Reeves, like so many other left-of-centre commentators, is concerned with the alleged abuse of this principle by free market propagandists. This controversy can be disposed of once and for all. Mill is quite clear that ‘trade is a social act’ and the doctrine of Free Trade rests on grounds ‘different from the principle of individual liberty’. But when it comes to borderline cases ‘leaving people to themselves is always better, ceteris paribus, than controlling them’. Above all there is the danger of adding unnecessarily to state power, which leads to the famous (or to some infamous) passage arguing that in a state-run economy ‘not all the freedom of the press and popular constitution of the legislature would make this or any other country free otherwise than in name’. Similar considerations tell against state-directed (as distinct from partially state-financed) education. Mill’s spasmodic support for ‘socialism’ referred to a competitive economy based on voluntarily established producers’ co-operatives.

A real problem with On Liberty is that Mill does not propose individual freedom as an end in itself but claims unconvincingly to derive it from the principle of utility. In fact it is no more possible to prove the principle of utilititarianism — ‘that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness’ — than that of freedom. Both doctrines are best regarded as proposals. That they may occasionally conflict with each other will only bother those who believe that public policy can be guided by one value and that therefore tradeoffs are never necessary. Meanwhile we are plagued by governments intruding into private adult conduct on everything from ‘passive smoking’ to exercise, diet, compulsory schooling for young adults, and devising doctrines such as ‘hate crime’ to curtail freedom of speech — not to mention looking for excuses to extend detention without trial.

www.samuelbrittan.co.uk

Blackwell Bookshop

Purchase your copy here, 10% off RRP