WEBVTT

NOTE John Stuart Mill, Lysander Spooner and Herbert Spencer

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:12.880
I'm going to start this afternoon's talk with John Stuart Mill, who was the most famous

2
00:00:12.880 --> 00:00:23.000
classical liberal in England in the 19th century. He lived from 1806 to 1873. As most of you

3
00:00:23.000 --> 00:00:29.000
You know Mill was a remarkable child prodigy.

4
00:00:29.000 --> 00:00:39.680
His father, James Mill, was born in Scotland, was the leading disciple of Jeremy Bentham,

5
00:00:39.680 --> 00:00:42.240
who was the founder of utilitarianism.

6
00:00:42.240 --> 00:00:52.040
Remember, utilitarianism is the philosophy that said we ought to, in deciding what we

7
00:00:52.040 --> 00:01:08.040
We ought to maximize happiness, where Bentham characterizes happiness as pleasure, taking that in a sense that anything that we liked, anything that was good, would count as pleasure.

8
00:01:08.040 --> 00:01:38.040
So they're, in Bentham's view, there aren't types of good that are distinct from each other, they're all reducible to some common denominator, so they're, in Bentham's system, the question is, how do you maximize pleasure, and he said, pushpin is as good as poetry, pushpin is a child's game, like a spinning top, so he said, it doesn't, when you're thinking what to do,

9
00:01:38.040 --> 00:01:44.000
What you want to do is just maximize pleasure. It's not that there are certain goods that

10
00:01:44.000 --> 00:01:49.680
are higher and lower than others. It's just whatever turns out to maximize pleasure. He

11
00:01:49.680 --> 00:01:56.520
suggests various ways of comparing pleasure. He doesn't have any fully worked out system,

12
00:01:56.520 --> 00:02:02.960
it wasn't. He could claim some kind of mathematical calculus by which you could figure this out,

13
00:02:32.960 --> 00:02:41.440
How to bring it about that there's a coincidence between each person acting to promote his

14
00:02:41.440 --> 00:02:53.520
or her own pleasure and to get the result that society will maximize pleasure for everybody.

15
00:02:53.520 --> 00:02:58.720
It doesn't follow right away. Suppose you have each person trying to maximize his or

16
00:02:58.720 --> 00:03:00.720
The Theory of Money and Credit

17
00:03:28.720 --> 00:03:32.220
to Achieve Pleasure for Him or Herself.

18
00:03:32.220 --> 00:03:36.320
The result will be the greatest satisfaction overall,

19
00:03:36.320 --> 00:03:37.380
greatest happiness.

20
00:03:37.380 --> 00:03:39.520
Sometimes people give the popular slogan,

21
00:03:39.520 --> 00:03:42.320
the greatest happiness for the greatest number,

22
00:03:42.320 --> 00:03:44.160
but this isn't really the best way

23
00:03:44.160 --> 00:03:46.600
to characterize the utilitarian position

24
00:03:46.600 --> 00:03:49.120
because that would be, you're trying to do

25
00:03:49.120 --> 00:03:51.200
the mathematically impossible,

26
00:03:51.200 --> 00:03:56.000
where you're trying to maximize two things at the same time

27
00:03:56.000 --> 00:04:26.000
," you can't, it won't always work out that you can do that. So it's more, the utilitarian aim is to maximize for a society the amount of pleasure overall. Of course, big problem there is, what about the legislator himself, according to the hypothesis, he's trying to maximize his pleasure. So why would we expect it to turn out that his doing that

28
00:04:26.000 --> 00:04:31.960
will why is it always in his interest to maximize his pleasure to work out this

29
00:04:31.960 --> 00:04:37.400
balance between so that I've described where you try to get everybody else to

30
00:04:37.400 --> 00:04:43.800
come up with the correct utilitarian solution that's a big problem for the

31
00:04:43.800 --> 00:04:49.600
utilitarian system to what how do you count for the activity of the

32
00:04:49.600 --> 00:04:53.920
legislator himself of course another problem for utilitarianism is when you

33
00:04:53.920 --> 00:05:00.920
You say, you're maximizing utility and pleasure for the group. Which group are you talking about?

34
00:05:00.920 --> 00:05:06.920
In the utilitarian principle, it doesn't tell you what group to pick, it just says,

35
00:05:06.920 --> 00:05:14.920
you're maximizing utility for the society, but you don't know who's to be included in that.

36
00:05:14.920 --> 00:05:19.920
So, that, as I said, utilitarianism was the one that Bentham adopted.

37
00:05:19.920 --> 00:05:25.920
James Mill, who was John Stuart Mill's father, was his leading disciple.

38
00:05:25.920 --> 00:05:30.920
James Mill wrote a number of books on government.

39
00:05:30.920 --> 00:05:36.920
He worked for the British East India Company.

40
00:05:36.920 --> 00:05:40.920
He was one of the highest officials in the East India Company.

41
00:05:40.920 --> 00:05:49.920
Remember, at that time, the East India Company was running, was ruling India.

42
00:05:49.920 --> 00:06:03.920
There was the British Empire, Britain had control of India as part of its empire, but the empire was run by a private company, not by the government.

43
00:06:03.920 --> 00:06:17.920
This was the case really until the Charter of East India Company was revoked in the mutiny of 1857.

44
00:06:17.920 --> 00:06:24.920
Up until then, this private company was sort of exercising the imperial rule.

45
00:06:24.920 --> 00:06:30.920
This is kind of privatizing governmental functions in a non-libertarian way.

46
00:06:30.920 --> 00:07:00.920
and private imperialism. So, James Mill was sort of, as I say, was a very active reformer both theoretically and on, in this practical basis, he figured in the East India Company, and he tried to apply his utilitarian principles to reform the laws and customs of India, various

47
00:07:00.920 --> 00:07:14.920
Other people who were administrators in India were utilitarians and they thought that the people in India were in a primitive, barbarian state.

48
00:07:14.920 --> 00:07:21.920
They needed civilizing reforms from England, which they thought they were in a position to provide.

49
00:07:21.920 --> 00:07:47.920
One, the historian Thomas Macaulay, who wasn't entirely in sympathy with utilitarianism, in fact he wrote a critical essay about it, had a similar attitude and he said that something like one shelf of English books is better than all the sacred literature of India.

50
00:07:47.920 --> 00:07:55.240
So it was a very much a not, would not be a very politically correct attitude the utilitarians have.

51
00:07:55.240 --> 00:08:04.440
The reason I mention this is that you'll see it, this attitude, this view is important in understanding John Stuart,

52
00:08:04.440 --> 00:08:10.160
a position John Stuart Mill took in, on liberty in 1859.

53
00:08:10.160 --> 00:08:17.000
We'll see how the limit to his libertarian principles that we'll see later.

54
00:08:17.000 --> 00:08:28.480
So, James Mill thought that he should educate his children himself on what he thought were

55
00:08:28.480 --> 00:08:30.040
good utilitarian principles.

56
00:08:30.040 --> 00:08:39.960
He thought that children were capable of learning much more than most people would think.

57
00:08:39.960 --> 00:08:45.960
His prized pupil was his oldest son, John Stuart Mill.

58
00:08:45.960 --> 00:08:54.800
He gave John Stuart Mill private lessons, homeschooling, and John Stuart Mill would

59
00:08:54.800 --> 00:08:58.800
then have to instruct his brothers and sisters.

60
00:08:58.800 --> 00:09:04.040
So the homeschooling was very effective.

61
00:09:04.040 --> 00:09:10.860
John Stuart Mill could read classical Greek at age three, Latin at age eight.

62
00:09:10.860 --> 00:09:19.060
By 15, he was an expert in political economy and he had tutoring from another friend of

63
00:09:19.060 --> 00:09:24.020
his father, David Ricardo.

64
00:09:24.020 --> 00:09:31.300
By his teen years, he was already one of the outstanding intellectuals of his time.

65
00:09:31.300 --> 00:09:32.740
He had acquired so much knowledge.

66
00:09:32.740 --> 00:09:40.300
He never attended university, but probably before he was 20 years old, he was one of

67
00:09:40.300 --> 00:09:43.580
are the most learned people of his time.

68
00:09:45.300 --> 00:09:50.300
He, as part of his education, he went on trips to Europe,

69
00:09:51.300 --> 00:09:56.300
especially to France, and here he was very much influenced

70
00:09:57.540 --> 00:10:02.540
by the sociology of Auguste Comte.

71
00:10:10.300 --> 00:10:28.380
Comte had a theory of social evolution in which there was a gradual progress where people

72
00:10:28.380 --> 00:10:35.920
would become more and more enlightened and he thought, here Comte was in line with the

73
00:10:35.920 --> 00:10:42.920
in the San Simonian School, there was a constant alteration between what he called organic and critical periods.

74
00:10:42.920 --> 00:10:55.920
There was an organic phase of society would be one where there was kind of a consensus on culture and morals, ways of doing things,

75
00:10:55.920 --> 00:11:03.920
very much like the notion of customary morality or Zitlickite that I was talking about in the lecture on Hegel.

76
00:11:03.920 --> 00:11:19.520
So an example would be in the Middle Ages, everyone, or practically everyone, agreed on God exists, what the true religion was, so there was a consensus, this is an organic period.

77
00:11:19.520 --> 00:11:31.120
Then there were, people would start questioning this, this was a critical period, people would start questioning assumptions, there would be no general consensus on things,

78
00:11:31.120 --> 00:11:35.920
and then this would be replaced by another organic period.

