Sofarwehavewhatseemstobethelogicalandconsistentresultoftheindividualistview。ButMill，thoughheremainsan’individualist’philosophically，isalsoledtoconclusionsveryfarfromtheordinaryindividualisttheory。Thelastpartofhistreatiseisdevotedtoadiscussionofthelimitsofgovernmentinterference。Heurgesenergeticallythatthereshouldbesomespaceinhuman’existenceentrenchedroundandsacredfromauthoritativeintrusion，’139*adoctrineinheritedfromhisteachersandeloquentlyexpandedinhisLiberty。Itmarksthepointoftransitionfromhiseconomictohisethicalandpoliticalteaching。Afterrepeatingtheordinaryargumentsagainstexcessiveinterferencebywayofprotection，usurylawsandthelike，hestatesasageneralprinciplethattheburdenofproofisontheadvocatesofinterference，andthat’lettingaloneshouldbethegeneralpractice。’140*Allcoercion，asBenthamhadsaid，isanevil，but，incertaincases，itistheleastpossibleevil；andMill，asbecomesanempiricist，decliningtolaydownanabsoluterule，onlyaskswhataretheparticularcasesinwhichtheevilisover-balancedbythegoodofinterference。But，here，ifweconsiderthelistofexceptions，wemustadmitthatthegeneralprincipleisremarkablyflexible。Somecaseshavebeenalreadynoticed。Millnotonlyallowedbutstronglyadvocatedanationalsystemofeducation。141*Heapprovedagreatnationalschemeofemigration142*andaschemeforhomecolonisation，andthisexpresslywithaviewtoliftingthepoor，notgraduallybutimmediatelyintoahigherlevelofcomfort。Heheldthatlawsinrestraintofimprudentmarriagewerenotwronginprinciple，thoughtheymightbeinexpedientundermanyormostcircumstances。Heapprovedofmeasurestendingtoequalisationofwealth。Heproposedthattherightofbequestshouldbelimitedbyforbiddinganyonetoacquiremorethanacertainsum，andsocounteractingthetendencytotheaccumulationoflargefortunes。143*Heheldthatgovernmentshouldtakemeasuresforalleviatingthesufferingsoflabourersdisplacedbynewinventionsortheexcessivechangeof’circulating’，into’fixedcapital。’144*Henotonlyapprovedofmeasuresforformingapeasant-proprietary，but，inhislastyears，becamepresidentofanassociationforalteringthewholesystemoflandtenure。Hethoughtthatgovernmentshouldretainapropertyincanalsandrailways，thoughtheworkingshouldbeleasedtoprivatecompanies。Heapproved，asIhavesaid，ofthepoor-lawinitsnewform。Thefactorylegislationalonewasstilluncongenialtohisprinciples，thoughonmoralgroundsheaccepttheprotectionofchildren。Eveninthisdirectionheincidentallymakesaremarkableconcession。Apointtowhichpoliticaleconomistshadnot，hethinks，sufficientlyattendedisillustratedbythecaseofthe’NineHoursBill。’145*Assuming，thoughonlyforthesakeofargument，thatareductionoflabourhoursfromtentoninewouldbetotheadvantageoftheworkmen，shouldthelaw，heasks，interferetoenforcereduction？Thedo-nothingpartywouldreply，No；becauseifbeneficial，theworkmenwouldadopttherulespontaneously。Thisanswer，saysMill，isinconclusive。Theinterestoftheindividualwouldbeopposedtotheinterestofthe’classcollectively。’Competitionmightenforcethelongerhours；andthusclassesmayneedtheassistanceofthelaw，togiveeffecttotheirdeliberatecollectiveopinionoftheirowninterest。’HereagainMillseemstobeadmittingasan’exception’aprinciplewhichgoesmuchfurtherthanheobserved。
