CHAPTER V.

APPLICATIONS.

bring into greater clearness the meaning and limits of the two maxims which together form the entire doctrine of this Essay, and to assist the judgment in holding the balance between them, in the cases where it appears doubtful which of them is applicable to the case.

the sufferers by it, as is the case with any | the Western Empire) by energetic barba other form of the marriage institution; and rians. however surprising this fact may appear, it has its explanation in the common ideas and customs of the world, which teaching women to think marriage the one thing needful, make it intelligible that many a woman should prefer being one of several wives, to not being a wife at all. Other countries are not asked to recognize such unions, or release any por- THE principles asserted in these pages must tion of their inhabitants from their own laws be more generally admitted as the basis for on the score of Mormonite opinions. But discussion of details, before a consistent appliwhen the dissentients have conceded to the cation of them to all the various departments hostile sentiments of others, far more than of government and morals can be attempted could justly be demanded; when they have with any prospect of advantage. The few obleft the countries to which their doctrines servations I propose to make on questions of were unacceptable, and established themselves detail, are designed to illustrate the principles, in a remote corner of the earth, which they rather than to follow them out to their consehave been the first to render habitable to hu-quences. I offer, not so much applications, as man beings; it is difficult to see on what prin- specimens of application; which may serve to ciples but those of tyranny they can be prevented from living there under what laws they please, provided they commit no aggression on other nations, and allow perfect freedom of departure to those who are dissatisfied with their ways. A recent writer, in some respects of considerable merit, proposes (to use his own words) not a crusade, but a civilizade, against this polygamous community, to put an end to what seems to him a retrograde step in civilization. It also appears so to me, but I am not aware that any community has a right to force another to be civilized. So long as the sufferers by the bad law do not invoke assistance from other communities, I cannot admit that persons entirely unconnected with them ought to step in and require that a condition of things with which all who are directly interested appear to be satisfied, should be put an end to because it is a scandal to persons some thousands of miles distant, who have no part or concern in it. Let them send missionaries, if they please, to preach against it; and let them, by any fair means (of which silencing the teachers is not one), oppose the progress of similar doctrines among their own people. If civilization has got the better of barbarism when barbarism had the world to itself, it is too much to profess to be afraid lest barbarism, after having been fairly got under, should revive and conquer civilization. A civilization that can thus succumb to its vanquished enemy, must first have become so degenerate, that neither its appointed priests and teachers, nor anybody else, has the capacity, or will take the trouble, to stand up for it. If this be so, the sooner such a civilization receives notice to quit, the better. It can only go on from bad to worse, until destroyed and regenerated (like

The maxims are, first, that the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself. Advice, instruction, persuasion, and avoidance by other people if thought necessary by them for their own good, are the only measures by which society can justifiably express its dislike or disapprobation of his conduct. Secondly, that for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishment, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its better protection.

In the first place, it must by no means be supposed, because damage, or probability of damage, to the interests of others, can alone justify the interference of society, that therefore it always does justify such interference. In many cases, an individual, in pursuing a legitimate object, necessarily and therefore legitimately causes pain or loss to others, or intercepts a good which they had a reasonable hope of obtaining. Such oppositions of interest between individuals often arise from bad social institutions, but are unavoidable while those institutions last; and some would be unavoidable under any institutions. Whoever succeeds in an overcrowded profession, or in a competitive examination; whoever is preferred to another in any contest for an object which both desire, reaps benefit from the loss

terference is to make it impossible or difficult to obtain a particular commodity. These interferences are objectionable, not as infringements on the liberty of the producer or seller, but on that of the buyer.

of others, from their wasted exertion and China; the restriction of the sale of poisons; their disappointment. But it is, by common all cases, in short, where the object of the inadmission, better for the general interest of mankind, that persons should pursue their objects undeterred by this sort of consequences. In other words, society admits no right, either legal or moral, in the disappointed competitors, to immunity from this kind of suffering; and feels called on to interfere, only when means of success have been employed which it is contrary to the general interest to permit-namely, fraud or treachery, and

force.

One of these examples, that of the sale of poisons, opens a new question; the proper limits of what may be called the functions of police; how far liberty may legitimately be invaded for the prevention of crime, or of accident.