79
00:11:35.920 --> 00:11:40.520
So you'd have an alternation between critical and organic periods.

80
00:11:40.520 --> 00:11:47.360
I think this is something like actually the theory of science of Thomas Kuhn, the famous

81
00:11:47.360 --> 00:11:53.920
one where you have a paradigm emerging and then you have normal science which takes place

82
00:11:53.920 --> 00:12:00.360
in accord with that paradigm, then there are critical questions that develop when the paradigm

83
00:12:00.360 --> 00:12:05.840
breaks down the questions that arise that it's unable to answer and this is eventually

84
00:12:05.840 --> 00:12:13.480
replaced by a new paradigm where it isn't something that just evolves immediately out

85
00:12:13.480 --> 00:12:16.880
of the old one but there's something new that comes on the scene. I think this is a very

86
00:12:16.880 --> 00:12:25.520
Comptonian view of things and so Mill, this is what John Stuart Mill learned from Compton

87
00:12:25.520 --> 00:12:30.160
and he adopted that view in his own work.

88
00:12:30.160 --> 00:12:41.160
Now, after he got back from one of his trips to France in 1827, he had a mental crisis.

89
00:12:41.160 --> 00:12:45.880
He had a nervous breakdown for six months.

90
00:12:45.880 --> 00:12:54.080
This happened because he thought that he felt that he was emotionally starved.

91
00:12:54.080 --> 00:13:06.000
His father had been very rigorous in his education. He never praised him. He had worked extremely

92
00:13:06.000 --> 00:13:13.080
intensively on intellectual matters, but he never developed his emotions. Mill felt that

93
00:13:13.080 --> 00:13:22.720
he wasn't happy. He asked him, supposing all the goals he wanted as a utilitarian were

94
00:13:22.720 --> 00:13:30.240
We realized he asked himself, would this make him happy, and he had to answer, no, it wouldn't,

95
00:13:30.240 --> 00:13:31.240
and he had it.

96
00:13:31.240 --> 00:13:39.400
This made him despondently contemplated suicide, but he snapped out of it somehow, but he felt

97
00:13:39.400 --> 00:13:48.320
afterwards that the utilitarian philosophy of Bentham and his father needed to be modified.

98
00:13:48.320 --> 00:13:58.240
He was influenced by the German Romantics and also by the English poet Sandro Taylor Coleridge.

99
00:13:58.240 --> 00:14:08.080
He thought that they had emphasized the need for cultivation of the emotions in a way that

100
00:14:08.080 --> 00:14:09.640
the utilitarians hadn't.

101
00:14:09.640 --> 00:14:18.720
He wrote essays on Bentham and Coleridge, but it was very critical somewhat of Bentham,

102
00:14:18.720 --> 00:14:25.920
although he still said that he was a utilitarian, but he had criticism of Bentham.

103
00:14:25.920 --> 00:14:32.360
He didn't publish this, though, until his father died.

104
00:14:32.360 --> 00:14:44.080
He became, after he realized this need for more stress on the emotion, he became very

105
00:14:44.080 --> 00:14:49.120
attached to a woman named Harriet Taylor.

106
00:14:49.120 --> 00:14:51.120
He fell in love with her.

107
00:14:51.120 --> 00:15:01.160
Now, there was a slight problem that Harriet Taylor was married to someone else, and in

108
00:15:01.160 --> 00:15:13.080
In those days, it would not at all be acceptable, say, for someone to say if she had divorced

109
00:15:13.080 --> 00:15:15.720
her husband and married him.

110
00:15:15.720 --> 00:15:19.400
That sort of thing just wasn't done.

111
00:15:19.400 --> 00:15:21.880
It wouldn't have even been...

112
00:15:21.880 --> 00:15:30.560
Divorce would certainly not have been granted if, say, the husband and wife had voluntarily

113
00:15:30.560 --> 00:15:37.200
to separate, that would be considered collusion and that would be itself grounds not to grant

114
00:15:37.200 --> 00:15:40.200
the divorce in English law at the time.

115
00:15:40.200 --> 00:15:49.880
So the husband though put up with their friendship, it's not clear that anything, anything actually

116
00:15:49.880 --> 00:15:55.840
of a romantic nature actually took place between them, not even clear anything took place after

117
00:15:55.840 --> 00:16:08.040
After they got married, but after the husband died, John Stuart Mill married Harriet Taylor.

118
00:16:08.040 --> 00:16:16.320
He thought that she had exercised, he thought extremely highly of her talents.

119
00:16:16.320 --> 00:16:20.000
He said that she had aided him particularly.

120
00:16:20.000 --> 00:16:26.880
The main book by Mill that I'll be talking about on liberty, he thought that she had really

121
00:16:26.880 --> 00:16:37.240
contributed so much to it that she was really, could be considered the co-author of the book.

122
00:16:37.240 --> 00:16:46.080
Mill wrote, in his career he wrote works on an extraordinary range of topics, I wrote

123
00:16:46.080 --> 00:16:56.400
on Logic, Theory of Knowledge and Metaphysics, he wrote on political economy, he was the

124
00:16:56.400 --> 00:17:03.360
last of the great English classical economists, the last one in the school of David Ricardo,

125
00:17:03.360 --> 00:17:13.080
and of course he wrote on ethics, political, he wrote on essays on history, literary criticism,

126
00:17:13.080 --> 00:17:22.200
He was certainly a universal genius. He had an amazing range of knowledge and he was regarded

127
00:17:22.200 --> 00:17:34.300
as one of the great public intellectuals of his time. His main contribution to the classical

128
00:17:34.300 --> 00:17:42.940
and the liberal tradition is to be found in the essay on liberty which came out in 1859.

129
00:17:42.940 --> 00:18:01.020
Here the topic was on what sorts of interferences, if any, are justified with individual conduct.

130
00:18:01.020 --> 00:18:08.340
He wanted to defend a very simple principle that he said it was entitled to govern absolutely

131
00:18:08.340 --> 00:18:14.380
the relations between, as far as compulsion is concerned, between individual and the state.

132
00:18:14.380 --> 00:18:25.300
And this was that the state was justified to use compulsion on an individual only in

133
00:18:25.300 --> 00:18:29.740
matters where there was harm to someone else.

134
00:18:29.740 --> 00:18:40.740
The good of a person himself was not sufficient for any interference involving compulsion with an individual.

135
00:18:40.740 --> 00:18:55.740
So if you were harming somebody else, it would be permissible by this principle to use coercion against you.

136
00:18:55.740 --> 00:19:00.740
But if you were doing something that harmed only yourself, it wouldn't be permissible.

137
00:19:00.740 --> 00:19:11.740
Now this doesn't mean that whenever, say you do something that harms somebody else, compulsion should be used.

138
00:19:11.740 --> 00:19:15.740
This is just a necessary condition for compulsion.

139
00:19:15.740 --> 00:19:21.740
Unless you're harming somebody else, compulsion can't be used against you.

140
00:19:21.740 --> 00:19:33.440
It isn't a sufficient condition. It doesn't say, whenever there is a case of harm to others, then there should be compulsion.

141
00:19:33.440 --> 00:19:42.540
It's just saying, you have to cross this bar before you can even think about using compulsion.

142
00:19:42.540 --> 00:19:52.900
Now, before I go further in explaining what Mill's one very simple principle involves,

143
00:19:52.900 --> 00:20:01.740
we have a problem is that, remember I've mentioned Mill is a utilitarian, he said he was still

144
00:20:01.740 --> 00:20:03.700
a utilitarian.

145
00:20:03.700 --> 00:20:11.280
He did modify the utilitarianism of Bentham in that he said, he said, well, it isn't right

146
00:20:11.280 --> 00:20:17.920
as Bentham and his father thought that all types of utility, all types of pleasure are

147
00:20:17.920 --> 00:20:27.320
really the same. Mill thought there were higher and lower pleasures that, say, the pleasures

148
00:20:27.320 --> 00:20:37.040
that you could get from the best art and literature were higher than those, outranked those of,

149
00:20:37.040 --> 00:20:41.040
I'd say that you could get just by stuffing yourself with food.

150
00:20:41.040 --> 00:20:46.040
I guess he hadn't eaten enough, judging from his pictures at any rate.

151
00:20:46.040 --> 00:20:50.040
So how could we find out what these higher pleasures are?

152
00:20:50.040 --> 00:20:54.040
Well, he said just by consulting people who would experience both,

153
00:20:54.040 --> 00:21:01.040
if, say, people with the relevant knowledge that this kind of pleasure from arts and sciences

154
00:21:01.040 --> 00:21:06.040
is higher than just gustatory pleasure than we should think that it was.

155
00:21:06.040 --> 00:21:31.040
So, he's modified his utilitarian system in this way, but we still have a problem in a utilitarian rule is you do whatever is necessary to maximize utility, however you calculate, even if you consider there are different kinds of pleasure, you still come up with some result, you're maximizing utility.

156
00:21:31.040 --> 00:21:53.040
But is that compatible with saying there's one very simple rule to follow, namely that compulsion is only justified if someone is harming somebody else, not if it's just a question of the good of the person himself.

157
00:21:53.040 --> 00:22:01.680
So, it would seem like, wouldn't a utilitarian have to say, you should just see what, even

158
00:22:01.680 --> 00:22:06.240
if you have a case where an individual is harming himself, you should just see what

159
00:22:06.240 --> 00:22:08.840
maximizing utility requires.

160
00:22:08.840 --> 00:22:18.640
How do you know that maximizing utility will always get you the same results as this one

161
00:22:18.640 --> 00:22:21.320
very simple rule?

