Study Questions
What are the legitimate functions of goverment according to laisser-faire thinkers? What "indispensable ... duties of goverment" (299) does Mill believe such thinkers neglect? To Mill, the general rule is: leave things up to people; they usually take "a juster and more intelligent view of their own interest" than the government. However, there are a number of exceptions. What are they?
What specific forms of goverment intervention does Mill advocate? What form does such intervention need to take? According to Mill, what sets his approach to the question of the limits of government interference apart from the going ones? How does Mill distinguish between the authoritative and non-authoritative forms of government interference?
What are the dangers of government intervention according to Mill? How should individual freedom be defined? What are the proper limits to that freedom? How does this compare with notions of freedom, boundaries to freedom, and concepts of justice previously encountered in this course? If freedom is to be defined as that which "does not affect the interests of others, or affects them only through the moral influence of example" (300), is there room left at all for private enterprise aimed at profiting at the expense of others, for capitalism as a whole? What then is the problem with Mill's arguments in favor of laisser faire and against government intervention?
What three reasons (in the portion of the text that we have) does Mill offer in support of limiting government interference? With regard to the last reason given, how would you compare Mill's attitude toward the powers of ordinary individuals with those of Smith? Compare Mill's views on public education with those of Smith. What general considerations regarding the situation of consumers lead Mill to argue for public education?
What are the dangers of goverment which is freely elected and representative of the opinions of the majority? What then becomes necessary to address those dangers?
According to Mill, what are the effects on people's character of an overly protective government? Why should people be left to fend for themselves in many situations?
In what sorts of areas does Mill believe that people are not the best judges of what is best for them? What is the goverment's obligation in that case? In what circumstances do the laisser-faire principles cease to be beneficial?
What are Mill's positions on issues such as child and women's labor and slavery(308-309)? Why does he believe England's laws to be defective in those respects?
Why does Mill believe that the "freedom of contract" of children should be controlled for their own protection, but that this does not hold in the case of women? Does Mill's assertion: "The domestic life of domestic tyrants is one of the things which it is the most imperative on the law to interfere with" (308) conflict with his earlier insistence on the defense of (domestic) privacy? Why may the state interfere with the cruel treatment of animals?
What does the following passage from Mill suggest regarding the possible connection between commerce and the liberation of women?: "Women employed in factories are the only women in the labouring rank of life whose position is not that of slaves and drudges; precisely because they cannot easily be compelled to work and earn wages in factories against their will. For improving the condition of women, it should, on the contrary, be an object to give them the readiest access to independent industrial employment, instead of closing, either entirely or partially, that which is already open to them" (309). If you are familiar with Simone deBeauvoir's feminist classic, The Second Sex, you might compare her views with those of Mill.
How does Mill see the issue of marriage (309)? On what basis does Mill approve of the state's canceling a marriage contract by issuing a decree of divorce? Are there similar concerns in Dickens?
How does Mill approach the problem of "practical monopolies" (gas and water companies, etc) (311)?
What methods does Mill suggest for dealing with the problem of long work hours and improving work conditions? Why is he skeptical about the power of labor class movements? What about government legislation? What options does he propose? Do Mill's reasons for approving of laws regulating labor shed any light on the shunning of Stephen Blackpool in Hard Times?
What are Mill's positions on the issue of welfare? How should government act regarding such issues? Who should make distinctions between deserving and undeserving welfare recipients? What, according to Mill, justifies coming to the aid of the destitute? What are Mill's reasons for putting the administration of such aid in the hands of the public, rather than turning it over to private charities? What worries Mill about public aid, and what recommendations does he have for administering it? Do you find contemporary relevance in Mill's observations?
Are the measures and institutions described by Mill familiar to us in the contemporary context? Are they related to certain political positions? Is Mill a "liberal"? In what sense or senses of the term?Are his measures and institutions necessary to the well-ordered functioning of society and the economic system? How are such positions generally regarded in the United States?
What would be the effects of unrestricted laisser-faire? What are the effects of a liberal, private economic system combined with institutions like public hospitals, social security, welfare, regulated utilities, a central bank, etc.?
Are the limits of laisser-faire described by Mill sufficient to counter the effects of unrestricted private profiteering? Are they mere patchwork which leaves the underlying problems unaddressed? What does Mill neglect? (think about his own definition of the proper limits of individual freedom). What does the experience of the modern welfare state suggest? Can public intervention eliminate the suffering caused by business cycles? Can private profit and public well-being be reconciled and harmonized? Are there ways of identifying and addressing the causes of business cycles rather than merely treating their effects?
Why do capitalist economies go into sudden recessions and even depressions? What would be necessary to prevent such fluctuations? How would Smith, Hume and Mill deal with such problems? How do capitalist economies actually deal with severe economic slumps? Is this an acceptable solution? How does this qualify Hume's belief that advanced commercial societies are less brutal and more refined than non-commercial ones? What does this reveal about capitalist notions of "progress"? What then is the actual face of seemingly urbane and civilized commercial life?