Again, trade is a social act. Whoever un- It is one of the undisputed functions of dertakes to sell any description of goods to the government to take precautions against crime public, does what affects the interest of other before it has been committed, as well as to persons, and of society in general; and thus detect and punish it afterwards. The prehis conduct, in principle, comes within the ju- ventive function of government, however, is risdiction of society: accordingly, it was once far more liable to be abused, to the prejudice held to be the duty of governments, in all of liberty, than the punitory function; for cases which were considered of importance, to there is hardly any part of the legitimate fix prices, and regulate the processes of man- freedom of action of a human being which ufacture. But it is now recognized, though would not admit of being represented, and not till after a long struggle, that both the fairly too, as increasing the facilities for some cheapness and the good quality of commodi- form or other of delinquency. Nevertheless, ties are most effectually provided for by leav- if a public authority, or even a private person, ing the producers and sellers perfectly free, sees any one evidently preparing to commit a under the sole check of equal freedom to the crime, they are not bound to look on inactive buyers for supplying themselves elsewhere. until the crime is committed, but may interThis is the so-called doctrine of Free Trade, fere to prevent it. If poisons were never which rests on grounds different from, though bought or used for any purpose except the equally solid with, the principle of individual commission of murder, it would be right to liberty asserted in this Essay. Restrictions prohibit their manufacture and sale. They on trade, or on production for purposes of may, however, be wanted not only for innotrade, are indeed restraints; and all restraint, cent but for useful purposes, and restrictions quá restraint, is an evil: but the restraints in cannot be imposed in the one case without question affect only that part of conduct operating in the other. Again, it is a proper which society is competent to restrain, and office of public authority to guard against acciare wrong solely because they do not really dents. If either a public officer or any one produce the results which it is desired to pro- else saw a person attempting to cross a bridge duce by them. As the principle of individual which had been ascertained to be unsafe, and liberty is not involved in the doctrine of Free there were no time to warn him of his danger, Trade, so neither is it in most of the questions they might seize him and turn him back, which arise respecting the limits of that doc- without any real infringement of his liberty; trine; as, for example, what amount of public for liberty consists in doing what one desires, control is admissible for the prevention of and he does not desire to fall into the river. fraud by adulteration; how far sanitary pre- Nevertheless, when there is not a certainty, cautions, or arrangements to protect work- but only a danger of mischief, no one but the people employed in dangerous occupations, person himself can judge of the sufficiency of should be enforced on employers. Such ques- the motive which may prompt him to incur tions involve considerations of liberty, only the risk: in this case, therefore (unless he is in so far as leaving people to themselves is al- a child, or delirious, or in some state of exciteways better, cæteris paribus, than controlling ment or absorption incompatible with the full them: but that they may be legitimately con- use of the reflecting faculty), he ought, I controlled for these ends, is in principle undenia-ceive, to be only warned of the danger; not ble. On the other hand, there are questions forcibly prevented from exposing himself relating to interference with trade, which are to it.

essentially questions of liberty; such as the Similar considerations, applied to such a Maine Law, already touched upon; the pro-question as the sale of poisons, may enable us hibition of the importation of opium into to decide which among the possible modes of

regulation are or are not contrary to principle. | person who had once been convicted of any Such a precaution, for example, as that of act of violence to others under the influence labelling the drug with some word expressive of drink, should be placed under a special of its dangerous character, may be enforced legal restriction, personal to himself; that if without violation of liberty: the buyer cannot he were afterwards found drunk, he should wish not to know that the thing he possesses be liable to a penalty, and that if when in has poisonous qualities. But to require in all that state he committed another offence, the cases the certificate of a medical practitioner, punishment to which he would be liable for would make it sometimes impossible, always that other offence should be increased in seexpensive, to obtain the article for legitimate verity. The making himself drunk, in a peruses. The only mode apparent to me, in son whom drunkenness excites to do harm to which difficulties may be thrown in the way others, is a crime against others. So, again, of crime committed through this means, with- idleness, except in a person receiving support out any infringement worth taking into ac- from the public, or except when it constitutes count, upon the liberty of those who desire a breach of contract, cannot without tyranny the poisonous substance for other purposes, be made a subject of legal punishment; but if, consists in providing what, in the apt lan- either from idleness or from any other avoidguage of Bentham, is called 'preappointed able cause, a man fails to perform his legal evidence.' This provision is familiar to duties to others, as for instance to support his every one in the case of contracts. It is children, it is no tyranny to force him to fulfil usual and right that the law, when a con- that obligation, by compulsory labor, if no tract is entered into, should require as the other means are available. condition of its enforcing performance, that Again, there are many acts which, being dicertain formalities should be observed, such rectly injurious only to the agents themselves, as signatures, attestation of witnesses, and ought not to be legally interdicted, but which, the like, in order that in case of subsequent if done publicly, are a violation of good man dispute, there may be evidence to prove that ners, and coming thus within the category the contract was really entered into, and that of offences against others, may rightly be there was nothing in the circumstances to prohibited. Of this kind are offences against render it legally invalid: the effect being to decency; on which it is unnecessary to dwell, throw great obstacles in the way of fictitious the rather as they are only connected indicontracts, or contracts made in circumstances rectly with our subject, the objection to pubwhich, if known, would destroy their validity.licity being equally strong in the case of many Precautions of a similar nature might be en- actions not in themselves condemnable, nor forced in the sale of articles adapted to be in- supposed to be so. struments of crime. The seller, for example, There is another question to which an anmight be required to enter in a register the swer must be found, consistent with the prinexact time of the transaction, the name and ciples which have been laid down. In cases of address of the buyer, the precise quality and personal conduct supposed to be blamable, quantity sold; to ask the purpose for which but which respect for liberty precludes sociit was wanted, and record the answer he re- ety from preventing or punishing, because ceived. When there was no medical prescrip- the evil directly resulting falls wholly on the tion, the presence of some third person might agent; what the agent is free to do, ought be required, to bring home the fact to the other persons to be equally free to counsel or purchaser, in case there should afterwards be instigate? This question is not free from difreason to believe that the article had been ap- ficulty. The case of a person who solicits anplied to criminal purposes. Such regulations other to do an act, is not strictly a case of would in general be no material impediment self-regarding conduct. To give advice or to obtaining the article, but a very considerable one to making an improper use of it without detection.

