S.T. Karnick asked me to post this reply to John Tabin's post
regarding Karnick's understanding of Mill and liberalism:
Although his book
On Liberty was indeed
highly influential in forming the modern understanding of classical
Whig liberalism, Mill frequently supported policies antithetical to
it, because he believed in utilitarianism over natural rights. The
following famous words from
On Liberty-
"... the only purpose for which power can be
rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community
against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either
physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot
rightfully be compelled to do or to forbear because it will be
better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because
in the opinions of others to do so would be wise or even right.
These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning
with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for
compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do
otherwise."
-are all too easily cast aside by the ultilitarian thought in the
sentence that immediately followed:
"To justify that, the conduct from which it is
desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone
else." (On Liberty, ch. 1.)
This is a loophole through which one can drive an entire army. One
could surely "calculate" that a free Iraq would "produce evil to
someone else," and hence we may be justified in compelling it to
become a modern, liberal, democratic state. But even if we set
aside the fact that it is manifestly impossible to accomplish this
task, it is clearly a contradiction of the first four sentences of
Mill's statement. Mill's willingness to set such limits on liberty
is, in fact, precisely what begins the movement away from classical
liberalism to the odious modern kind.
Best, Sam
topics:
Iraq
