Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

stimulus to the acquisition of useful knowledge on which individualism relies. I think, therefore, that we must interpret the proviso above mentioned as merely prohibiting a man from profiting by ignorance that he has contributed to produce and it is on this view that I should define the limits, in the cases above mentioned, of directly individualistic interference. To prevent the flesh of diseased animals from being disguised as the flesh of healthy animals; to prevent would-be surgeons or apothecaries from pretending to have obtained certificates of qualification which they have not really obtained; to oblige employers who may have contracted to pay wages in goods to supply such goods in strict accordance with contract as regards quality and price;—all this is clearly and directly individualistic: but if Government goes beyond this, so far as to prohibit the purchase of food it deems unhealthy, the consultation of physicians it deems unqualified, the adoption of methods of payment it deems unfit, its action must be admitted to be paternal.

In many of these cases, however, it is possible for Government to do more than prevent deception, without incurring the chief objections to "paternal" intervention: it may take measures to remove the ignorance of consumers as to the dangerous qualities of commodities offered for purchase, or the ignorance of labourers as to the dangerous nature of instruments which their employers require them to use, without compelling any one to act on the information thus supplied. Such a procedure is, in my view, within the limits of the "indirectly individualistic" intervention of Government discussed in this chapter; since its aim is to protect individuals from mischief caused by the action of others, the risk of which-as they are supposed not to know it they can hardly be said to have consented to run. We may assume that the great majority of persons do not wish to shoot with gun-barrels that are liable to burst, or to consume condiments rendered attractive by poisonous colouring matter:1 and if the dangerous quality of these and other commodities can only be known by technical skill, the

1 See Jevons. The State in Relation to Labour, chap. ii.

coercion involved in raising by taxation the required funds, to provide for the examination by experts of such commodities before they are sold, is but a slight price to pay for the consequent protection against mischief. The consumer might still be left free to buy unsafe guns or poisonous pickles if he chose. Similarly, unseaworthy ships and unnecessarily dangerous machinery might be examined and reported on by governmental experts, without any positive prohibition of their use, in case persons were found to run the risk of using them in spite of full and clear warning.

§ 4. In what I have said above I do not at all mean to imply that all governmental interference which is palpably and undeniably "paternal" ought therefore to be rejected without further inquiry. I consider that so uncompromising an adhesion to the principle " that men are the best guardians of their own welfare" is not rationally justified by the evidence on which the principle rests. I regard this principle as a rough induction from our ordinary experience of human life; as supported on an empirical basis sufficiently strong and wide to throw the onus probandi heavily on those who advocate any deviation from it, but in no way proved to be an even approximately universal truth. Hence, when strong empirical grounds are brought forward for admitting a particular practical exception to this principle-when, e.g., it is proved that men are largely liable to ruin themselves by gambling or opium-eating, or knowingly to incur easily avoided dangers in industrial processes-it would, I think, be unreasonable to allow these practices to go on without interference, merely on account of the established general presumption in favour of laisser faire. The particular cases in which such "paternal" intervention is on the whole desirable must be determined by experience, and will naturally vary with times and circumstances: all that can be laid down generally is, that this kind of governmental action shall be reduced within the narrowest limits compatible with the attainment of the end in view. Accordingly, it is generally better that paternal interference should take any other form than that of directly command

ing a man, under penalties, to do what he does not like for his own good, or not to do what he likes. Of the possible milder modes of interference I have already given some examples. For further illustration, let us consider the different ways in which Government may intervene to secure adequate qualifications in any class of professional men, e.g. physicians. Quackery is very mischievous; but it would be too violent an encroachment on freedom to prohibit men from consulting a quack and taking his advice; or even to prevent this indirectly, by punishing the quack; since Government would thus present itself to the quack's dupes in the odious position of standing between a sick man and the recovery of his health. But without any action of this irritating and strongly coercive kind, Government may do much to reduce the mischief of quackery in the following ways:

(1) It may, as was before said, institute an authoritative certificate as a guarantee that the holder has gone through a certain course of training, and may require an uncertificated practitioner to abstain from concealing in any way the absence of the certificate; (2) it may give damages, or even, in grave cases, enforce punishment, for grossly unskilful treatment by an uncertificated practitioner, when the results of such treatment have been clearly mischievous; and finally (3) it may refuse to uncertificated practitioners the legal right of receiving fees from their patients.