162
00:22:21.320 --> 00:22:25.040
Is Mill giving up utilitarianism?

163
00:22:25.040 --> 00:22:34.080
And Mill certainly never said, okay, I realize because of this, after written on Liberty,

164
00:22:34.080 --> 00:22:35.640
that I'm not a utilitarian anymore.

165
00:22:35.640 --> 00:22:43.680
Quite the contrary, he always described himself as a utilitarian, because the essay, his book

166
00:22:43.680 --> 00:22:49.240
on utilitarianism was republished in editions after, on Liberty, so he's certainly not giving

167
00:22:49.240 --> 00:23:12.240
So one way, which I don't think is correct, that people have tried to say, they say, how did Mill get around this problem? They said, well, Mill wasn't an ordinary utilitarian, but called an at-utilitarian.

168
00:23:12.240 --> 00:23:37.600
An act you chose here would say, for any situation you're considering, what action, what act

169
00:23:37.600 --> 00:23:48.600
According to the rule utilitarian, you say, what rule that people could adopt would maximize utility?

170
00:23:48.600 --> 00:23:57.600
You confine the list of options to rules and you say, what general policy would maximize utility?

171
00:23:57.600 --> 00:24:09.600
So you say, would it maximize utility if you allow interference with somebody for his own good, so-called paternalist interference?

172
00:24:09.600 --> 00:24:14.600
I'm stopping you from drinking because I think drinking isn't good for you.

173
00:24:14.600 --> 00:24:23.600
So would you maximize utility if you allow that sort of interference or would you maximize utility if you follow Mill's principle?

174
00:24:23.600 --> 00:24:24.600
principle.

175
00:24:24.600 --> 00:24:31.600
So on this view, Mill gets out of the contradiction, apparent contradiction that he's favoring

176
00:24:31.600 --> 00:24:38.440
a rule that could have non-utilitarian, could be, seems to go against what utilitarianism

177
00:24:38.440 --> 00:24:47.520
would say by saying he's not trying to, he's not an actual utilitarian, he's a rule utilitarian

178
00:24:47.520 --> 00:24:56.780
because it could turn out that his rule will be the rule that best maximizes utility even

179
00:24:56.780 --> 00:25:06.480
if there are exceptions where you could have a paternalist act that would maximize utility.

180
00:25:06.480 --> 00:25:13.240
Still the rule wouldn't be, his rule would win out and what you're doing is not trying

181
00:25:13.240 --> 00:25:15.240
The Theory of Money and Credit

182
00:25:43.240 --> 00:25:51.640
The theory that following his rule just was the thing that would maximize utility.

183
00:25:51.640 --> 00:25:58.880
If you say you're interested in maximizing utility, it doesn't follow that you always

184
00:25:58.880 --> 00:26:04.900
have to try to calculate just by counting up what's going to maximize utility.

185
00:26:04.900 --> 00:26:13.660
You can have a general theory which will tell you what to do, the analogy might be this.

186
00:26:13.660 --> 00:26:23.300
Supposing, question coming up, how many molecules of hydrogen are there in the universe? Well,

187
00:26:23.300 --> 00:26:30.900
supposing a scientist comes up with some theory that gives him an answer to that, it doesn't

188
00:26:30.900 --> 00:26:40.900
He doesn't follow it because he's using the theory. He isn't really counting the number, he isn't really trying to determine the number of hydrogen molecules.

189
00:26:40.900 --> 00:26:50.900
He doesn't have to count them individually to try to get a result, to get that result.

190
00:26:50.900 --> 00:26:58.900
Similarly, in this case, the fact that Mill thinks of rule, he has an argument that a rule will maximize utility.

191
00:26:58.900 --> 00:27:10.900
Utility doesn't mean he's not maximizing utility. So I think Mill, there at least, there isn't good reason to think Mill was a rural utilitarian.

192
00:27:10.900 --> 00:27:24.900
Now, I want to now give, what are the arguments that Mill give, well before I give the arguments, let me just give one very important fact about his principle.

193
00:27:24.900 --> 00:27:39.900
I made characteristically a mistake first that I corrected. I said, well, Mill is saying that the state can't interfere with someone just for that person's own good.

194
00:27:39.900 --> 00:27:44.900
There has to be a situation that involves harm to others.

195
00:27:44.900 --> 00:27:57.900
It isn't only by compulsion that Mill doesn't restrict himself to the state, he doesn't just mean cases where private people threaten to use force on others.

196
00:27:57.900 --> 00:28:17.100
He also had in mind social pressure, say, supposing, say, someone is a public drunkard and other people don't like this, so they arrange a public boycott of this person.

197
00:28:17.100 --> 00:28:23.500
I think Mill would consider that a case of social pressure and he thinks this wouldn't be

198
00:28:24.460 --> 00:28:30.780
justifiable if the purpose of the pressure campaign is to get the person to stop drinking for his own

199
00:28:30.780 --> 00:28:38.380
good. It's only if there's harm to others that you could have not that you're able to have compulsion

200
00:28:38.380 --> 00:28:46.140
not we're not just talking about state compulsion but also compulsion by

201
00:28:46.140 --> 00:28:48.140
The Theory of Money and Credit

202
00:29:16.140 --> 00:29:23.140
This is a limitation of his principle. He says that this principle, the liberty principle,

203
00:29:23.140 --> 00:29:32.140
the one very simple principle that I've talked about, applies only to people who have reached

204
00:29:32.140 --> 00:29:38.740
a certain stage of civilization. He thinks the European peoples have all reached that

205
00:29:38.740 --> 00:29:46.060
stage. But when we're talking about barbarians, then he thinks you don't have to follow the

206
00:29:46.060 --> 00:29:54.540
principle, he thinks if they find a despot who's very benevolent, he mentions the Indian

207
00:29:54.540 --> 00:30:01.340
Emperor Akbar as an example, he said, then this is the best that can be hoped for. So

208
00:30:01.340 --> 00:30:09.580
he's really, his position is by no means an entirely libertarian, a classical liberal

209
00:30:09.580 --> 00:30:15.780
One, because he's restricting his principle to people he considers civilized.

210
00:30:15.780 --> 00:30:22.380
It doesn't apply to, say, the Indian people.

211
00:30:22.380 --> 00:30:26.380
He didn't really give any list of people it doesn't apply to.

212
00:30:26.380 --> 00:30:37.380
But you can see he's not at all opposed to a paternalistic sort of imperialism,

213
00:30:37.380 --> 00:30:44.660
Just as the British did, they claimed that their rule in India was for the benefit of the Indians.

214
00:30:44.660 --> 00:30:48.100
He wasn't opposed, John Stuart Mill wasn't opposed to that.

215
00:30:48.100 --> 00:30:56.900
In fact, he followed his father in working for the British East India Company,

216
00:30:56.900 --> 00:31:04.180
and he became, before he retired from the company, I think the second highest official in the company.

217
00:31:04.180 --> 00:31:20.180
So he was not only someone who allowed for imperial ruling practice, he was himself an administrator of the British Empire, again, for the private company, the British East India Company.

218
00:31:20.180 --> 00:31:34.080
Now, he has, I think, some interesting arguments defending his principle of liberty.

219
00:31:34.080 --> 00:31:40.980
He starts off from a principle that's very commonly accepted, or was commonly accepted

220
00:31:40.980 --> 00:31:46.580
at the time, that people have the right to freedom of conscience.

221
00:31:46.580 --> 00:31:53.500
People can believe whatever they like in religion or matters of ethics.

222
00:31:53.500 --> 00:31:56.060
This isn't a question of how they act on the belief.

223
00:31:56.060 --> 00:32:00.740
People shouldn't have a state church imposed on them.

224
00:32:00.740 --> 00:32:06.660
They shouldn't be required to go to a church just because it's a state religion.

225
00:32:06.660 --> 00:32:14.820
He takes that as common ground, and then he said, well, if you believe in freedom of conscious,

226
00:32:14.820 --> 00:32:22.140
And you should also believe in free speech, because expressing your thoughts is very almost

227
00:32:22.140 --> 00:32:26.500
as important as being able to think freely for yourself.

228
00:32:26.500 --> 00:32:30.000
You should be able to express your thought.

229
00:32:30.000 --> 00:32:36.500
So here he said you have an argument for free speech.

230
00:32:36.500 --> 00:33:06.040
Now here, the limitations of the Liberty Principle don't fully apply. He believed in free speech even if, say, your speech is harmful to others, say, someone, this would be quite easy to do, gives a talk denouncing me or showing why I'm, I don't know what I'm talking about, even though this harms me,

231
00:33:06.040 --> 00:33:13.160
Mill wouldn't, there can't be any interference with it on the grounds of the Liberty Prince

232
00:33:13.160 --> 00:33:16.480
because freedom of speech is really absolute.

233
00:33:16.480 --> 00:33:24.040
The only exceptions are, say, if there's some, someone is inciting people to direct action

234
00:33:24.040 --> 00:33:34.080
with violent kind against somebody, like exposing people or rioting against, say, someone who's

235
00:33:34.080 --> 00:33:39.160
collecting taxes, and then someone gives a speech saying, let's go out and kill this

236
00:33:39.160 --> 00:33:49.000
person. That wouldn't be allowed, according to Mill. But you really have a right to say

237
00:33:49.000 --> 00:33:56.200
whatever you want, expressing your own opinions, as long as you avoid that. Mill defends this

238
00:33:56.200 --> 00:34:08.280
by saying the way we arrive at truth is by the clash of conflicting opinions. Suppose

239
00:34:08.280 --> 00:34:13.920
somebody says, well, aren't that maybe the case? I mean, there are certainly areas where

240
00:34:13.920 --> 00:34:20.640
we don't know the truth, but aren't there a lot of areas where we do? I mean, aren't

241
00:34:20.640 --> 00:34:50.640
Are there, say, would it make sense for somebody to doubt the basic principles of mathematics, or should we take, are all questions, why should we say that all questions are open questions, aren't there some questions in which we do know things, things are definitely the case, this is the way it is, and we should, we need not listen to people on the other side, say, there are some

242
00:34:50.640 --> 00:35:02.640
People who believe today that the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around the earth.

