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！
indeed； a new element of complication is introduced； namely； the
existence of classes of persons with an interest opposed to what is
considered as the public weal； and whose mode of living is grounded on
the counteraction of it。 Ought this to be interfered with； or not？
Fornication； for example； must be tolerated； and so must gambling； but
should a person be free to be a pimp； or to keep a gambling…house？ The
case is one of those which lie on the exact boundary line between
two principles； and it is not at once apparent to which of the two
it properly belongs。
There are arguments on both sides。 On the side of toleration it
may be said that the fact of following anything as an occupation；
and living or profiting by the practice of it； cannot make that
criminal which would otherwise be admissible； that the act should
either be consistently permitted or consistently prohibited； that if
the principles which we have hitherto defended are true； society has
no business； as society； to decide anything to be wrong which concerns
only the individual； that it cannot go beyond dissuasion； and that one
person should be as free to persuade as another to dissuade。 In
opposition to this it may be contended； that although the public； or
the State； are not warranted in authoritatively deciding； for purposes
of repression or punishment； that such or such conduct affecting
only the interests of the individual is good or bad； they are fully
justified in assuming； if they regard it as bad； that its being so
or not is at least a disputable question： That； this being supposed；
they cannot be acting wrongly in endeavouring to exclude the influence
of solicitations which are not disinterested； of instigators who
cannot possibly be impartial… who have a direct personal interest on
one side； and that side the one which the State believes to be
wrong； and who confessedly promote it for personal objects only。 There
can surely； it may be urged； be nothing lost； no sacrifice of good； by
so ordering matters that persons shall make their election； either
wisely or foolishly； on their own prompting； as free as possible
from the arts of persons who stimulate their inclinations for
interested purposes of their own。 Thus （it may be said） though the
statutes respecting unlawful games are utterly indefensible… though
all persons should be free to gamble in their own or each other's
houses； or in any place of meeting established by their own
subscriptions； and open only to the members and their visitors… yet
public gambling…houses should not be permitted。 It is true that the
prohibition is never effectual； and that； whatever amount of
tyrannical power may be given to the police； gambling…houses can
always be maintained under other pretences； but they may be
compelled to conduct their operations with a certain degree of secrecy
and mystery； so that nobody knows anything about them but those who
seek them； and more than this society ought not to aim at。
There is considerable force in these arguments。 I will not venture
to decide whether they are sufficient to justify the moral anomaly
of punishing the accessary； when the principal is （and must be）
allowed to go free； of fining or imprisoning the procurer； but not the
fornicator… the gambling…house keeper； but not the gambler。 Still less
ought the common operations of buying and selling to be interfered
with on analogous grounds。 Almost every article which is bought and
sold may be used in excess； and the sellers have a pecuniary
interest in encouraging that excess； but no argument can be founded on
this； in favour； for instance； of the Maine Law； because the class
of dealers in strong drinks； though interested in their abuse； are
indispensably required for the sake of their legitimate use。 The
interest； however； of these dealers in promoting intemperance is a
real evil； and justifies the State in imposing restrictions and
requiring guarantees which； but for that justification； would be
infringements of legitimate liberty。
A further question is； whether the State； while it permits； should
nevertheless indirectly discourage conduct which it deems contrary
to the best interests of the agent； whether； for example； it should
take measures to render the means of drunkenness more costly； or add
to the difficulty of procuring them by limiting the number of the
places of sale。 On this as on most other practical questions； many
distinctions require to be made。 To tax stimulants for the sole
purpose of making them more difficult to be obtained； is a measure
differing only in degree from their entire prohibition； and would be
justifiable only if that were justifiable。 Every increase of cost is a
prohibition； to those whose means do not come up to the augmented
price； and to those who do； it is a penalty laid on them for
gratifying a particular taste。 Their choice of pleasures； and their
mode of expending their income； after satisfying their legal and moral
obligations to the State and to individuals； are their own concern；
and must rest with their own judgment。 These considerations may seem
at first sight to condemn the selection of stimulants as special
subjects of taxation for purposes of revenue。 But it must be
remembered that taxation for fiscal purposes is absolutely inevitable；
that in most countries it is necessary that a considerable part of
that taxation should be indirect； that the State； therefore； cannot
help imposing penalties； which to some persons may be prohibitory；
on the use of some articles of consumption。 It is hence the duty of
the State to consider； in the imposition of taxes； what commodities
the consumers can best spare； and a fortiori； to select in
preference those of which it deems the use； beyond a very moderate
quantity； to be positively injurious。 Taxation； therefore； of
stimulants； up to the point which produces the largest amount of
revenue （supposing that the State needs all the revenue which it
yields） is not only admissible； but to be approved of。
The question of making the sale of these commodities a more or
less exclusive privilege； must be answered differently； according to
the purposes to which the restriction is intended to be subservient。
All places of public resort require the restraint of a police； and
places of this kind peculiarly； because offences against society are
especially apt to originate there。 It is； therefore； fit to confine
the power of selling these commodities （at least for consumption on
the spot） to persons of known or vouched…for respectability of
conduct； to make such regulations respecting hours of opening and
closing as may be requisite for public surveillance； and to withdraw
the licence if breaches of the peace repeatedly take place through the
connivance or incapacity of the keeper of the house； or if it
becomes a rendezvous for concocting and preparing offences against the
law。 Any further restriction I do not conceive to be； in principle；
justifiable。 The limitation in number； for instance； of beer and
spirit houses； for the express purpose of rendering them more
difficult of access； and diminishing the occasions of temptation；
not only exposes all to an inconvenience because there are some by
whom the facility would be abused； but is suited only to a state of
society in which the labouring classes are avowedly treated as
children or savages； and placed under an education of restraint； to
fit them for future admission to the privileges of freedom。 This is
not the principle on which the labouring classes are professedly
governed in any free country； and no person who sets due value on
freedom will give his adhesion to their being so governed； unless
after all efforts have been exhausted to educate them for freedom
and govern them as freemen； and it has been definitively proved that
they can only be governed as children。 The bare statement of the
alternative shows the absurdity of supposing that such efforts have
been made in any case which needs be considered here。 It is only
because the institutions of this country are a mass of
inconsistencies； that things find admittance into our practice which
belong to the system of despotic； or what is called paternal；
government； while the general freedom of our institutions precludes
the exercise of the amount of control necessary to render the
restraint of any real efficacy as a moral education。
It was pointed out in an early part of this Essay； that the
liberty of the individual； in things wherein the individual is alone
concerned； implies a corresponding liberty in any number of
individuals to regulate by mutual agreement such things as regard them
jointly； and regard no person