Chapter 6 Chapter 5 Application of the Teachings of this Article

The principles set forth above must first be admitted more generally as a basis for the discussion of details, before attempting to apply them to all the different branches of government and morals can be expected to be beneficial.The few comments made here on the details are only intended to serve as examples of the above-mentioned principles, not to draw any conclusions about the details themselves. What I have presented is not so much a sample of applications as a sample of how they should be used; and this will help both to make their meaning and limits clearer and to the When encountering a certain situation, it is not easy to determine which one to apply. When helping people's judgment, the two are on the same level.

The two maxims are: First, as long as the individual's actions do not involve the interests of anyone other than himself, the individual does not have to be accountable to the society.Advising, advising, persuading, and keeping away from others, when it deems it necessary for their own good, are the only proper steps that society can take to express displeasure or condemnation of his conduct.Second, the individual is accountable for actions harmful to the interests of others, and is liable to either social or legal punishment, if society's opinion considers this or that punishment necessary for its own protection.

It must first be pointed out that we must never assume that there is never a time when such interference cannot be justified because harm or the possibility of harm to the interests of others alone constitutes a justification for social interference.There are many cases in which an individual, in pursuing a legitimate object, inevitably, and therefore legitimately, causes pain or loss to others, or deprives others of a benefit which he has reason to hope for.This kind of conflict of interests between individuals often occurs in a bad social system, and as long as that system exists, it will be unavoidable; but there are others that are unavoidable under any system.For example, whoever succeeds in an idle occupation or in an examination in which everyone competes, whoever wins the election by surpassing others in the competition for a common object, he cannot help but suffer from the loss of others, from the loss of others. In the wasted effort and disappointment, reap the benefits.But it is generally admitted that it is better for the general good of mankind to allow men to pursue their ends with such results without hindrance.In other words, society does not recognize a legal or moral right to freedom from such suffering to its disappointed competitors; nor does it feel a duty to intervene, except when the successful use is not for the general good. Exceptions are made when permissible methods such as fraud, breach of trust and force are used.

Again, trade is a social act.Whoever engages in the sale to the public of goods of whatever kind, does something which affects the interests of others and the general interest of the community, and his actions therefore come, in principle, under the jurisdiction of society.It was upon this account that it was at one time held that the duty of government was to fix the prices of commodities, and to regulate the procedures of manufacture, in all cases which were considered important.But now, after a long struggle, it has been realized that the most efficient way to achieve good quality at low prices is to allow complete freedom for both producers and sellers, and for buyers to have the same freedom to shop around as they please. the only constraint on them.This is the so-called doctrine of free trade; and this doctrine and the principle of individual liberty advocated here are founded on different but equally solid grounds.

Restriction of trade, and of production for the purpose of trade, is indeed a restraint, and every restraint, just because it is a restraint, is a crime; It is wrong to say that influences occur only because they do not really produce the effect that they are expected to produce.As the principle of individual liberty has nothing to do with the doctrine of free trade, it also has nothing to do with most questions concerning the limitations of that doctrine: how much control the public may allow to prevent fraud by adulteration, and what Questions such as to what extent sanitary precautions in factories or measures of protection for workers in dangerous operations can be compelled to be enforced by the factory owner.To say that such questions are questions of liberty is to say that, other things being equal, it is better to leave men to themselves than to control them.As for the control of men for those purposes, no one can deny the lawfulness in principle.On the other hand, there are also issues of interference with trade which are essentially issues of freedom, such as the Mayne Prohibition Act just mentioned, such as the prohibition of the importation of opium into China, such as the prohibition of the sale of poison, in short, the object is to make people not Interventions in which a good is made available or difficult to obtain fall into this category.Interferences of this kind can be objected not to the fact that they violate the liberty of the producer or seller, but that of the buyer.

The restriction of the sale of poisons, in the above few examples, raises a new question, that of what may be called the proper limit of the police function, namely, how far liberty may be violated in order to prevent crime or accident, without being lawful.Undoubtedly one of the undisputed functions of government is to take steps to prevent crime before it is committed, just as it detects and punishes crime after it has been committed.But this preventive function is far more liable to be abused to the detriment of liberty than is the punitive one, for there is hardly anything in the lawful liberty of men's action which cannot be and is justly represented as increasing fault of one kind or another. convenience conditions.