243
00:35:02.640 --> 00:35:12.640
Do we have to listen to the arguments of those people? Can we just dismiss them? Why does the free speech principle extend this far?

244
00:35:12.640 --> 00:35:30.340
So, Mill said, he had several replies to this, he said, first of all, in order to hold an opinion in a reasonable way, we have to be aware of the arguments for and against it.

245
00:35:30.340 --> 00:35:34.740
If we just hold an opinion just because we learned it by rote,

246
00:35:34.740 --> 00:35:38.180
we just, the teachers have told us this, we believe this,

247
00:35:38.180 --> 00:35:42.580
then we really don't have a firm grasp of the view

248
00:35:42.580 --> 00:35:48.980
and we could just hold the view without really understanding it.

249
00:35:48.980 --> 00:35:53.460
Mill thought this is what had happened to Christianity.

250
00:35:53.460 --> 00:35:58.260
He thought that Christians of his day in general

251
00:35:58.260 --> 00:36:08.260
We don't understand the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament because these haven't been exposed to criticism.

252
00:36:08.260 --> 00:36:15.260
These are not really held as live opinions, but they're just simply viewed dogmatically.

253
00:36:15.260 --> 00:36:19.260
People just accept them. They don't understand what they are.

254
00:36:19.260 --> 00:36:30.760
He thought also, if you say that a view is so absurd that we don't have to listen to the counter-argument,

255
00:36:30.760 --> 00:36:35.260
then you're making an assumption that you're infallible.

256
00:36:35.260 --> 00:36:44.760
You're saying that what the dissenters said couldn't possibly be of any interest, couldn't possibly be of any value,

257
00:36:44.760 --> 00:36:48.260
and you have no right to assume infallibility.

258
00:36:48.260 --> 00:37:18.260
It seems to me that Mill's argument here isn't right, I mean someone could say that he didn't think, he thought some question really didn't admit of dissent, but he wouldn't in saying that, I don't see, be claiming that that very view of his couldn't possibly be false, he just thinks that view is true, namely that dissent from the

259
00:37:18.260 --> 00:37:21.260
The person he's talking about isn't worth anything.

260
00:37:21.260 --> 00:37:28.260
The person wouldn't be claiming that his view is infallibly true, just that it is true.

261
00:37:28.260 --> 00:37:35.260
So in that point I don't see really why Mill's argument works.

262
00:37:35.260 --> 00:37:45.260
So this is, as you say, Mill has very absolute views on free speech.

263
00:37:45.260 --> 00:37:54.460
But on other areas, he also has, where he applies the harm principle, his harm principle,

264
00:37:54.460 --> 00:37:57.540
he arrives at quite libertarian conclusions.

265
00:37:57.540 --> 00:38:06.460
For example, he opposes, lists various measures of his time that he thinks violate the principle.

266
00:38:06.460 --> 00:38:14.780
He says, for example, that efforts to prohibit liquor that forbid people from drinking are

267
00:38:14.780 --> 00:38:21.460
are violations of the principle because they're saying it isn't up to you to decide whether

268
00:38:21.460 --> 00:38:30.780
to drink or not. The government is judging that these drinks are harmful to you, so therefore

269
00:38:30.780 --> 00:38:44.420
you don't have the right to use these substances. You shouldn't do that. He mentions another

270
00:38:44.420 --> 00:38:51.300
Another one, he said that there were efforts, at the time the Mormons were a very rising

271
00:38:51.300 --> 00:38:59.060
group and there were all sorts of efforts in the U.S. to prohibit their multiple marriages.

272
00:38:59.060 --> 00:39:06.460
There were attacks on polygamy and Mill thought as long as people were voluntarily entered

273
00:39:06.460 --> 00:39:13.380
into these arrangements, there was no reason to interfere with them. People might think

274
00:39:13.380 --> 00:39:24.380
Those aren't the right, that isn't the right way to live, but that would be a case of paternalist interference.

275
00:39:24.380 --> 00:39:38.380
You would be holding that because, in your view, this type of marriage is, say, harmful to women, then people shouldn't be allowed to do it.

276
00:39:38.380 --> 00:39:54.380
So this violates the principle according to him. Now Mill's principle, the harm principle, has gotten a lot of criticism from people.

277
00:39:54.380 --> 00:40:01.380
The most important, the most frequent criticism is that Mill, according to the principle,

278
00:40:01.380 --> 00:40:11.860
distinguishes between acts that harm others and acts that just harm yourself and the criticism

279
00:40:11.860 --> 00:40:18.380
that Mill was well aware of is that there is no clear distinction between the two, that

280
00:40:18.380 --> 00:40:28.260
anything really that someone does could have effects on other people. Supposing, say, someone

281
00:40:28.260 --> 00:40:36.140
When someone gets drunk, well, this could set a bad example to other people in the neighborhood,

282
00:40:36.140 --> 00:40:38.100
lead them to drink.

283
00:40:38.100 --> 00:40:44.860
So how could you say that they're purely self-regarding acts?

284
00:40:44.860 --> 00:40:52.180
Mill didn't really set out clear criteria that enable us to distinguish self-regarding

285
00:40:52.180 --> 00:41:21.700
In the case I was giving, it isn't that the drunkard getting drunk causes somebody else

286
00:41:21.700 --> 00:41:27.940
to get drunk, if there's some influence it would just be that would be this first person

287
00:41:27.940 --> 00:41:34.020
getting drunk is having some effect on someone else through the other person's choice to

288
00:41:34.020 --> 00:41:44.660
get drunk. So this wouldn't be the case according to Mill of permissible interference. So Mill

289
00:41:44.660 --> 00:41:51.380
thought that for he did think that their principal has some bite to it. He wouldn't accept that

290
00:41:51.380 --> 00:41:58.380
All acts really have some effects on other people, so really this principle doesn't say anything.

291
00:42:05.380 --> 00:42:16.380
Now, I think from a libertarian standpoint, though, I think there is a problem with Mill's principle that,

292
00:42:16.380 --> 00:42:29.380
I haven't mentioned, of course there's a problem I've mentioned already, that he limits its application to people he considers civilized.

293
00:42:29.380 --> 00:42:35.380
If you don't make the grade according to him, then the liberty principle doesn't apply to you.

294
00:42:35.380 --> 00:42:40.380
So that's a clear non-libertarian aspect of it all.

295
00:42:40.380 --> 00:42:46.780
Mill. But there's another problem, and this has to do with this point I mentioned earlier,

296
00:42:46.780 --> 00:42:54.300
that Mill is talking not just about state interference, but also about social control.

297
00:42:55.660 --> 00:43:04.300
To elaborate on this point a bit, Mill said that in the development of political institutions in

298
00:43:04.300 --> 00:43:15.980
in Europe. There had first been, when there was in the feudal period of absolute monarchies,

299
00:43:15.980 --> 00:43:26.020
then people tried to limit the state power. But once we had the absolute governments were

300
00:43:26.020 --> 00:43:31.820
overthrown, we had in the 19th century, after the French Revolution, we had parliamentary

301
00:43:31.820 --> 00:43:37.860
Government in England and in France and other countries in Europe, at least for large periods

302
00:43:37.860 --> 00:43:43.620
of time, then there was a feeling that we don't have to limit the government at all

303
00:43:43.620 --> 00:43:47.740
because the government is really identical to the people.

304
00:43:47.740 --> 00:43:53.420
So we don't have to be concerned with limits on government power anymore.

305
00:43:53.420 --> 00:43:56.820
So Mill said, no, we do have to be considered with this.

306
00:43:56.820 --> 00:44:02.260
In particular, we have to consider the tyranny of the majority.

307
00:44:02.260 --> 00:44:08.500
Here he was very much influenced by Tocqueville, who had talked about that in his famous book

308
00:44:08.500 --> 00:44:10.460
Democracy in America.

309
00:44:10.460 --> 00:44:17.660
Mill wrote a long review of the book, and he knew Tocqueville, who visited England.

310
00:44:17.660 --> 00:44:18.940
They were friends.

311
00:44:18.940 --> 00:44:27.840
So, what Mill was concerned about is social pressure, that people are not only organized

312
00:44:27.840 --> 00:44:34.640
boycotts, as I mentioned before, but people are confined by custom to doing things.

313
00:44:34.640 --> 00:44:46.180
They say if somebody wanted to adopt an unconventional style of marriage, he might have great difficulty

314
00:44:46.180 --> 00:44:51.180
in doing that just because of the pressure of public opinion against it.

315
00:44:51.180 --> 00:45:00.320
So here's where I think the problem arises for the Liberty Principle is that if people

316
00:45:00.320 --> 00:45:08.140
have free speech, then aren't they, on Mill's principle, free to react in a negative way

317
00:45:08.140 --> 00:45:10.820
to what other people do.