The right inherent in society, to ward off crimes against itself by antecedent precautions, suggests the obvious limitations to the maxim, that purely self-regarding misconduct cannot properly be meddled with in the way of prevention or punishment. Drunkenness, for example, in ordinary cases, is not a fit subject for legislative interference; but I should deem it perfectly legitimate that a

offer inducements to any one, is a social act, and may, therefore, like actions in general which affect others, be supposed amenable to social control. But a little reflection corrects the first impression, by showing that if the case is not strictly within the definition of individual liberty, yet the reasons on which the principle of individual liberty is grounded, are applicable to it. If people must be allowed, in whatever concerns only themselves, to act as seems best to themselves, at their own peril, they must equally be free to consult with one

another about what is fit to be so done; to ex-| be said) though the statutes respecting unlawchange opinions, and give and receive sugges-ful games are utterly indefensible-though tions. Whatever it is permitted to do, it must all persons should be free to gamble in their be permitted to advise to do. The question is own or each other's houses, or in any place doubtful, only when the instigator derives a of meeting established by their own subscrippersonal benefit from his advice; when he tions, and open only to the members and makes it his occupation, for subsistence or pe- their visitors-yet public gambling-houses cuniary gain, to promote what society and the should not be permitted. It is true that the State consider to be an evil. Then, indeed, a prohibition is never effectual, and that, whatnew element of complication is introduced; ever amount of tyrannical power may be namely, the existence of classes of persons with given to the police, gambling-houses can alan interest opposed to what is considered as ways be maintained under other pretences; the public weal, and whose mode of living is but they may be compelled to conduct their grounded on the counteraction of it. Ought operations with a certain degree of secrecy this to be interfered with, or not? Fornica- and mystery, so that nobody knows anything tion, for example, must be tolerated, and so about them but those who seek them; and must gambling; but should a person be free to more than this, society ought not to aim at. be a pimp, or to keep a gambling-house? The There is considerable force in these arguments. case is one of those which lie on the exact I will not venture to decide whether they are boundary line between two principles, and it is sufficient to justify the moral anomaly of not at once apparent to which of the two it punishing the accessary, when the principal properly belongs. There are arguments on is (and must be) allowed to go free; of fining both sides. On the side of toleration it may or imprisoning the procurer, but not the forbe said, that the fact of following anything as nicator-the gambling-house keeper, but not an occupation, and living or profiting by the the gambler. Still less ought the common practice of it, cannot make that criminal operations of buying and selling to be interwhich would otherwise be admissible; that fered with on analogous grounds. Almost the act should either be consistently per- every article which is bought and sold may mitted or consistently prohibited: that if be used in excess, and the sellers have a pecuthe principles which we have hitherto de- niary interest in encouraging that excess; but fended are true, society has no business, no argument can be founded on this, in favor, as society, to decide anything to be wrong for instance, of the Maine Law; because the which concerns only the individual; that class of dealers in strong drinks, though init cannot go beyond dissuasion, and that terested in their abuse, are indispensably reone person should be as free to persuade quired for the sake of their legitimate use. as another to dissuade. In opposition to The interest, however, of these dealers in prothis it may be contended, that although moting intemperance is a real evil, and justithe public, or the State, are not warranted in fies the State in imposing restrictions and authoritatively deciding, for purposes of re- requiring guarantees which, but for that pression or punishment, that such or such justification, would be infringements of libconduct affecting only the interests of the individual is good or bad, they are fully justified in assuming, if they regard it as bad, that its being so or not is at least a disputable question: that, this being supposed, they cannot be acting wrongly in endeavoring to exclude the influence of solicitations which are not disinterested, of instigators who cannot possibly be impartial-who have a direct personal interest on one side, and that side the one which the State believes to be wrong, and who promote it for personal objects only.

erty.