But if a public authority, or even a private person, sees that a crime is clearly being prepared, they may not merely sit by and let it be done, but intervene to prevent it.If the poison is bought or used for no other purpose than to commit murder, then it is lawful to prohibit its manufacture and sale.Poisons, however, may be desired not only for innocent purposes but for useful ones, and restrictions cannot be imposed on that side of the case without prejudice to this one.Again, the prevention of accidents is also the proper function of public authorities.It is not really an offense whether it is a public servant or any person who sees a person approaching a bridge they know to be unsafe, and fails to warn him of the danger, and they may bring him back. liberty; for liberty consists in a man doing what he will, and that man does not fall into the river.Sometimes, however, a misfortune has no certainty but only danger, and no one but himself can judge whether his motives are sufficient to induce him to take the risk. The child, either momentarily deranged, or in a state of mental excitement or concentration unsuited to the full use of the faculty of thought, should only warn of danger, and should not be prevented by force from taking it.Similar considerations, applied to a problem like the sale of poison, also enable us to decide which of several possible forms of regulation violate the principle of liberty.For example, if medicines are labeled with words indicating their dangerous properties, such precautions can be practiced without violating liberty, since the purchaser will never want to know that what he has in his possession is poisonous.

But if a medical practitioner's certificate is required regardless of the circumstances, it will make it expensive and sometimes impossible for people who need such drugs for legal purposes.As far as I can see, the only way to lay down layers of difficulty in the use of poisons for criminal purposes without violating, or even taking into account, the liberty of others who need poisons for their proper use, is to devise ideas such as Bentham's. ) "presupposed evidence" to use the proper words. This method is familiar to everyone in contract-making.When two parties want to enter into a contractual relationship, the law usually has a legal and legitimate requirement that, as a condition for this action to be valid, certain forms of formalities must be observed, such as the signature and seal of the parties, the certification of witnesses, and the like This is so that if there is a dispute afterwards, there will be evidence to prove that the contractual relationship has indeed been established, and there are no circumstances sufficient to make it legally invalid; Obstacles also make it difficult for a contract to be established in a situation where its knowledge would destroy its validity.Precautionary steps of a similar nature may also be practiced in the sale of articles suitable for use as instruments of crime.For example, the seller can be required to register the sale of the goods, stating the exact time of the transaction, the name and address of the buyer, and the exact quality and quantity of the goods sold; Record the answer.In the absence of a doctor's prescription, a third party can also be required to confirm that the purchase was indeed made by someone, in case there is reason to believe that the item was used for criminal purposes afterwards, and can testify.Such restrictive measures generally do not become a substantial obstacle to the purchase of goods, but they are a great substantial obstacle to evading detection and making improper users.

The fact that society has an inherent right to preclude crimes against it by precautionary measures suggests a clear limit to my first maxim, namely, that wrongs which concern the individual alone may be avoided by Ways of legitimate intervention rather than ways of prevention or punishment.The matter of drunkenness, for example, is not usually a proper matter for legal intervention; but if a man has been convicted of a crime by violence against another under the influence of drink, then the law alone places special restrictions on him; let him know If he is found drunk again in the future, he will not be exempted from punishment, and if he commits another crime while drunk, the punishment will be increased; I think it is perfectly legal to do so.It is a crime against another person to get drunk on someone who is drunk enough to hurt someone.In the same way, idleness, excepting those who are paid by the public, except where idleness constitutes a breach of contract, is not a matter of legal punishment without tyranny; If he is unable to fulfill his legal obligations to others, such as the obligation to support children, he can be forced to perform that obligation, or even forced labor when no other method is available. This is not considered tyranny.

Again, there are many actions whose direct damage only affects the person himself, so they should not be prohibited by law, but if they are done publicly, they will destroy the good atmosphere, so they can be classified as crimes against others and be prohibited. , is not justified.All so-called indecency actions fall into this category.This point, which need not be pursued, is rather not directly connected with our subject, since there are many actions which are not at all condemnable in themselves and which no one thinks to be condemnable, which are equally strongly contrary to publicity.