318
00:45:10.820 --> 00:45:19.060
So it's not clear to me how Mill could maintain his opposition to social pressure without

319
00:45:19.060 --> 00:45:23.600
restricting people's liberty according to the liberty principle.

320
00:45:23.600 --> 00:45:31.640
Now he does admit that some actions will have a negative effect on people and he thinks

321
00:45:31.640 --> 00:45:39.860
that you're within your rights to react in a negative way if somebody does something

322
00:45:39.860 --> 00:45:41.860
The Theory of Money and Credit

323
00:46:09.860 --> 00:46:14.860
You're responsible for the consequences of his action, according to Mill.

324
00:46:14.860 --> 00:46:21.860
You're just, you have, you're within your rights in reacting to what he's doing.

325
00:46:21.860 --> 00:46:34.860
It's just, this is, why can't, if you find something upsetting, why you certainly don't have to continue to associate with it, or why that, why not?

326
00:46:34.860 --> 00:46:44.860
If Mill admits this, how can he then be opposed so much to social pressure?

327
00:46:44.860 --> 00:46:48.860
He might be able to say, well, he personally doesn't like it.

328
00:46:48.860 --> 00:46:56.860
He wishes people were more open to changes in social customs.

329
00:46:56.860 --> 00:46:59.860
But it isn't clear he could do anything.

330
00:46:59.860 --> 00:47:05.700
Now, he doesn't actually say what people could do to prevent social pressure, but he does

331
00:47:05.700 --> 00:47:08.420
say his principle is intended to apply.

332
00:47:08.420 --> 00:47:15.980
He says people are not justified in exerting social pressure against others to get them

333
00:47:15.980 --> 00:47:24.580
to do, to act for their own good, but it's not clear how he can say this and still say

334
00:47:24.580 --> 00:47:34.260
that people are free to react in accord with their own preferences to other people's behavior

335
00:47:34.260 --> 00:47:42.700
seems, at least to me, to be caught in somewhat, if not a direct contradiction, at least some

336
00:47:42.700 --> 00:47:44.300
tension there.

337
00:47:44.300 --> 00:47:56.580
There's another key principle on liberty that is essential to grasping Mill's perspective.

338
00:47:56.580 --> 00:48:13.740
Here he was influenced by the great German classical liberal, Wilhelm von Humboldt.

339
00:48:13.740 --> 00:48:24.020
Humboldt had praised very much, and Mill quotes Humboldt in this quotation right at the beginning

340
00:48:24.020 --> 00:48:35.740
on liberty, that he was very much in favor of more autonomy, people should not live just

341
00:48:35.740 --> 00:48:42.900
according to prescribed customs, they should experiment and exercise their powers fully

342
00:48:42.900 --> 00:48:51.080
as Human Being. Humboldt, in turn, had been influenced by the German playwright Friedrich

343
00:48:51.080 --> 00:49:02.800
Schiller that people should exercise their powers to the fullest. We should develop autonomously.

344
00:49:02.800 --> 00:49:11.620
So Mills spoke about experiments in living. It was desirable that individuals not just

345
00:49:11.620 --> 00:49:18.820
accept matters passively and he thought Christians in particular tended to do this, but he favored

346
00:49:18.820 --> 00:49:31.620
a more policy, what he called pagan self-assertion. He very much looked to the Greeks and he thought

347
00:49:31.620 --> 00:49:40.300
that in Athens, especially during the period of Pericles, people would try, at least some

348
00:49:40.300 --> 00:49:46.420
Some people tried to display their powers as human beings to the full, and he thought

349
00:49:46.420 --> 00:49:47.900
this was very desirable.

350
00:49:47.900 --> 00:49:53.500
People should have all sorts of experiments in living.

351
00:49:53.500 --> 00:50:01.860
Interesting just as a sidelight, when he praised Pericles, one aspect of Pericles' life was

352
00:50:01.860 --> 00:50:11.060
quite similar to Mill. Pericles had a romantic relationship that was considered irregular

353
00:50:11.060 --> 00:50:18.860
by the standards of his time. He was involved with a woman called Aspasia who was like Harriet

354
00:50:18.860 --> 00:50:28.220
Mill. Taylor was very educated and advised him. Pericles consulted with her on various

355
00:50:28.220 --> 00:50:37.220
So, there's a parallel there between Mill's praise for Pericles and an aspect of Mill's own life.

356
00:50:37.220 --> 00:50:48.220
So, to say this is just silent, the key point is, Mill thought that people should be very experimental,

357
00:50:48.220 --> 00:51:16.500
Mill hoped, and here he was following Comte, that eventually, what he called it, the religion

358
00:51:16.500 --> 00:51:27.660
of Humanity would replace ordinary Christianity and we would have then, after a new, this

359
00:51:27.660 --> 00:51:35.140
critical period that we were now in in European society, sort of a new organic period would

360
00:51:35.140 --> 00:51:44.020
replace the existing situation. So we would have a new organic period in which Christianity

361
00:51:44.020 --> 00:51:50.060
would not be the central element as it was now.

362
00:51:50.060 --> 00:51:59.380
This point, namely that Mill thought the intellectual should be very influential in these experiments

363
00:51:59.380 --> 00:52:08.100
in living, plus that he hoped for the eventual overcoming of Christianity, has led some people

364
00:52:08.100 --> 00:52:20.860
to argue that Mill really wasn't a classical liberal libertarian at all. That Mill had

365
00:52:20.860 --> 00:52:31.180
a secret agenda. These people who argue this, although they say Mill had a secret agenda,

366
00:52:31.180 --> 00:52:38.380
These are not, for one, Straussians. They're different people who say Mill had his own agenda.

367
00:52:38.380 --> 00:52:48.180
In particular, there are three writers here who hold variations on this view.

368
00:52:48.180 --> 00:52:55.700
One is Joseph Hamburger, who had a book called John Stuart Mill on liberty and control, and

369
00:52:55.700 --> 00:53:04.380
And there's also Linda Rader, I'll just spell her name, that's a kind of unusual spelling.

370
00:53:04.380 --> 00:53:12.940
And then there's the British Tory political theorist and historian Maurice Cowley.

371
00:53:12.940 --> 00:53:20.660
So what they say is Mill wasn't really that interested in liberty, what he really wanted

372
00:53:20.660 --> 00:53:28.260
was to dissolve people's beliefs, conventional beliefs, and then replace them by a dictatorship

373
00:53:28.260 --> 00:53:36.660
of intellectuals, so it'd be really the intellectuals who would be guiding society.

374
00:53:36.660 --> 00:53:42.720
Mill isn't really concerned with what he's talking about, liberty.

375
00:53:42.720 --> 00:53:50.800
This is just during this critical period when you have to replace the existing beliefs,

376
00:53:50.800 --> 00:53:56.480
the existing Christian order, but once that's done, once intellectuals are successful, then

377
00:53:56.480 --> 00:54:03.240
he would have sort of an intellectual dictatorship.

378
00:54:03.240 --> 00:54:14.080
Just like Auguste Comte favored Comte thought that favored rule by an elite group of intellectuals

379
00:54:14.080 --> 00:54:19.080
and industrialist people, there would be a new religion of humanity, just the way Mill

380
00:54:19.080 --> 00:54:23.640
talks about a religion of humanity.

381
00:54:23.640 --> 00:54:30.580
I don't find this new interpretation convincing.

382
00:54:30.580 --> 00:54:36.900
It very much overestimates the influence of Auguste Comte on Mill.

383
00:54:36.900 --> 00:54:44.700
Mill always, throughout his life, respected Comte as a sociologist, but he thought that

384
00:54:44.700 --> 00:54:51.020
Comte's programs were entirely hostile to liberty.

385
00:54:51.020 --> 00:54:59.060
He described them as liberticide, killing of liberty, so he really can't be taken as

386
00:54:59.060 --> 00:55:10.900
As an advocate of Comte, when he hoped that Christianity would be replaced, he isn't

387
00:55:10.900 --> 00:55:19.180
at all saying that people should be prevented from being Christians or be forced not to

388
00:55:19.180 --> 00:55:20.180
be.

389
00:55:20.180 --> 00:55:22.420
He just thought and hoped that that would come about.

390
00:55:22.420 --> 00:55:27.220
I mean, if it did, it would be through peaceful persuasion.

391
00:55:27.220 --> 00:55:35.940
I think if in fact we look at Mill's essay Theism, which was published after his death

392
00:55:35.940 --> 00:55:45.820
by his stepdaughter Helen Taylor, we'll see he really repudiates a key position in Comte.

393
00:55:45.820 --> 00:55:54.460
Mill in this essay called Theism talks about, accepts a version of the design argument,

394
00:55:54.460 --> 00:56:03.860
The argument that from the existence of order in the world, we can conclude that the world was designed by God.

395
00:56:03.860 --> 00:56:21.260
He doesn't accept it in the sense that he thinks it's a conclusive proof, but he thinks that we do have grounds for thinking that, at least as a likely hypothesis, that the world was designed by a limited God.

396
00:56:21.260 --> 00:56:34.860
Now, he also thinks that he's aware of the evolutionary view defended by Darwin, which, after all, the original species came out in 1859, well within Mill's lifetime.

397
00:56:34.860 --> 00:56:43.160
But Mill says this is a hypothesis that might turn out to be true, but on the other hand, it might not. We have to wait and see what happens.

398
00:56:43.160 --> 00:56:50.960
So here, the key point I want to emphasize is not whether Mill was right or wrong about the design argument.

