按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
until destroyed and regenerated （like the Western Empire） by energetic
barbarians。
Chapter 5。
Applications。
THE PRINCIPLES asserted in these pages must be more generally
admitted as the basis for discussion of details； before a consistent
application of them to all the various departments of government and
morals can be attempted with any prospect of advantage。 The few
observations I propose to make on questions of detail are designed
to illustrate the principles； rather than to follow them out to
their consequences。 I offer； not so much applications； as specimens of
application； which may serve to 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 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 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 of others； from their wasted exertion and
their disappointment。 But it is； by common admission； 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。
Again； trade is a social act。 Whoever undertakes to sell any
description of goods to the public； does what affects the interest
of other persons； and of society in general； and thus his conduct；
in principle； comes within the jurisdiction of society： accordingly；
it was once held to be the duty of governments； in all cases which
were considered of importance； to fix prices； and regulate the
processes of manufacture。 But it is now recognised； though not till
after a long struggle； that both the cheapness and the good quality of
commodities are most effectually provided for by leaving the producers
and sellers perfectly free； under the sole check of equal freedom to
the buyers for supplying themselves elsewhere。 This is the so…called
doctrine of Free Trade； which rests on grounds different from；
though equally solid with； the principle of individual liberty
asserted in this Essay。 Restrictions on trade； or on production for
purposes of trade； are indeed restraints； and all restraint； qua
restraint； is an evil： but the restraints in question affect only that
part of conduct which society is competent to restrain； and are
wrong solely because they do not really produce the results which it
is desired to produce by them。 As the principle of individual
liberty is not involved in the doctrine of Free Trade； so neither is
it in most of the questions which arise respecting the limits of
that doctrine； as； for example； what amount of public control is
admissible for the prevention of fraud by adulteration； how far
sanitary precautions； or arrangements to protect workpeople employed
in dangerous occupations； should be enforced on employers。 Such
questions involve considerations of liberty； only in so far as leaving
people to themselves is always better； caeteris paribus； than
controlling them： but that they may be legitimately controlled for
these ends is in principle undeniable。 On the other hand； there are
questions relating to interference with trade which are essentially
questions of liberty； such as the Maine Law； already touched upon； the
prohibition of the importation of opium into China； the restriction of
the sale of poisons； all cases； in short； where the object of the
interference 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。
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。 It is one of the undisputed functions of
government to take precautions against crime before it has been
committed； as well as to detect and punish it afterwards。 The
preventive function of government； however； is far more liable to be
abused； to the prejudice of liberty； than the punitory function；… for
there is hardly any part of the legitimate freedom of action of a
human being which would not admit of being represented； and fairly
too； as increasing the facilities for some form or other of
delinquency。 Nevertheless； if a public authority； or even a private
person； sees any one evidently preparing to commit a crime； they are
not bound to look on inactive until the crime is committed； but may
interfere to prevent it。 If poisons were never bought or used for
any purpose except the commission of murder it would be right to
prohibit their manufacture and sale。 They may； however； be wanted
not only for innocent but for useful purposes； and restrictions cannot
be imposed in the one case without operating in the other。 Again； it
is a proper office of public authority to guard against accidents。
If either a public officer or any one else saw a person attempt