There is another question for which an answer consistent with established principles must be sought.There are private acts, which are not without reproach, but which, in view of the respect for liberty, are inappropriate to be prevented or punished by society, since the direct consequences fall entirely on the individual himself; in such cases the individual may be free Are others also free to persuade or instigate what they do?This question is inevitably somewhat difficult.A person urging another to do a certain action is not, strictly speaking, an act of his own.Advising or inducing others is a kind of social action, so like other actions affecting others, it can be considered as belonging to social control.But a little reflection corrects the previous impression, for although the matter is strictly speaking outside the definition of individual liberty, the reasons on which the principle of individual liberty is based nonetheless apply to it.If men must be allowed to act as they think best in matters that concern them only, and at their own risk, they must also be allowed the same freedom to consult with each other as to what to do , to exchange views with each other, to make and accept each other's proposals. Everything that is permissible must also be permissible.The only doubt on the question is that the abettor derives his own personal advantage from his exhortations, and only if he uses it as a profession for support or pecuniary income to promote what society and the state consider evil. matter.Having said this, it is true that a new factor has been introduced into the complexity of the problem, that is, there are classes of people in society whose interests are contrary to public peace and whose way of life is dependent on public peace. Activity.Should this be interfered with, or should it not be interfered with?Adultery, for example, must be tolerated, and so must gambling; but should a man be freed to be a procuress with whores, or to keep a casino?This case is one of those cases that stand exactly on the dividing line between the two principles, and it is not easy to see which of the two should be attributed at once.Both sides have their arguments.The tolerators say that the mere fact of taking something as a profession to gain a life or profit does not in itself make a thing criminal which would be permissible to do otherwise; It is either always permitted or always prohibited; and if the principles we have been defending, they say, are true, society, being society, has no business to judge wrong in matters that concern the individual alone; Nothing can go beyond the limits of persuasion, and as one man is at liberty to persuasion, another is also at liberty to persuasion.On the contrary, it is argued that although the public or the state is not in a position to judge with authority whether this or that conduct affects only private interests, for purposes of repression or punishment, it is good or bad, yet they do There are good reasons to assume that whether the behavior they consider bad is bad or not is at least a matter of debate.This being assumed, they say, therefore, if the public or the state seeks to exclude the influence of persuasions which are not disinterested, of those instigators who can never be impartial--those instigators It is by no means wrong to have an individual's immediate interest in a line in which the state is convinced to be wrong, and which they openly promote only for the individual's own ends.They insisted on arranging things in such a way that men would make their choices, whether wisely or foolishly, at their urging, as far as possible from those things which aroused their inclinations for their own ulterior motives. People's ingenuity, there will definitely be no loss, and no benefit will be sacrificed.Therefore, they say, although there is absolutely no defense to the written law concerning illegal games, although all are free to gamble in their own or each other's homes, or even at their own endowments, only to members and their members. Gambling in any gathering place open to visitors, but public casinos should still not be permitted.They added that, yes, the ban would never be effective, and that no matter how much tyrannical powers were given to the police, the casinos could maintain their existence under other guises; Such a degree of secrecy and mystery that no one but those who seek them can know anything about them; and, moreover, society should not pay attention to them.I think that these arguments also have considerable weight in this respect.But this is tantamount to admitting that auxiliary criminals should be punished while letting (and must) main criminals go unpunished, brothel owners should be punished with fines or prison terms instead of clients, casino owners should be punished instead of gamblers; as for these arguments Whether it is sufficient to justify this moral anomaly, I do not wish to presume to judge.It would be even more wrong to interfere with ordinary buying and selling activities on similar grounds.Nearly every thing bought and sold may be used in excess, and the seller has a pecuniary interest in encouraging this excess; nonetheless, no one can justify, say, What arguments are there for the Prohibition Laws of the Mayne; for though the peddlers of strong drinks profit from their excesses, they are nonetheless indispensable in their lawful use.But the usefulness of those peddlers to promote intoxication is a real evil, and this justifies the State in imposing restrictions on them and requiring guarantees; violation of legal liberty. There is a further question: whether the state, while permitting what it considers to be contrary to the best interests of the parties concerned, should still give some indirect punishment; Should steps be taken to make alcohol more expensive or to make it more difficult to buy alcohol by limiting the number of hotels?On this question, as on most other practical matters, it must be discussed separately.To speak of a tax simply to make it more difficult for people to buy a stimulant drink differs only in degree from a total prohibition of that drink, and can only be justified if the latter can be justified.Every increase in the cost of a thing is, to those who cannot afford the increased price, an actual prohibition;According to the principle of freedom, after fulfilling their legal and moral obligations to the state and individuals, how people choose to be happy and how to spend their income is their own business and must depend on their own judgment.At first glance, these statements seem to be a criticism of the state's choice of stimulant drinks as a special object of taxation for the purpose of treasury revenue.But it must be remembered that taxation for financial purposes is absolutely unavoidable; and