A further question is, whether the State, while it permits, should nevertheless indirectly discourage conduct which it deems contrary to the best interests of the agent; whether, for example, it should take measures to render the means of drunkenness more costly or add to the difficulty of procuring them by limiting the number of the places of sale. On this, as on most other practical questions, many distinctions require to be made. To tax stimulants for the sole purpose of making them more difficult to be obtained, is a meas

There can surely, it may be urged, be noth-ure differing only in degree from their entire ing lost, no sacrifice of good, by so ordering prohibition; and would be justifiable only it matters that persons shall make their election, either wisely or foolishly, on their own prompting, as free as possible from the arts of persons who stimulate their inclinations for interested purposes of their own. Thus (it may

that were justifiable. Every increase of cost is a prohibition, to those whose means do not come up to the augmented price; and to those who do, it is a penalty laid on them for gratifying a particular taste. Their choice of

pleasures, and their mode of expending their country; and no person who sets due value income, after satisfying their legal and moral on freedom will give his adhesion to their beobligations to the State and to individuals, ing so governed, unless after all efforts have are their own concern, and must rest with been exhausted to educate them for freedom their own judgment. These considerations and govern them as freemen, and it has been may seem at first sight to condemn the selec- definitively proved that they can only be govtion of stimulants as special subjects of taxa-erned as children. The bare statement of the tion for purposes of revenue. But it must be alternative shows the absurdity of supposing remembered that taxation for fiscal purposes that such efforts have been made in any case is absolutely inevitable; that in most countries which needs be considered here. It is only it is necessary that a considerable part of that because the institutions of this country are a taxation should be indirect; that the State, mass of inconsistencies, that things find adtherefore, cannot help imposing penalties, mittance into our practice which belong to which to some persons may be prohibitory, the system of despotic, or what is called paon the use of some articles of consumption.ternal, government, while the general freedom It is hence the duty of the State to consider, of our institutions precludes the exercise of in the imposition of taxes, what commodities the amount of control necessary to render the the consumers can best spare; and à fortiori, restraint of any real efficacy as a moral eduto select in preference those of which it deems cation. the use, beyond a very moderate quantity, to be positively injurious. Taxation, therefore, of stimulants, up to the point which produces the largest amount of revenue (supposing that the State needs all the revenue which it yields) is not only admissible, but to be approved of.

It was pointed out in an early part of this Essay, that the liberty of the individual, in things wherein the individual is alone concerned, implies a corresponding liberty in any number of individuals to regulate by mutual agreement such things as regard them jointly, and regard no persons but themselves. This The question of making the sale of these question presents no difficulty, so long as the commodities a more or less exclusive privi- will of all the persons implicated remains unallege, must be answered differently, accord-tered; but since that will may change, it is ing to the purposes to which the restriction is often necessary, even in things in which they intended to be subservient. All places of pub-alone are concerned, that they should enter lic resort require the restraint of a police, and into engagements with one another; and when places of this kind peculiarly, because offences they do, it is fit, as a general rule, that those against society are especially apt to originate engagements should be kept. Yet, in the laws there. It is, therefore, fit to confine the power probably, of every country, this general rule of selling these commodities (at least for con- has some exceptions. Not only persons are sumption on the spot) to persons of known or not held to engagements which violate the vouched-for respectability of conduct; to make rights of third parties, but it is sometimes such regulations respecting hours of opening considered a sufficient reason for releasing and closing as may be requisite for public sur-them from an engagement, that it is injurious veillance, and to withdraw the license if to themselves. In this and most other civilbreaches of peace repeatedly take place ized countries, for example, an engagement through the connivance or incapacity of the keeper of the house, or if it becomes a rendezvous for concocting and preparing offences against the law. And further restriction I do not conceive to be, in principle, justifiable. The limitation in number, for instance, of beer and spirit houses, for the express purpose of rendering them more difficult of access, and diminishing the occasions of temptation, not only exposes all to an inconvenience because there are some by whom the facility would be abused, but is suited only to a state of society in which the laboring classes are avowedly treated as children or savages, and placed under an education of restraint, to fit them for future admission to the privileges of freedom. This is not the principle on which the laboring classes are professedly governed in any free

by which a person should sell himself or allow himself to be sold, as a slave, would be null and void; neither enforced by law nor by opinion. The ground for thus limiting his power of voluntarily disposing of his own lot in life, is apparent, and is very clearly seen in this extreme case. The reason for not interfering, unless for the sake of others, with a person's voluntary acts, is consideration for his liberty. His voluntary choice is evidence that what he so chooses is desirable, or at the least endurable, to him, and his good is on the whole best provided for by allowing him to take his own means of pursuing it. But by selling himself for a slave, he abdicates his liberty; he foregoes any future use of it beyond that single act. He therefore defeats, in his own case, the very purpose which is the justifica