Heismainlyinterestedbytheethicalproblem，Isiteverrighttoforceamantoactagainsthisownwishesinamatterprimarilyconcerninghimselfalone？Heconcludesthatitmayberight，becauseeachmanmaywishforaruleonconditionthateveryoneelseobeysit。Inthatcase，thelawonlygiveseffecttotheuniversaldesire。Buttheargumentreallyinvolvesanexceptiontothebeneficentactionofcompetition。Thecaseisoneinwhich，uponhisassumptions，freecompetitionofindividualsmayleadtodegenerationinsteadofabetterdevelopment。Insuchcases，itispossiblethatassociation，enforcedbylaw，mayleadtobenefitsunattainablebytheindependentunits。ThisadmissionwouldgofarintheSocialistdirection。Itwouldjustifytheprincipleof’collectivebargaining’tosanctionthecollectiveinterests。Inthesamewayhisjustificationofthefactoryactsinthecaseofchildrenleadsbeyondthemoraltoeconomicgrounds。Mill’sview，sofarashegoes，wouldfallinwiththeopinionthattherewashereanecessaryconflictbetweenChristianmoralityandpoliticaleconomy；ortheadmissionthateconomiclossmustbeincurredformoralconsiderations。But，inthelongrun，thetwoviewscoincide；forpracticeswhichstintanddegradethebreedmustbeultimatelyfataltoeconomicefficiency。Aswasoftensaidatthetime，toforbidinterferenceforeconomicreasonswastosupposethatthecountrycouldonlyflourishbytreatingchildrenasitmightconceivablybenecessarytotreatthemunderstressofsomedeadlyandimminentperil。Wheneconomistslookedbeyondtheinstantaneousadvantageofthemarket，andrememberedthatchildrenweremadeoffleshandblood，itwasobviousthatonthepuresteconomicgrounds，asystemwhichimpliedthedegradationofthelabourermustbeintheendpernicioustoeveryinterest。
Inthiscase，therefore，theinterferenceofthelawwasdesirablefromtheeconomicaswellasfromthemoralpointofview。
Nobody，ofcourse，wouldhaveadmittedthismorecordiallythanMill，andtheadmissionwouldimplythatwemustherelookbeyondmere，supplyanddemand，orindividualcompetition。Whenwesumuptheseadmissions，itappearsthatMillwaswellonthewaytostateSocialism。Lange，thehistorianofmaterialism，praiseshimwarmlyuponthisground。146*LangeisenthusiasticaboutMill’sLiberty，aswellasabouthisPoliticalEconomy。HepraisestheEconomyonthegroundthatMill’sgreataimistohumanisethescience；and，especially，thatinthevariousproposalswhichIhavenoticedMilldesiresanactiveinterferenceofgovernmenttowardsraisingthemorallevelofsociety。Mill，inshort，wouldhavesympathised，hadhecometoknowit，withtheSocialismoftheChair，whichwasbeginningatthetimeofhisdeathtomakeamarkinGermany。Lange’sappreciationwas，Ithink，ingreatpartcorrect；andsuggeststhequestion，HoworhowfarwasMillconsistent？CouldasystemessentiallybaseduponMalthusandRicardobereconciledwithmodernSocialism？
Milloncemorewasanindividualistinthephilosophicalsense。Heassumessocietytobeformedofanumberofindependentunits，boundtogetherbylawsenforcedby’sanctions。’Thefundamentallawsshouldbejust；andjusticepresupposesequality；equality，atatleastinthissense，thatthepositionofeachunitshoulddependuponhisownqualities，andnotuponmereoutwardaccidents。InhisarticlesuponSocialismMilldeclaredmostemphaticallythatinthepresentstateofsocietyanyideaofsuchjusticewas’manifestlychimerical’；147*andthatthemainconditionsofsuccesswerefirstbirth，andsecondlyaccident。InhisfirsteditionhisdiscussionofSocialismendsbyjustifying’privateproperty。’Thebestschemeisthatwhichletseveryman’sshareoftheproducedependonhisownexertions。Hecomplains，however，thattheprinciplehas’neveryethadafairtrialinanycountry。’Inequalitieshavebeencreatedandaggravatedbythelaw。148*ThispassagedisappearedwhenherewrotehisviewsofSocialism。Fromthefirst，however，heassertsaprincipleforwhichhegivesthechiefcredittohiswife。149*Lawsofproduction，hesays，are’reallawsofnature’；methodsofdistributiondependonthehumanwill，or，ashesaysinthePoliticalEconomy，’thedistributionofwealthdependsonthelawsandcustomsofsociety。’150*Canthelawssecureajustdistribution？