/lit/ - Literature

What do you guys think of J.S. Mill's Harm Principle as it applies to setting the boundaries of political authority and its distinction between personal and political spheres of life?

Although I recognize that the Principle is not as simple as Mill intended - owing to the 'no man is an island' argument and the somewhat elusive nature of 'harm'. However, I argue that these complications do not negate the utility of the Principle if one recognizes that maintaining the greatest possible individual liberty is the overarching aim of the Principle.
As far as I can tell, it is when the Principle is used to infringe on individual liberty in the name of perverted senses of harm (e.g. offense, e.g. metaphysical notion of potential harm to society) that the principle’s purpose is defeated.

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question."