Mill’s Harm Principle rules out the exercise of political power for the purpose of protecting people from harming themselves. Is Mill right in thinking that such exercises of power are wrong? In your answer, discuss Mill’s argument for this claim.

J. S. Mill’s commonly called ‘Harm Principle’ has demonstrated to be permanently and influentially fueling debates on the topic of the limits of legitimate political power and its intervention in the people’s life. The principle is based on the difference between harm done to others and self-harm. At the center of the argument, is the influence that a political entity should have and the social actions it should be allowed. There is, however, another important question on who knows better between the political power with its external point of view or the individual and its inside perspective on matters as intimate and personal as what is harmful for this very individual.
This essay will first examine Mill’s view, understanding why he supports that the use of political power to protect people from self-harm is wrong. In the second part, we will consider an objection related to the, sometimes lacking, capacity of an individual to know what is good and what is harmful. Finally, in the last and third part, we will dismiss this objection from a practical perspective, showing that it is impossible to know, and to show if one consider it true, that the political power has the capacity to act better than the individual would to protect himself.