按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
controlling them： but that they may be legitimately controlled for
these ends is in principle undeniable。 On the other hand； there are
questions relating to interference with trade which are essentially
questions of liberty； such as the Maine Law； already touched upon； the
prohibition of the importation of opium into China； the restriction of
the sale of poisons； all cases； in short； where the object of the
interference is to make it impossible or difficult to obtain a
particular commodity。 These interferences are objectionable； not as
infringements on the liberty of the producer or seller； but on that of
the buyer。
One of these examples； that of the sale of poisons； opens a new
question； the proper limits of what may be called the functions of
police； how far liberty may legitimately be invaded for the prevention
of crime； or of accident。 It is one of the undisputed functions of
government to take precautions against crime before it has been
committed； as well as to detect and punish it afterwards。 The
preventive function of government； however； is far more liable to be
abused； to the prejudice of liberty； than the punitory function；… for
there is hardly any part of the legitimate freedom of action of a
human being which would not admit of being represented； and fairly
too； as increasing the facilities for some form or other of
delinquency。 Nevertheless； if a public authority； or even a private
person； sees any one evidently preparing to commit a crime； they are
not bound to look on inactive until the crime is committed； but may
interfere to prevent it。 If poisons were never bought or used for
any purpose except the commission of murder it would be right to
prohibit their manufacture and sale。 They may； however； be wanted
not only for innocent but for useful purposes； and restrictions cannot
be imposed in the one case without operating in the other。 Again； it
is a proper office of public authority to guard against accidents。
If either a public officer or any one else saw a person attempting
to cross a bridge which had been ascertained to be unsafe； and there
were no time to warn him of his danger； they might seize him and
turn him back； without any real infringement of his liberty； for
liberty consists in doing what one desires； and he does not desire
to fall into the river。 Nevertheless； when there is not a certainty；
but only a danger of mischief； no one but the person himself can judge
of the sufficiency of the motive which may prompt him to incur the
risk： in this case； therefore （unless he is a child； or delirious；
or in some state of excitement or absorption incompatible with the
full use of the reflecting faculty）； he ought； I conceive； to be
only warned of the danger； not forcibly prevented from exposing
himself to it。 Similar considerations； applied to such a question as
the sale of poisons； may enable us to decide which among the
possible modes of regulation are or are not contrary to principle。
Such a precaution； for example； as that of labelling the drug with
some word expressive of its dangerous character； may be enforced
without violation of liberty： the buyer cannot wish not to know that
the thing he possesses has poisonous qualities。 But to require in
all cases the certificate of a medical practitioner would make it
sometimes impossible； always expensive； to obtain the article for
legitimate uses。
The only mode apparent to me； in which difficulties may be thrown in
the way of crime committed through this means； without any
infringement worth taking into account upon the liberty of those who
desire the poisonous substance for other purposes； consists in
providing what； in the apt language of Bentham； is called
〃preappointed evidence。〃 This provision is familiar to every one in
the case of contracts。 It is usual and right that the law； when a
contract is entered into； should require as the condition of its
enforcing performance； that certain formalities should be observed；
such as signatures； attestation of witnesses； and the like； in order
that in case of subsequent dispute there may be evidence to prove that
the contract was really entered into； and that there was nothing in
the circumstances to render it legally invalid： the effect being to
throw great obstacles in the way of fictitious contracts； or contracts
made in circumstances which； if known； would destroy their validity。
Precautions of a similar nature might be enforced in the sale of
articles adapted to be instruments of crime。 The seller； for
example； might be required to enter in a register the exact time of
the transaction； the name and address of the buyer； the precise
quality and quantity sold； to ask the purpose for which it was wanted；
and record the answer he received。 When there was no medical
prescription； the presence of some third person might be required；
to bring home the fact to the purchaser； in case there should
afterwards be reason to believe that the article had been applied to
criminal purposes。 Such regulations would in general be no material
impediment to obtaining the article； but a very considerable one to
making an improper use of it without detection。
The right inherent in society； to ward off crimes against itself
by antecedent precautions； suggests the obvious limitations to the
maxim； that purely self…regarding misconduct cannot properly be
meddled with in the way of prevention or punishment。 Drunkenness；
for example； in ordinary cases； is not a fit subject for legislative
interference； but I should deem it perfectly legitimate that a person；
who had once been convicted of any act of violence to others under the
influence of drink； should be placed under a special legal
restriction； personal to himself； that if he were afterwards found
drunk； he should be liable to a penalty； and that if when in that
state he committed another offence； the punishment to which he would
be liable for that other offence should be increased in severity。
The making himself drunk； in a person whom drunkenness excites to do
harm to others； is a crime against others。 So； again； idleness； except
in a person receiving support from the public； or except when it
constitutes a breach of contract； cannot without tyranny be made a
subject of legal punishment； but if； either from idleness or from
any other avoidable cause； a man fails to perform his legal duties
to others； as for instance to support his children； it is no tyranny
to force him to fulfil that obligation； by compulsory labour； if no
other means are available。
Again； there are many acts which； being directly injurious only to
the agents themselves； ought not to be legally interdicted； but which；
if done publicly； are a violation of good manners； and coming thus
within the category of offences against others； may rightly be
prohibited。 Of this kind are offences against decency； on which it
is unnecessary to dwell； the rather as they are only connected
indirectly with our subject； the objection to publicity being
equally strong in the case of many actions not in themselves
condemnable； nor supposed to be so。
There is another question to which an answer must be found；
consistent with the principles which have been laid down。 In cases
of personal conduct supposed to be blamable； but which respect for
liberty precludes society from preventing or punishing； because the
evil directly resulting falls wholly on the agent； what the agent is
free to do； ought other persons to be equally free to counsel or
instigate？ This question is not free from difficulty。 The case of a
person who solicits another to do an act is not strictly a case of
self…regarding conduct。 To give advice or offer inducements to any one
is a social act； and may； therefore； like actions in general which
affect others； be supposed amenable to social control。 But a little
reflection corrects the first impression； by showing that if the
case is not strictly within the definition of individual liberty；
yet the reasons on which the principle of individual liberty is
grounded are applicable to it。 If people must be allowed； in
whatever concerns only themselves； to act as seems best to themselves；
at their own peril； they must equally be free to consult with one
another about what is fit to be so done； to exchange opinions； and
give and receive suggestions。 Whatever it is permitted to do； it
must be permitted to advise to do。 The question is doubtful only
when the instigator derives a personal benefit from his advice； when
he makes it his occupation； for subsistence or pecuniary gain； to
promote what society and the State consider to be an evil。 Then；
indeed； a new element of complication is