantages as well, as there is generally less materiality to Twitter wars. That said, when 1/2 nation Tweets, things can change.

Here's literally Google's 'ngram' viewer for the word 'duty' [1]

I don't need external evidence for this because in my own family I have very extended generations and I knew my grandparents generation very well: they were very coherent at the local level. My grandmother knew everyone on the street and must have helped or attended with literally over 100 weddings as it was the 'local ladies groups' that usually catered weddings -> for free (!) back in the day. Among other things. And yes, it was 'ladies' who made sanwiches, never the men.

The clubs my parents belong to are having a hard time attracting members's children into memberships which they have done for generations.

I would go so far as to say the level of local, social cohesion and the hyper local social networks were so strong and specific, that we can't read someone like Mill without understanding it.

The comparison between my grandparents youth, and suburbian 'placelessness' today wherein there aren't really any cultural demarcation points or locally established 'social rules' Mill references ... is really shocking, and that's only across several decades.

[1] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=duty&year_star...

> it was the 'local ladies groups' that usually catered weddings -> for free (!) back in the day

And in between, women ability to earn money and social status by working went way up. We are less economically dependent on knowing everyone on the street, less dependent on hoping people will reciprocate the effort. We also socialize at work more, so we are not so lonely unless we form these organizations. Stay at home women who don't go out of their way to meet others are incredibly isolated and lonely, with all negative consequences, but todays women are dealing with this problem much less.

This has less to do with consumerism and more to do with pragmatical choices. All the socializing and networking that is necessary for all this was looked down at anyway. Despite completely necessary for sanity.

Men were not making sandwitches, because they were the ones who went to work.

> people just have so many choices, young people can literally do anything

Young people do things, they did not ceased to exist. They are even, all in all not that badly behaved - they are less violent, they take less drugs, teenage pregnancies are down.

> The clubs my parents belong to are having a hard time attracting the kids as members which they have done for generations.

Why would club membership was seen as good or bad or had anything to do with freedom or consumerism? It is either leisure activity or business networking activity, both of which moved elsewhere.

It's a meme for sure. Whether it's a "thing" in the reality of modern American discourse is sort of an open question.

The fact that the people most enthused with the idea of being suppressed by the tyrannical majority are members of the ruling party, dominant gender and most affluent racial demographics sorta makes the logical construction a bit complicated.

Coming from an Islamic country, minorities such as gay people or non-religious people cannot seek legal action without a strong sense of a chilling effect.

In the US, you have the electoral college as an attempt to amplify small state's voices to not have states with massive populations dictate who's president (at least in spirit, as I understand the implementation is far from perfect) which is understandable, since states are _first-class citizens_. The other thing, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you have the house and the senate. The senate adheres to that first-class citizenship of states, while the house is a direct representation of citizens (blocks of them), which makes a tyranny of a majority (e.g. one-size-fits-all bill that suits people of California but wouldn't go well with the people of Wyoming) impossible.

So, if you don't feel like there is a tyranny of a majority in the US, you perhaps have to thank your legislative process for that. That sadly, does not map to private entities.

It takes a rather hard conscious effort to remember that other people freedoms need preserving if you value your own, because you are not always guaranteed be on the side of the majority.

You're also ignoring survivorship bias. It's no surprise that the victims of majoritarian tyranny you hear from are not the weakest in society, because the weakest in society don't have enough power to command the spotlight. That doesn't mean tyranny of the majority doesn't exist or that they are not its victims, only that you won't hear it from them, because you don't hear anything from them, because they don't have enough power to be heard.

I'm not American but I think the underlying (philosophical) support for the type of liberty (of expression) that Mill is talking about is probably weaker than at some points in the past. I see more comments on Reddit bemoaning the 1st amendment usually indirectly but sometimes explicitly. The spirit of the old quote (usually misattributred to Voltaire) by Evelyn Beatrice Hall - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" seems to be really out of favour these days.