399
00:56:50.960 --> 00:56:57.560
His procedure here, his way of arguing, is very anti-comptian,

400
00:56:57.560 --> 00:57:02.560
because one of the key points in Comte is that the theological stage,

401
00:57:02.560 --> 00:57:06.960
where you explain things by saying a divine being had created them,

402
00:57:06.960 --> 00:57:13.060
is a primitive stage, and this has been overcome by the metaphysical and the scientific stage,

403
00:57:13.060 --> 00:57:20.500
But Mill is saying, no, no, it is a good explanation of things that it was created by a personal being.

404
00:57:20.500 --> 00:57:26.340
This is a good principle of explanation, and it might very well turn out to be the true one.

405
00:57:26.340 --> 00:57:30.740
So Mill, you see here, is very definitely not a comptee.

406
00:57:30.740 --> 00:57:39.460
I think the reason I discuss this, I think Mill's essay on theism is very underrated.

407
00:57:39.460 --> 00:57:46.460
People really should read this. It's important in understanding his thought.

408
00:57:46.460 --> 00:57:54.460
That said, I don't think, as I said, I don't think these writers have made out a case,

409
00:57:54.460 --> 00:58:03.460
at least their case, that Mill is not a classical liberal or libertarian, can't be sustained.

410
00:58:03.460 --> 00:58:09.360
and Sustain. However, besides the point that I mentioned already, the limitation of liberty

411
00:58:09.360 --> 00:58:17.460
principle to so-called civilized people, plus difficulties on what he meant by social control,

412
00:58:17.460 --> 00:58:26.820
there are other anti-libertarian hearts to milk. Now, supposing we have cases that don't

413
00:58:26.820 --> 00:58:35.060
fall under the harm principle, that are not prohibited by the one very simple principle,

414
00:58:35.060 --> 00:58:43.580
I should say, ones that in his view do involve harm to others. Then, as I mentioned before,

415
00:58:43.580 --> 00:58:51.180
one isn't required to interfere, but Mill did allow, in some cases, interference in

416
00:58:51.180 --> 00:58:57.700
in a way I think most people consider very anti-classical, liberal, anti-libertarian.

417
00:58:57.700 --> 00:59:02.820
I have in mind, especially, population control.

418
00:59:02.820 --> 00:59:11.020
He thought that people could be forbidden to marry by the state unless they could show

419
00:59:11.020 --> 00:59:16.300
evidence that they were able to support a family.

420
00:59:16.300 --> 00:59:19.260
You don't have the freedom to get married.

421
00:59:19.260 --> 00:59:24.660
You have to be able to show you could support yourself, because supposing you had children

422
00:59:24.660 --> 00:59:29.840
and then they went on, they required welfare, they required charity from others, this would

423
00:59:29.840 --> 00:59:35.780
be harming other people. So you see, you can't say the liberty principle rules it out, but

424
00:59:35.780 --> 00:59:40.680
still, I think from a libertarian point of view, one would want to say, if you have such

425
00:59:40.680 --> 00:59:48.560
a law, you're interfering with people's rights. And even if people were able to get

426
00:59:48.560 --> 01:00:00.800
Married and Supported Family, Mill thought that if, say, there was a growth in population

427
01:00:00.800 --> 01:00:08.120
and it was thought there were too many people, this would depress living standards generally,

428
01:00:08.120 --> 01:00:16.320
the state could forbid women from having more children, say, by requiring them to use birth

429
01:00:16.320 --> 01:00:23.700
and Health Control Devices. So here is one clear case where Mill can't be considered

430
01:00:23.700 --> 01:00:32.200
libertarian. I should say he was criticized in a review of On Liberty by Frederick Harrison

431
01:00:32.200 --> 01:00:40.580
just on this point. It was way odd that Harrison, of all people, should criticize Mill for being

432
01:00:40.580 --> 01:00:48.580
not sufficiently libertarian, because Harrison was the leading English disciple, or a leading English disciple of Auguste Comte.

433
01:00:48.580 --> 01:00:55.580
So here we have a case of a Comtist who's criticizing Mill for not being libertarian enough.

434
01:00:55.580 --> 01:01:08.580
Well, I now want to turn from Mill to the next person I want to talk about, Herbert Spencer, who lived from 1820 to 1903.

435
01:01:08.580 --> 01:01:20.580
It's almost the exact years of Queen Victoria. I think she was 1818, 1901 or something like that, but it's very similar.

436
01:01:20.580 --> 01:01:32.580
He lasted pretty much the entire Victorian era. Now, in the lectures I've given so far, the people I've talked about from Plato to Mill

437
01:01:32.580 --> 01:01:40.580
are pretty much the standard ones you would get, say, if you were taking an ordinary course in history and political theory.

438
01:01:40.580 --> 01:01:50.580
These are really the ones you would get. You might get a few others or different ones, but this would be a very standard list.

439
01:01:50.580 --> 01:01:59.580
But in, say, standard courses, Herbert Spencer isn't a figure who would get much studied.

440
01:01:59.580 --> 01:02:06.380
Studied, sociologist Talcott Parsons once started one of his books,

441
01:02:06.380 --> 01:02:09.900
Who Now Reads Herbert Spencer?

442
01:02:09.900 --> 01:02:16.980
This is, in my view, a very unfortunate fact.

443
01:02:16.980 --> 01:02:23.980
Spencer is, for those of you who read him will know, an extremely good thinker, in my

444
01:02:23.980 --> 01:02:33.340
in my view, substantially more worth studying in political and social philosophy than John Stuart Mill,

445
01:02:33.340 --> 01:02:39.180
even though that's very much the reverse of the situation now.

446
01:02:39.180 --> 01:02:48.620
And at the time Spencer wrote, he was regarded as major philosophy, one of the great philosophers of his time.

447
01:02:48.620 --> 01:02:56.620
Both John Stuart Mill and Charles Darwin, for example, viewed him with great respect.

448
01:02:56.620 --> 01:03:12.620
Darwin said in his correspondence he was very pleased that Spencer had supported evolutionary views in his own work before Darwin did.

449
01:03:12.620 --> 01:03:23.180
He was happy that one person he considered one of the greatest intellects of his time was a supporter of views very similar to his own.

450
01:03:23.180 --> 01:03:34.780
Spencer was the son of an English clergyman, and he, like Mill, his father helped educate him,

451
01:03:34.780 --> 01:03:40.620
although he was certainly not force-fed the way John Stuart Mill was.

452
01:03:40.620 --> 01:03:52.220
And like Mill, he didn't go to university, he was trained as a civil engineer, and also like Mill, he had an amazing variety of knowledge.

453
01:03:52.220 --> 01:04:04.420
He wasn't learning languages in the way Mill was, but he wrote works on giving theories in physics, biology.

454
01:04:04.420 --> 01:04:15.780
He was one of the founders of sociology. He had an enormous range of knowledge on all sorts of things.

455
01:04:15.780 --> 01:04:24.820
In the work I recommended, I want to talk a bit about the principles of ethics,

456
01:04:24.820 --> 01:04:30.740
these main ethical theories on social philosophy in the second volume, but the first volume,

457
01:04:30.740 --> 01:04:37.860
called The Data of Ethics shows how much he knew, how thoroughly he was familiar with contemporary

458
01:04:37.860 --> 01:04:45.460
anthropological accounts of ethics. He read very widely in the literature,

459
01:04:45.460 --> 01:04:53.380
and he knew what he had a very wide historical knowledge also. Now,

460
01:04:53.380 --> 01:05:04.900
Now, I mentioned that John Stuart Mill was a utilitarian, although he modified utilitarianism

461
01:05:04.900 --> 01:05:12.980
in certain ways, like talk about higher and lower pleasures, and that he also had a, in

462
01:05:12.980 --> 01:05:22.540
this area of interference with others, he had a principle, one very simple principle,

463
01:05:22.540 --> 01:05:30.540
and what he thought you should use to determine what would be the maximized utility in these cases.

464
01:05:30.540 --> 01:05:40.540
Spencer, like Mill, was a utilitarian, but he had his own very distinctive kind of utilitarianism

465
01:05:40.540 --> 01:05:48.540
that was in which a particular hypothesis about what would maximize happiness,

466
01:05:48.540 --> 01:05:56.540
will produce the best happiness, applied not only, as with Mill, to one particular sphere, but to everything.

467
01:05:56.540 --> 01:06:06.540
Spencer is a utilitarian only with this extra hypothesis.

468
01:06:06.540 --> 01:06:12.540
The extra hypothesis is he thought that if you want to maximize happiness,

469
01:06:12.540 --> 01:06:25.020
Then, what you need to do is to do the most you can so that the human species should survive.

470
01:06:25.020 --> 01:06:34.180
If you accept that life is worth living in the sense that living will, on the whole,

471
01:06:34.180 --> 01:06:44.700
to produce more happiness than not living, then you have reason to think that by promoting

472
01:06:44.700 --> 01:06:48.340
human survival, you'll be promoting happiness.

473
01:06:48.340 --> 01:06:54.220
So Spencer said, well, it's very hard to calculate trying to figure out individual instances.

474
01:06:54.220 --> 01:06:57.260
We can't really say what will maximize happiness.

475
01:06:57.260 --> 01:07:03.220
This is kind of a standard criticism of utilitarianism, how are you supposed to know what will maximize

476
01:07:03.220 --> 01:07:09.220
is happiness. This is one that has been developed especially since the development of Austrian

477
01:07:09.220 --> 01:07:14.740
economics. As you know, Austrian economists will point out, you can't compare people's

478
01:07:14.740 --> 01:07:27.060
utility inter-personally. I can't say, my getting $10, your losing $5 will be maximized

479
01:07:57.060 --> 01:08:13.060
And Spencer said, you do that by you have a system where, since each person will be most interested in his own life, you want a system where each person bears the consequences of his or her own actions.