This last is an example of a kind of interference which it is important to distinguish and contemplate in a more general way; since it is free from some weighty objections commonly urged by advocates of laisser faire against the extension of governmental interference. Such objections are not solely based on the supposition that the individual is the best guardian of his own interests; it is also urged that the efficiency of Government is likely to be impaired by any considerable increase of its functions-that "the machine will break down through overwork," or that the consequent increase of its power and patronage constitutes a political danger. And, again, the importance of minimising the direct annoyance caused by governmental coercion is urged, not only because

such annoyance is pro tanto a diminution of happiness, but even more, because the resulting discontent is politically dangerous. Now, all these objections are avoided when the influence of Government on private action-as in the case of the quack's fees-is exercised not by positive, but by negative interference, i.e. by declining to interfere. Several examples of this may be found; eg. the right of self-defence. and the recapture of property, and the important family rights of the husband and father, are mainly established by the withdrawal of the ordinary protection of the law from the persons against whose will these rights are or may be exercised. So again, we noticed in dealing with the conditions of valid contracts that there is a margin of conduct mischievous in its effects which it would do more harm than good to prevent by the more intense method of prohibition and punishment, but which it is nevertheless expedient to prevent by declining to enforce contracts which facilitate it: the most important instances of this are contracts of which the subject-matter involves sexual immorality. The invalidation of oppressive usurious contracts is a historic case of paternal interference falling under the same general head.

Another important way in which Government may practically determine the relations of private citizens without coercion is by giving an authoritative interpretation to ordinary contracts, in points left ambiguous by the words or other signs actually used by the contracting parties. Thus, in an ordinary contract of sale in England, a purchaser's promise to pay twenty pounds is defined by Government to mean a promise to pay at least eighteen gold sovereigns, of full weight, together with either two sovereigns, or forty shillings;1 or else to pay Bank of England notes for which coin to the amounts above mentioned may be obtained on demand. Bi-metallists urge that it would be desirable to change the definition and interpret the promise as an undertaking to pay either twenty gold sovereigns or silver coin in a certain fixed proportion, or notes of the Bank of England similarly

1 I omit, for simplicity, the alternative of paying twelvepence instead of a shilling.

redeemable in either metal. If this measure were adopted, no one would be compelled to sell or buy goods on these terms: any seller who chose might still insist on receiving gold; still it is most probable that the effect of fixing this bi-metallic interpretation on all contracts, in which sums of money were mentioned without an express limitation to gold, would be to bring both metals into approximately equal use as currency.

In some cases this mode of interference is adapted to the realisation of the "paternal" principle: but it is probably more often used when the end in view is not the promotion of the interest of the individual interfered with, but of the community of which he is a member.

§ 5. So far, in speaking of governmental coercion, exercised in the interest of the person coerced, as " paternal," I have had solely in view the coercion of adults. Of course no individualist objects to coercion exercised on children in their own interest: nor can it be maintained that the interests of children can safely be left altogether to their parents: still less, that they can be altogether left to any guardian that its parents may designate. Hence some right (and duty) of governmental interference, to protect children from mischief caused actively or through neglect by their parents and guardians, must be admitted in the strictest individualistic scheme. Thus the limitations on the employment of children in factories and workshops, which have now been adopted by most civilised countries, are approved even by decided advocates of laisser faire: and interference with the labour of women during the period of childbearing is theoretically defensible on similar grounds, as an indirect protection of the physical wellbeing of children; though it is beset with great practical difficulties.

On the other hand, children obviously cannot be protected like adults against personal confinement or assault, as these may be necessary means of education. And, on the individualistic principle, since the burden of rearing and training children should be, as far as possible, thrown on their parents, it seems desirable, so far as this burden

« AnteriorContinuar »