On top of that, the power that corporations are able to exert over public discourse is probably at an all time high. Newspapers were often/usually owned by elite interests but a lot of the street level debate used to take place in forums they didn't control (i.e. face to face). Now both the newspapers and the discussion platforms themselves are controlled by basically the sets of same people. There's a reflex to say "Well, YouTube banning you isn't censorship, just a private entity making a decision not to host your content" and that's true but it's not quite the full story. If Facebook, Google, Apple, et al all ban you (and particularly if your ISPs refuse to host your content or the payment processors refuse to handle your accounts) then that is not too far from the level of influence governments have when banning things. When people like Alex Jones are "de-platformed" we might chuckle (or cheer) as he's either a huckster or a lunatic (and possibly both) but you don't need much imagination to see that the same thing could happen to anyone else deemed to be too radical/dangerous in the future. Fortunately the internet is still very fragmented and there are probably thousands of hosts I could go to put up my website if I wanted. But if AWS/GCloud/Azure/Alibaba end up dominating the market completely will that alternative exist in the future? And even if it does if everyone is getting their news from Facebook/Twitter then maybe they will delete any mentions of my call for a general strike anyway.

Again, to be clear - that does not mean that there is less liberty today. There is unquestionably more. But the direction of travel in both these areas is concerning.

Let's try get some more context before we make assumptions about what the earlier commenter meant. What was their context, for example? They might agree with your characterization of modern-day developed countries (if this is what you mean). Let's listen.

I think reasonable, educated people know there have been times in history where individual liberty was trampled upon. Some of the worst examples correspond to a lack of political representation and/or authoritarianism. Many people, for good reason, do not forget these awful moments in history.

>We are in the age of the greatest emphasis on personal choice, personal satisfaction, and personal decision making in recent history. If anything we are in danger of the opposite -- personal freedoms making us unable to do or support things that are for the communal good.

First, there are a few different definitions of individualism. One of them is indeed more about the personal habits of individuals who are able to express their individuality in private and public life through means and methods that sometimes buck the popular opinions of the masses. Putting aside the huge amount of manipulation in that arena used to create the illusion of choice in the consumerism you reference later, I would agree with you that in many ways that first definition is doing fairly well for itself...for now...

You see, the other definition is more about the foundational principles of individualism as a political-philosophical bedrock upon which the America was formed, which more broadly are the lessons of the enlightenment and renaissance condensed. This is more about the source of authority of government, the rights of individuals, and the pragmatic power dynamic between the popular opinion of the masses and those who don't align with them. What I would say is that the latter is quite demonstrably under attack in a myriad of ways, often subtle though they may be, and through that we lose sight of the foundation upon which the definition you speak of flourishes. Any structure whose foundation is eroded is in danger, and I argue that because one is threatened so is the other. I will get into this just a bit more, but first, I'm just going to take a moment and point out how amusing it is that in your defense of the state of individualism, you make the comment about the communal good being the thing under attack! The irony is palpable, but it is at the heart of the matter.

>JSM was writing in an age where tyranny (or lack of recourse to rebel against tyranny) and material deprivation were common, social mobility was almost non-existent, and the notion that you could have a prosperous life without relying on the rest of society (and its rigid rules) laughable.

>If you feel that (at least in the US) personal liberty is at risk, I shudder to think how your head would not explode in a real authoritarian country.

The patronizing tone here should be saved for those who you know better.

During my time in the military I have both been the boot of the authoritarianism and witnessed it applied in more than a few countries you would likely fear to walk freely in to this day. I didn't really get my brain back until I got out though, and have spent most of my free time trying to understand the bigger geopolitical and geostrategic issues at play in the world. One could spend a 10 lifetimes and still lack in this department, but one does their best. The thing to remember is I have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, so that is where I come from to give you and other some context.

One of my conclusions in all my truth-seeking is that, yes indeed, individual liberties, are under threat. I'm having a hard time deciding if I should just start listing the ways, or give you the meta...

The meta is that individualism is the basis in theory of power in America. As James Madison, the father of the constitution said, "All power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people." What I see is that principle being undermined and disregarded, as in my original statement, constantly. Before I start listing the ways, instead I will say the why: to get globalism you have to undermine the idea of national sovereignty. To get national sovereignty, you have to undermine the idea of individual sovereignty. That's the why, the details of which I will leave to some other time.

The how:

A lack of focus in the educational system on both types of individualism. I can't tell you how many younger people I've talked to don't even know the difference between positive and negative rights, for example. This used to be taught. It isn't anymore. The principles of Madison and those whom he studied such as Montesquieu are barely even a footnote in texts, if that, which can mostly be laid at the foot of the abuse of... federal aid to undermine more local school systems. In no place is individualism of your definition more undermined, though allowed in superficial ways. Schools are one of the most authoritarian places that exist outside of prisons.