480
01:08:13.060 --> 01:08:25.740
So, this gives Spencer, is the key principle that he uses in this volume Principles of

481
01:08:25.740 --> 01:08:38.180
Ethics in arriving at the policies of what to do, and he thinks that what we will get

482
01:08:38.180 --> 01:08:44.580
If we allow each individual to bear the consequences of his or her own actions, we'll get what

483
01:08:44.580 --> 01:08:48.420
he calls the law of equal freedom.

484
01:08:48.420 --> 01:08:54.460
Each individual should be free to do what he wants, so long as he doesn't interfere

485
01:08:54.460 --> 01:08:58.740
with the equal freedom of others.

486
01:08:58.740 --> 01:09:09.380
After Spencer developed this law, it was expressed in his early work, Social Statics, that came

487
01:09:09.380 --> 01:09:10.380
out in 1850.

488
01:09:10.380 --> 01:09:20.020
Here, he didn't use this kind of evolutionary argument, he was saying, we're in having

489
01:09:20.020 --> 01:09:29.120
What Will Best Promote Human Survival, as he does in Principles of Ethics, where in social

490
01:09:29.120 --> 01:09:35.940
statics he had a kind of theological grounding for the same principle, but it was pointed

491
01:09:35.940 --> 01:09:43.900
out to him that Kant had a similar principle, and he has an appendix to, in an appendix

492
01:09:43.900 --> 01:09:49.060
to Principles of Ethics, he says Kant did have a similar principle, although he thinks

493
01:09:49.060 --> 01:09:53.060
there's some difference and I think he was rather surprised to find this out

494
01:09:53.060 --> 01:09:58.860
because Kant's method of philosophy is quite different from his but there is a

495
01:09:58.860 --> 01:10:07.540
similarity between his law of equal freedom and what Kant said. Spencer

496
01:10:07.540 --> 01:10:21.100
Peter placed a special importance in applying the law of equal freedom to having peaceful

497
01:10:21.100 --> 01:10:23.380
relations.

498
01:10:23.380 --> 01:10:32.500
He thought that if, say, we had a situation in which the society was under threat, then

499
01:10:32.500 --> 01:10:41.740
It would be, of course, justified to resist the force, but doing so could involve restrictions

500
01:10:41.740 --> 01:10:44.540
on people's liberty.

501
01:10:44.540 --> 01:10:50.240
He distinguished between what he called industrial societies, which is one where the market develops

502
01:10:50.240 --> 01:10:57.380
and people live peacefully through market exchanges, and what he called militant societies

503
01:10:57.380 --> 01:11:02.300
where you're using society, you're sort of at war with each other and you're fighting

504
01:11:02.300 --> 01:11:10.940
each other. Now he thought if you had a war, then as I say, it's justified to have interference

505
01:11:10.940 --> 01:11:17.460
with people's liberties because you might need this to protect the society. And he didn't

506
01:11:17.460 --> 01:11:23.500
think that that was wrong. He thought that in that kind of case you could interfere with

507
01:11:23.500 --> 01:11:46.500
but he thought that's a good reason to try to avoid war and he was a big opponent of the wars that England engaged in going down to the war near the end of his life, the Boer War against the settlers in South Africa.

508
01:11:46.500 --> 01:11:52.500
He was very much opposed to that. He was always opposed to British imperial ventures.

509
01:11:52.500 --> 01:11:57.500
He was unlike Mill, he was a very consistent anti-imperialist.

510
01:12:01.500 --> 01:12:13.500
So Spencer then works out in detail how his principle of equal liberty applies.

511
01:12:13.500 --> 01:12:24.500
I think it's important to mention a very common misunderstanding of Spencer.

512
01:12:24.500 --> 01:12:34.500
Spencer isn't read much nowadays, but if you mention to any fairly well-informed college student named Herbert Spencer,

513
01:12:34.500 --> 01:12:38.500
I'm sure what the person will say, oh, social Darwinist.

514
01:12:38.500 --> 01:12:44.100
In fact, you can imagine a dictionary where somebody looks up Herbert Spencer and just

515
01:12:44.100 --> 01:12:46.900
says, social Darwinist.

516
01:12:46.900 --> 01:12:56.820
According to this view, social Darwinism, you have kind of a violent, society develops,

517
01:12:56.820 --> 01:13:01.340
human beings develop some kind of violent struggle.

518
01:13:01.340 --> 01:13:06.660
You imagine this Tennyson's line, nature, red tooth and claw.

519
01:13:06.660 --> 01:13:13.860
And so the survivors are the ones who are tougher than others.

520
01:13:13.860 --> 01:13:20.620
They kill the weaker people, and so they are surviving, and then they're able to reproduce

521
01:13:20.620 --> 01:13:24.220
and pass on their good traits to the next generation.

522
01:13:24.220 --> 01:13:32.860
So on this view of Social Darwinism, then you shouldn't help poor and weak people because

523
01:13:32.860 --> 01:13:35.140
if you do so, they'll reproduce.

524
01:13:35.140 --> 01:13:41.980
We don't want the weak to reproduce, they should really be wiped out.

525
01:13:41.980 --> 01:13:46.660
This isn't at all what Spencer believed.

526
01:13:46.660 --> 01:13:53.220
When he talked about evolution, he had his own views on how evolution would take place.

527
01:13:53.220 --> 01:14:02.340
It would be more that, say, people would develop, say, peaceful habits of cooperation, and these

528
01:14:02.340 --> 01:14:07.260
These would be taught to their children and passed on.

529
01:14:07.260 --> 01:14:12.900
He was also something of a Lamarckian, he believed, in inheritance of acquired characteristics,

530
01:14:12.900 --> 01:14:18.620
so this could possibly be passed on through heredity as well as education.

531
01:14:18.620 --> 01:14:24.780
And he didn't say that you shouldn't help the weak or the people who are sick.

532
01:14:24.780 --> 01:14:33.660
On the contrary, he thought people naturally have feelings of affection and beneficence

533
01:14:33.660 --> 01:14:39.940
toward others, and this is very desirable that people have these feelings because this

534
01:14:39.940 --> 01:14:44.060
is a way to aid human survival.

535
01:14:44.060 --> 01:14:45.060
So it's very desirable.

536
01:14:45.060 --> 01:14:53.580
Now, he did think in deciding how much to help those who are sick or poor, you should

537
01:14:53.580 --> 01:15:01.180
You should take account of possible negative effects, say, if somebody was idle and a loafer,

538
01:15:01.180 --> 01:15:07.260
you should take account that if you give that person money, that could encourage bad habits.

539
01:15:07.260 --> 01:15:14.380
So doing that wouldn't advance the human welfare very much, it might hurt it.

540
01:15:14.380 --> 01:15:20.060
He thought if you refrain from giving money to someone like that, that would be a case

541
01:15:20.060 --> 01:15:28.660
what he calls negative beneficence. You're helping general welfare by refraining from

542
01:15:28.660 --> 01:15:35.420
doing something in this case. You're refraining here by not giving, you're helping people

543
01:15:35.420 --> 01:15:40.700
in general. But he certainly didn't exclude helping people. He did think that, of course,

544
01:15:40.700 --> 01:15:47.180
the government shouldn't do this. This would violate the law of equal freedom. He was also,

545
01:15:47.180 --> 01:15:55.060
He thought very poorly of organized charities. He thought these were somewhat rackets. They

546
01:15:55.060 --> 01:16:00.980
weren't really helping other people. They had their own agendas. But he did favor helping

547
01:16:00.980 --> 01:16:07.220
people on a personal basis. If you help on a personal basis, you could evaluate the case,

548
01:16:07.220 --> 01:16:16.100
to see whether an act of beneficence was justified.

549
01:16:16.100 --> 01:16:26.740
So as you see, I think, oh, one final point on Spencer that I think is interesting, Henry

550
01:16:26.740 --> 01:16:36.660
Sidgwick, who was one of the great academic utilitarians who followed John Stuart Mill,

551
01:16:36.660 --> 01:16:43.660
Sidwick's Methods of Ethics is one of the most important works on ethical theory written in the 19th century.

552
01:16:43.660 --> 01:16:49.660
He wrote a review of Spencer, in which he raised an objection.

553
01:16:49.660 --> 01:17:01.660
He said, well, Spencer argues that we promote happiness by doing what we can to promote human survival.

554
01:17:01.660 --> 01:17:13.660
And he does so on this optimistic hypothesis that life on the whole is worth living, life generates more happiness than unhappiness.

555
01:17:13.660 --> 01:17:25.660
But he doesn't prove the optimistic hypothesis, he doesn't show that people think that life isn't worth living, that people are generally unhappy or wrong.

556
01:17:25.660 --> 01:17:32.660
and Spencer in reply to that he said Cedric is perfectly right he said I

557
01:17:32.660 --> 01:17:39.020
haven't proved this this is just the hypothesis view I'm assuming and it's

558
01:17:39.020 --> 01:17:43.820
only on if you assume that that his system goes through and the little time

559
01:17:43.820 --> 01:17:51.420
remaining I left a little time just for by Sanders Spooner and the reason I

560
01:17:51.420 --> 01:17:56.540
I left such a little time, other than the fact that I tend to go on too long, is I have only

561
01:17:56.540 --> 01:18:03.740
one real point I want to make about Spooner. Spooner was, of course, a, lived from the

562
01:18:03.740 --> 01:18:17.900
1808 to 1887. He was one of the great American abolitionists and anarchists. The key contribution,

563
01:18:17.900 --> 01:18:24.460
I think he made to political theory is found in a number of his works, especially in the

564
01:18:24.460 --> 01:18:32.060
series of works with the same title and different numbers called No Treason, The Constitution

565
01:18:32.060 --> 01:18:33.820
of No Authority.

