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？
Here，then，isacriticalproblem。AsaUtilitarianhewouldreplythatgovernmentshouldmakefairrulesforthegeneralrelationsofindividuals，andtrusttothebestmanwinninginanopencompetition。Mill’spointofdifferencefromtheSocialistswaspreciselythathebelievedincompetitiontothelast，andwassofarathorough’individualist。’Yet，asamatteroffact，vastinequalitiesofwealthandpowerhaddeveloped，andexiledjusticefromtheworld——if，indeed，justicehadeverexistedthere。Sofarasthiscouldbeattributedtolaws，unjustbecausemadebyforceandfraud，theremedymightlieinreformingthelaws。Thatcasewasexemplifiedbyland。’Landedproperty’，hesays，inEurope，derives’itsoriginfromforce。’151*Englishlandlawswerefirstdesigned’topropuparulingclass。’152*
Byforce，infact，thelandownershadsecuredthebestplacesatMalthus’sfeast，andwereenabledtobenefitby，withoutcontributingto，thegrowthofthenationalwealth。Rent，saysCairnes，is’afundevergrowing，evenwhileitsproprietorssleep。’153*Mill，ofcourse，admittedthatpartofrentisduetotheapplicationofcapital；andhedoesnotproposetoconfiscatethewealthoftheactualproprietorswhohadacquiredtheirrightsfairlyundertheexistingsystem。Butheisconvincedthatlanddiffersradicallyfrommovableproperty。
Capitaldiminishesinvalue，associetyadvances；’landalone……
hastheprivilegeofsteadilyrisinginvaluefromnaturalcauses。’154*Hencewehavethefamousproposaloftakingthe’unearnedincrement。’155*Ifthelandownerwasdissatisfied，heshouldbepaidthesellingpriceoftheday。Agoodmanylandlordsmayregretthattheyhadnotthisofferatthetimethatitwasproposed1873。Thuslandwastobenationalised；
thestatewastobecomethenationallandlord，asinIndia，156*
andatanyratenothingwastobedonebywhichmorelandcouldgetintoprivatehands。Heseems，indeed，stilltobelieveinapeasant-proprietary，157*butdoesnotaskhowfarthedoctrineiscompatiblewithnationalisation。
If，then，theforcibleacquisitionoflandbyitsfirstownersbestillataintupontheexistingtitle，ispropertyinotherwealthaltogetherjust？MilladmitsinhisdiscussionofThornton’sbookthatsomethingistobesaidagainstcapitalists。
’Movableproperty，’indeed，has，onthewhole，apurer’originthanlandedproperty。’Itrepresentsindustry，notsimplyforce。
Therehas，indeed，beenagooddealoffraud，andmanypracticesatwhich’apersonofdelicateconscience’mightscruple。158*
ThisisagentleadumbrationoftheviewofsomerecentSocialists。Isnotcapital，theywouldsay，preciselytheproductoffraud，andstainedthroughandthroughbycheating？IfMillwasfarfromthedoctrineofMarx，anddidnotholdthatcapitalwasamerenamefortheprocessofexploitation，headmittedatleastthattherewasnosuchthingasjusticeintheactualindustrialorder。Wealthclearlyrepresentssomethingverydifferentfromarewardgiveninproportiontoindustry。Inthefirstplace，itisinherited，andMill，asIhavesaid，proposedthereforetolimitinheritances；and，inthenextplace，nobodycansupposethatapoormanwhogrowsrich，evenbypurelyhonourablemeans，getsaprizeproportionedtohisvirtueortohisutility；while，finally，thepoormancertainlydoesnotstartonequaltermswithhisricherrival。Hethathathnotmaynotlosethatwhichhehath；buthehassmallchancesofclimbingtheladder，andifheclimbs，hissuccessmeansdevotiontohisprivateinterest。159*Mill’sabandonmentofthewage-fund，again，involvedtheacceptanceofthe’tacitconspiracy。’Thepovertyofthemassisnotduetoa’lawofnature’；andthereforeitisdue，partlyatleast，tothecombinationofcapitalists，whichenablesthemtobringtheirpowertobearinkeepingdowntherateofwagestoanindefiniteextent。
Thesocialinjusticeagainstwhichheprotestsexistsunderasysteminwhichthelawsaresubstantiallyequal。Theynolongerrecogniseclassdistinctionsexplicitly；theyhaveceasedtoforbidcombinationsortofixtherateofwages；thepaternaltheoryofgovernmentisgone，ashesays，forever，andtheoldrelationofprotectorandprotectedsupplantedbyasystemofequalitybeforethelaw。160*Andyetmonstrousinequalitiesandthereforeinjusticesremain。Whatistheinference？Herewehavetherealinconsistencyor，atleast，failuretoreconcilecompletelytwodivergingprinciples。Millandallhisdisciplesplacetheirhopesin’co-operation。’Co-operationcan，theythink，bereconciledwiththe’liberty’whichtheyregardedbothasdesirableinitselfandasequivalenttotheabsenceoflaw。
Co-operation，onthisshowing，impliesfirstabsolutefreedomtojoinortoleavetheco-operativebody。Theindividualjoinswithotherindividuals，butdoesnotsacrificehisindividuality。Therelationisstill，sotospeak，’external，’andthevariousassociationscompetewitheachotherasfullyandunreservedlyasthecomponentindividuals。Andyetthereisanobviousdifficulty。Co-operationmustinvolvealossof’liberty，’thoughthelossmaybecompensated。IfIco-operate，Iundertakeobligations，enforciblebylaw，thoughnotoriginallyimposedbylaw。MillthrowsouttheconjecturethatthechoicebetweenSocialismandindividualismwill’dependmainlyononeconsideration，viz。，whichofthetwosystemsisconsistentwiththegreatestamountofhumanlibertyandspontaneity。’161*Nowallassociationlimitsactioninfact。Whengreatcompaniestakeupanindustrialfunctionofanykind，theyputastressupontheindividual，notnecessarilythelessforciblebecausenotlegallyimposed。Agreatrailway，forexample，soondestroysotherprivateenterprises，andmakesitselfpracticallynecessary。Itisequallygovernedbyabodyinwhichmostindividualshareholdersexerciseaslittleinfluenceasthoughtheywereappointedbythestate。Astheindustrialmachinery，humanormaterial，isdeveloped，itbecomesasmuchapartofsocialorderasifitwerecreatedbythelegislature。ThepointuponwhichMillinsists，thatallassociationsmustbe’voluntary，’thenbecomesinsignificant。Imaybelegallyatlibertytostandaside；but，infact，theybecomeimperativeconditionsoflife。