A government completely unrepresentative of the people, a fundamental breakage. Even if we got past K-street and intelligence agency blackmail networks ala Epstein, almost always the retort is "but the people could do/elect X". What that fails to take into account is the absolute pervasiveness of psychological operations and propaganda, largely done through mass manipulation of the media... and before you knee-jerk into the easy position of calling me a conspiracy theorist, just understand this is all established fact for those who care to pay attention. Someone who knows about the Church Committee revelations such as Operation Mockingbird can easily understand the current state of media, while those who don't will tilt at a great many windmills. The divide and conquer tactics the news uses are more than just the organic brown nosing of "journalists" afraid of power or those convinced by it's colloquialisms. It is important here to note that everyone forgets the Y axis of the political spectrum. When many say the overton window has shifted to the right, what they really mean is that it has shifted up into authoritarianism for both parties! Authoritarianism is inherently and by definition the opponent of individual liberty.

That unrepresentative government has then, in turn, passed or allowed all kinds of fundamental abuses of what are rightly considered individual freedoms. For example: the old principle of Habeas Corpus was more or less suspended under the Obama administration with the MCA and NDAA; The right to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures by the patriot act and an increasingly totalitarian surveillance system; the TSA and their security theater and actual personal abuses of peoples personal right to not be touched or pictured naked; the freedom not just to speak being under threat by quasi-governmental influence over what are on the surface level private companies, but also the freedom to read what you wilt; a legal system that is completely in service of the rich, while abusing the poor in the worst ways, such as lack of speedy trials, or to trial by a proper jury, (lack of equality under the law); the allowance of executive orders to be treated as law, in violation of the separation of powers, the waging of forever wars unconstitutionally with flimsy AUMF's that abdicate the constitutional responsibility of congress to declare war; the complete dominance of a non-federal entity congress was deviously manipulated into giving the power of coin, the Fed (money printer goes brrr, but wait now the fed wants in on fiscal policy too!); a large movement against second amendment rights under the false or foolish guise of security (the same justification for many of the other abuses)...

I could go on and on. I have a list written down somewhere, where I took the time go through each clause and amendment of the constitution and listed all the violations currently happening to each. The point is that I think it is these fundamental principles, all based on the foundational principles of individual liberty, that have been eroded and are at the heart of the vast majority of our troubles as a nation these days. Black Lives Matter is about the abuse of these rights, for example, though they may fail to articulate it as such, and to their detriment. Many minorities of all types (Women, LGBTQ, Native Americans, atheists, etc) oppressed have found refuge in these principles and have indeed often won the legal battles necessary to create a state of things where the individualism you refer to can flourish.

What I am saying is that I am warning you and all other Americans, that a failure to understand this, and therefor guard against it, will mean both types of individualism shall increasingly fade away. A casual dismissal of the true state of things such as you responded with will fail to encourage the constant vigilance needed, for as Thomas Jefferson said ""eternal vigilance is the price we pay for liberty". No, the system was never perfect, and the actual implementation even less so, but we are losing our sight of the value of the foundational principles of the constitution, the declaration of independence that enabled it, and the enlightenment and renaissance that enabled them!

So yes, in the halls of true power I see an alarming increase of technocracy, coporatocracy, kleptocracy, inverted totalitarianism (Sheldon Wolin reference for the Chris Hedges readers), neofuedalism, neocolonialism, supranational globalism, bipartisan authoritarianism, totalitarianism, oligarchy, and dystopia, all discussed as the the normal and desired state of things. In the halls of the masses I see a desire to burn the whole thing down having lost all influence on those halls of power.

Both are a threat.

One thing I've said to others is this; just because the pendulum has swung back towards liberty a few times in history, doesn't mean that at some point the revolution of technology won't enable the oligarchs to stop the pendulum dead in it's tracks on their next turn... and it is surely looking to be swinging their way.

I'll leave you with part of the response from the late, great, Christopher Hitchens, when asked if he though America was the greatest nation:

"The American revolution, the one that says 'build your republic on individual rights, not group rights, have a bill of rights that inscribes these, and makes them available and legible to everybody, separate the church from the state, separate the executive, the judicial, and the political branch' do all these things, it doesn't sound like much but it is really a very revolutionary idea, there is hardly a country in the world that wouldn't benefit from adopting those principles. I think that gives the United States a really good claim to be a revolutionary country as well as of course paradoxically it's a very conservative one" and in another response to the same question called America "the last revolution that still stands a chance".

If we lose sight of what makes that so, all the advances in individualism in both senses will be under threat of retrogression, for there is nothing in history that says progress must always be forward. Mark my words well, ye reader.