566
01:18:33.820 --> 01:18:43.380
And what Spooner does is really to demolish totally consent theories of political obligation.

567
01:18:43.380 --> 01:18:51.380
I remember when I mentioned Hobbes and Locke, I was talking about various kinds of consent,

568
01:18:51.380 --> 01:18:59.380
how Hobbesian social contract differs from Lockean contracts.

569
01:18:59.380 --> 01:19:05.380
We're dealing with hypothetical consent, various other matters.

570
01:19:05.380 --> 01:19:18.380
Spooner, in the No Treason, really raises devastating objections, considering especially the United States Constitution.

571
01:19:18.380 --> 01:19:28.380
He says, well, supposing, I'll just give a few arguments he gives, he says, supposing you say the Constitution rests on popular consent,

572
01:19:28.380 --> 01:19:35.660
Well, who was actually consented to the Constitution?

573
01:19:35.660 --> 01:19:42.900
Let's have a list of the people who actually said, I accept the Constitution.

574
01:19:42.900 --> 01:19:48.380
Even if you could come up with people who had said that, why would that bind anyone

575
01:19:48.380 --> 01:19:49.380
else?

576
01:19:49.380 --> 01:19:55.220
Say, we're living in a time later than the Constitution, so why should it matter to us

577
01:19:55.220 --> 01:20:02.500
If, say, some people at one time in the past accepted the Constitution. Furthermore, even

578
01:20:02.500 --> 01:20:08.940
those people say, it says in the Constitution, we the people of the United States of America

579
01:20:08.940 --> 01:20:13.820
do ordain and establish this Constitution. Even if there were people who said that, they

580
01:20:13.820 --> 01:20:20.740
didn't say for what period of time they were doing this, so why should we assume they're

581
01:20:20.740 --> 01:20:23.180
You're doing this perpetually.

582
01:20:23.180 --> 01:20:36.340
Also, he thinks, if you're consenting to something, if you're saying other people, a certain body

583
01:20:36.340 --> 01:20:43.880
is authorized to represent you, because you have to do this in public, you have to say,

584
01:20:43.880 --> 01:20:49.660
this person is my representative, I authorize this person to be my representative, but he

585
01:20:49.660 --> 01:20:58.380
He said, well, voting is done in secret, so all we know is that some people, if we have

586
01:20:58.380 --> 01:21:05.380
a constitution that has been adopted, have voted in favor of it, but no one has been

587
01:21:05.380 --> 01:21:10.500
willing to stand out and publicly say that he supports the constitution.

588
01:21:10.500 --> 01:21:12.500
So it doesn't really have any force.

589
01:21:12.500 --> 01:21:18.000
He said, well, you know, if you talk about consent, you really have to take consent quite

590
01:21:18.000 --> 01:21:25.600
literally wants there to be actual evidence by particular people saying that they consent.

591
01:21:25.600 --> 01:21:32.400
And even if you could find that, why would this have any binding force on other people

592
01:21:32.400 --> 01:21:35.960
who didn't consent?

593
01:21:35.960 --> 01:21:44.840
Why are they supposed to be bound by the consent of the majority?

594
01:21:44.840 --> 01:21:52.080
If you said, well, even the minority, say, by voting have consented, he said, no, no,

595
01:21:52.080 --> 01:21:58.200
that isn't right because people could be voting, say, just because they think they're in a

596
01:21:58.200 --> 01:22:04.600
bad situation, they think they have to try to do the best they can, or they could think,

597
01:22:04.600 --> 01:22:09.640
given the situation, they have a chance to get people they want in power so they can

598
01:22:09.640 --> 01:22:11.260
exploit others.

599
01:22:11.260 --> 01:22:17.620
But the mere fact that someone is voting doesn't show that he's consented to the system in

600
01:22:17.620 --> 01:22:19.620
any way.

601
01:22:19.620 --> 01:22:25.180
Some of the arguments Spooner gives are limited in application to the U.S. Constitution, but

602
01:22:25.180 --> 01:22:32.100
I think he gives arguments that apply more generally, and I think he gives one of the

603
01:22:32.100 --> 01:22:38.300
most devastating criticisms ever made of consent theories of political obligation.

604
01:22:38.300 --> 01:22:49.300
And he, like Spencer, is another person who isn't really studied in usual courses on history, political thought, but should be.

605
01:22:49.300 --> 01:22:54.300
So, I think I have a little bit of time for questions. Matthew?

606
01:23:08.300 --> 01:23:17.300
and then you also said that there were certain authoritarian and guardian aspects to his vision of liberty.

607
01:23:17.300 --> 01:23:26.300
And I think it's important to bring those two together. There's a current book called Civilizing Subjects by Catherine Hall, a British scholar.

608
01:23:26.300 --> 01:23:33.300
And one of the things she does is she looks at a debate in 1865 between Thomas Carlyle and Mill,

609
01:23:33.300 --> 01:23:53.300
Because, as you said, Mill was involved in colonialism. Mill actually became the colonial governor of Jamaica after a very famous rebellion against the former colonial governor in Jamaica named Edward Iyer, E-Y-R-E, who was considered authoritarian as colonial governor as well.

610
01:23:53.300 --> 01:24:08.300
and the debate between Carlisle and Mill was that Carlisle actually used civilizational rhetoric and said we, the British, must always master them, the Jamaicans, because they can never be fit for self-government.

611
01:24:08.300 --> 01:24:20.300
And Mill's mixed attitude toward liberty actually made him a good colonial governor for that moment because Mill said, no, wait a minute, they're not a lower culture.

612
01:24:20.300 --> 01:24:41.300
They have the capacity to be self-governing some day, you see, and why that's important to recognize for contemporary consideration of anti-war, anti-colonialism is because right now, obviously, our government would like to tutor Iraq up to the capacity for self-governing, right?

613
01:24:41.300 --> 01:24:53.300
And that, it's not just a matter of racially excluding people and say, oh they can never be, they're barbarians. It's the suggestion, the guardian suggestion that people can be tutored up to the capacity.

614
01:24:53.300 --> 01:25:03.300
That made Mill an excellent colonial governor in time of crisis in response to this rebellion in 1865.

615
01:25:03.300 --> 01:25:18.300
And so, with Neal saying, well, you have certain freedoms and rights, but you don't have the right to revolution, but I recognize that in humanity you might be self-governing someday, it's kind of like Jimmy Carter imperialism, you know what I mean?

616
01:25:18.300 --> 01:25:48.060
I'm not sure I can summarize all of that. The gist of it is that it was suggested that I should

617
01:25:48.060 --> 01:25:55.660
You'd combine two points made in the lecture. One is Mill's very negative view of so-called

618
01:25:55.660 --> 01:26:06.340
barbarian people and also his view, some sort of authoritarian guidance, and this was applied

619
01:26:06.340 --> 01:26:15.140
to a controversy between Mill and Thomas Carlisle over the governor of Jamaica, Governor Airy.

620
01:26:15.140 --> 01:26:30.140
Civilizing Subjects by Kaplan Hall, H.A.L.L.

621
01:26:45.140 --> 01:26:51.300
Not the colonial, never the colonial governor of Jamaica or anything else.

622
01:26:51.300 --> 01:26:59.820
The controversy over Governor Erie was that there had been a revolt in Jamaica that Governor

623
01:26:59.820 --> 01:27:08.860
Erie put down in a very cruel way and including, there was a member of parliament who he had

624
01:27:08.860 --> 01:27:21.860
was really judicially murdered, and there were many Jamaicans who were executed or flogged very cruelly.

625
01:27:21.860 --> 01:27:32.860
So, Mill was the head of a committee that thought the governor should be prosecuted for murder, and he made efforts to do that.

626
01:27:32.860 --> 01:27:38.900
There were other famous people on his side, such as Charles Darwin, and then Carlisle

627
01:27:38.900 --> 01:27:45.580
was head of a committee, the other defending the governor. There were people on his side

628
01:27:45.580 --> 01:27:52.380
who included Charles Dickens, I think John Ruskin, who was a very ardent imperialist

629
01:27:52.380 --> 01:28:00.420
on this side, but I'm fairly sure Mill himself wasn't the colonial administrator. I could

630
01:28:00.420 --> 01:28:07.420
check that for you, but I'm fairly sure that... Any other questions? Dan?

631
01:28:30.420 --> 01:28:59.420
The question is that when Mill says it's just viable to restrict free speech if someone is directly inciting to violence, isn't this inconsistent with what he says elsewhere in that if people were incited to violence as a result of this speech,

632
01:28:59.420 --> 01:29:08.380
speech, then their acting violently is going through their judgment. It isn't something

633
01:29:08.380 --> 01:29:14.820
happening automatically. Well, I think Mill would challenge that part of it. He would

634
01:29:14.820 --> 01:29:22.220
say, you could have cases where, say, there's a mob that's really so emotionally aroused

635
01:29:22.220 --> 01:29:28.540
that this speech is really setting them off. He thinks that you really wouldn't want to

636
01:29:28.540 --> 01:29:48.300
Well, I think we're out of time now, so thanks very much.