However, in practice, is there such a thing as a purely self-regarding action? Smoking seems to be one. If an individual chooses to smoke, despite the risks involved, he is the one who will have to face the consequences. But do the consequences affect only the smoker? At home or in a public place, his smoking will make conditions unpleasant for other people. If he becomes ill, it will cause distress to family and friends. Treating the illnesses that result from smoking imposes costs on the health service; and so on.
Mill uses the example of drinking. In itself, drinking alcohol is a self-regarding action, but it ceases to be one if a heavy drinker is unable, because of it, to look after a family or meet financial obligations. Then society is entitled at least to express its disapproval. But he warns against society interfering with purely personal conduct, just to impose the majority view of what is good on a minority, as he thought was the case in some parts of the United States, where the sale of alcohol was banned. However the example of alcohol just illustrates the practical difficulties of distinguishing between purely self-regarding actions and those that affect others. Mill is severe on the temperance movements, in Britain as well as the United States, as examples of organizations wanting to impose their view of what is good on others. But when people drink alcohol outside their own homes, it is not a purely personal act. It does have a public dimension, because it can and does affect others. Banning it would be an extreme measure, but few people would want alcohol consumption to be free of regulation by society: not so that the majority can impose their view of what is good on the minority, but to protect the rest of society from inconvenience and harm.
Again, if we applied Mill’s argument, would we have to regard the taking (as opposed to the selling) of drugs as a self-regarding action, with which society should not interfere? After all, our present anti-drug laws control individual conduct for the individual’s own good, as well as to prevent harm to others. Mill himself acknowledges that it is legitimate for governments to restrict the sale of alcohol to prevent breaches of the peace, while the sellers’ interest in promoting consumption for purposes of profit justifies regulation of its sale. He also accepts that, while taxation of alcohol simply to reduce consumption is illegitimate interference with individual liberty, taxation of what is a non-essential item for revenue-raising purposes is not.
If society, in the interests of individual freedom, must tolerate actions of which it disapproves, does it have to tolerate the activities of those who, perhaps for personal profit, encourage others to commit such actions? Mill concedes that, while society must tolerate fornication and gambling, it is more difficult to decide whether it must also tolerate pimps and casino owners.
Mill considers that, in nineteenth-century British society, there were instances of liberty being allowed where it should be denied and vice-versa. Husbands were permitted despotic and unacceptable powers over their wives, as were parents over their children. Yet, the state did not, as he thought it should (and began to through the Elementary Education Acts from 1870 onwards), compel parents to ensure that their children received an education. In fact, Mill was opposed to the state providing education, except as one type of educational provision among many, fearing that it would become a means of moulding children to be exactly the same, and thus of preventing the development of individuality. However, he held that the state should provide public examinations, to assess children’s progress and check if parents were carrying out their responsibilities. Interestingly and perhaps surprisingly, Mill thought it would be legitimate for the state to pass laws preventing couples from marrying, unless they could prove the means of supporting children, in order to prevent children being brought up in conditions of extreme poverty and wretchedness.
To what extent is it acceptable for the state to help its citizens, rather than leaving them to fend for themselves? Overall, Mill is opposed to too much assistance, because it would lead to what we might call ‘big government’. Generally, people do things better, and become more responsible and self-reliant citizens, if left to themselves, while any increase in government activity simply adds to its power, including its power over individuals, which is undesirable. He was afraid that if the state began to take over the role of free institutions, such as banks, insurance companies, universities, local councils and voluntary organizations, neither a free press nor a democratic constitution could ensure the country remained a free one. As central government accumulated power and administrative functions, the state bureaucracy (civil service) would expand, so that in the end, the most able people would be state employees, while the rest would become dependent upon it, and thus its docile instruments, incapable of individual initiative. Mill urges that, as far as possible, administrative functions should be given to local authorities, with central government’s role confined to supervision and the dissemination of information. It is interesting to speculate on what Mill would think of the massive expansion of government activity that has taken place since his day.
Perhaps, every politician, political activist and political campaigner should keep On Liberty to hand. It does not provide a simple means of determining the extent to which the state or society is entitled to restrict individual liberty. But Mill’s principle of individual liberty affirms that ensuring individual liberty must be a priority, and that the state or society should only restrict it if there are compelling reasons for doing so. Mill also makes the important points that: in itself, democracy is no guarantee of individual liberty and democratic governments can be too ready to pander to their electorates; for opinions and decisions to be soundly based, all points of view on a subject need to be freely expressed and listened to with respect; the majority opinion may be wrong, and minority or individual opinion right; and the over-expansion of state power and functions can restrict individual liberty and inhibit development of responsible and self-reliant citizens.
Some Issues to Consider
| • | Mill believed that individual and minority rights need protection in a democratic society, because the majority, whether by political oppression or the tyranny of public opinion, may seek to impose its views on individuals and minorities. |
| • | Mill proposed that his principle of individual liberty should regulate society’s control over the individual: the only purpose for which society may control the individual is to prevent harm to others or their interests. |
| • | Mill maintained that all matters relating to conscience and the expression and publication of opinion, including press freedom, fall within the region of individual freedom, and should not be restricted. |
| • | He thought that censorship harms society, not only by limiting freedom, but because a banned opinion may be true or contain some truth, or will challenge the accepted one and prevent it becoming a mere dogma. |
| • | Can a democratic society always make freedom of expression its paramount consideration, or are there some opinions it is entitled to prevent being expressed? |
| • | Mill urged those who engage in public debate to treat their opponents with respect, and not to misrepresent their views or attack their integrity. |
| • | Mill feared that people were too ready to have their views and way of life dictated to them by public opinion, and believed there should be more emphasis on individuality, which would encourage people to choose their way of life for themselves. |
| • | Was Mill right to think that all good and wise things come from individuals? |
| • | Do democratic governments tend to pander to their electorates, rather than providing leadership? |
| • | Mill defines a self-regarding action as one that affects only the individual. But is there really such a thing as a purely self-regarding action? And, even if there is, does this mean that society should not intervene to stop people doing things, which (it judges) will cause them harm? |