<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: On Liberty at 150</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tomgpalmer.com/2009/07/12/on-liberty-at-150/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tomgpalmer.com/2009/07/12/on-liberty-at-150/</link>
	<description>Personal website and weblog of the libertarian thinker</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 04:50:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom G. Palmer</title>
		<link>http://tomgpalmer.com/2009/07/12/on-liberty-at-150/comment-page-1/#comment-10227</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom G. Palmer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 02:58:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tomgpalmer.com/?p=3687#comment-10227</guid>
		<description>I should have mentioned that Jude alerted me to the article!

I agree that &quot;only&quot; is used incorrectly.   Tocqueville is certainly read widely in America, at least, but perhaps not in Australia.  I&#039;m sure that in Australia Mill is the most widely read nineteenth century liberal.  

Wollstonecraft died in 1797, so she doesn&#039;t count, and she&#039;s probably not read nearly as widely as Mill.  

I think that Andrew would probably be correct to write that in the twentyfirst century Mill is &quot;the most widely read&quot; of the nineteenth century liberals, at least in the English-speaking world.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I should have mentioned that Jude alerted me to the article!</p>
<p>I agree that &#8220;only&#8221; is used incorrectly.   Tocqueville is certainly read widely in America, at least, but perhaps not in Australia.  I&#8217;m sure that in Australia Mill is the most widely read nineteenth century liberal.  </p>
<p>Wollstonecraft died in 1797, so she doesn&#8217;t count, and she&#8217;s probably not read nearly as widely as Mill.  </p>
<p>I think that Andrew would probably be correct to write that in the twentyfirst century Mill is &#8220;the most widely read&#8221; of the nineteenth century liberals, at least in the English-speaking world.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jude Blanchette</title>
		<link>http://tomgpalmer.com/2009/07/12/on-liberty-at-150/comment-page-1/#comment-10223</link>
		<dc:creator>Jude Blanchette</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 01:41:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tomgpalmer.com/?p=3687#comment-10223</guid>
		<description>Interesting essay, but I do find his opening claim (&quot;John Stuart Mill is the only nineteenth century liberal intellectual still widely read and discussed in the twenty-first century&quot;) a little odd. Certainly the names Acton, Burckhardt, Wollstonecraft, and Tocqueville are almost as well known as is the name Mill.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting essay, but I do find his opening claim (&#8220;John Stuart Mill is the only nineteenth century liberal intellectual still widely read and discussed in the twenty-first century&#8221;) a little odd. Certainly the names Acton, Burckhardt, Wollstonecraft, and Tocqueville are almost as well known as is the name Mill.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