that in most countries a considerable part of the taxation must be indirect; The use of certain consumer products is subject to so-called fines, which for some may be of a prohibited nature.This being so, it is therefore also a duty of the State to take into account, in laying down the taxation, what goods are most likely to be spared by the consumer, and there are, of course, good reasons for giving preference to those goods which, if their use exceeds an extremely limited Substances that would have a very harmful effect in such quantities.It follows that it is not only permissible, but desirable, to tax stimulants up to a sum sufficient to constitute the largest sum in the revenue of the treasury (assuming the state needs it all). As to how much an exclusive privilege the underwriting of such goods should be made, the question will be answered differently according to the purpose to which the restriction is intended.Generally speaking, police restraint is required in all places where the public often gathers, but such places are especially necessary, because some disturbing things to the society are especially prone to occur in such places.The right to sell such goods (at least that which is consumed on the spot) may be restricted, therefore, to persons of known or generally assured conduct; Ease of surveillance by the public; revocation of license to operate in case of repeated breaches of the peace by the connivance or incompetence of the shopkeeper, or in case of conversion of the shop into a secret club for the making and preparation of crimes—these restrictions methods are appropriate. Any further restrictions, it seems to me, cannot be justified in principle.To limit the number of beer and liquor stores, for instance, apparently in order to make beer and alcohol more difficult to obtain and to reduce occasions of such temptation, is to inconvenient all just because some will abuse the convenience.Nay, this method is only compatible with another social situation, which is to openly treat the working class as children or savages, and to educate them by restraint, so that they will be fit for the future promise to them. the privilege of liberty. As in any free country, this is by no means an avowed principle governing the laboring classes.Moreover, no one who can rightly value liberty would be willing to be governed in this way unless it has been conclusively proved, after all efforts have been made to educate them about liberty, and to govern them as free Can be governed like a child.The mere statement of these two alternatives is enough to show that it is absurd to think that in any case we have made such an effort to develop a capacity for freedom that we must be considered here. .In our country, because many institutions are a mass of contradictions, on the one hand there are many things belonging to the despotic government or the so-called hereditary system of government mixed into our daily affairs, while on the other hand the general Liberty in turn prevents us from exercising the necessary amount of control over constraints for a truly effective moral education. It has been pointed out in the previous part of this article that the meaning of the so-called individual freedom in matters that only concern individuals also correspondingly includes the freedom of several individuals to jointly stipulate through mutual agreement on common matters that concern only them and not others.On this question no difficulty arises, so long as the individual wills of the participants remain the same; but as wills are subject to change, it is often necessary to enter into a covenant among themselves even in matters which concern only themselves; And when they have done so, it is a general rule to keep the covenant.But perhaps in the laws of every country there are certain exceptions to this general rule.Not only are people not obliged to abide by a contract that violates the rights of a third party, but when a certain contract is harmful to the parties themselves, this is sometimes a sufficient reason for them to rescind that contract. For example, in our country and in most other civilized countries, a contract to sell oneself as a slave, or to allow another to sell one's body as a slave, is legally invalid, void, and neither law nor public opinion can enforce it.The grounds for thus limiting a man's power to voluntarily dispose of his own life's destiny are obvious, and are especially evident in this extreme case.It turns out that the reason why a man's voluntary actions should not be interfered with except for the sake of others is his liberty.His voluntary choice proves that what he voluntarily chooses is desirable to him, or at least tolerable; and his good is generally best served by letting him pursue his own course.But the act of selling one's body into slavery is to renounce his liberty, and in one act to renounce forever any use of liberty.In this way he undermines in his own conduct the very end which was left to him to dispose of himself.He was no longer a free man, and he was henceforth in a position in which no favorable conjectures could be made because of his voluntary residence. The principle of liberty cannot require a person to be free not to be free.It is not liberty that a man is allowed to cede his liberty.These reasons, whose force has been shown so clearly in this particular case, are evidently applicable to far wider ranges; but they are everywhere subject to limitations, because the necessities of life constantly demand that we Not giving up our freedoms, of course, but agreeing to limit some freedoms here and there.However, the principle that the parties should have uncontrolled freedom of action in matters that concern only themselves still requires that the parties bound by the contract can each rescind that contract in matters that do not concern the third party; If such voluntary rescission were not permitted, there would probably be no contract or covenant; except in matters of money or the value of money, there would be no liberty to withdraw from it.Humboldt, in the excellent paper cited above, states his belief that no contract involving a personal relationship or service should be legally binding for more than a limited period of time; he also refers to The most important type of this kind of contract is the marriage relationship, which is considered to be characterized by the fact that if the two parties are not in harmony, the goal of the union will disappear, so the two parties can only declare their dissolution.This subject is too important and complicated to discuss in a single interjection, and I can only touch on it to the extent necessary for the purpose of illustration.I think that if the brevity of Humbolt's treatise did not satisfy him at this point to state the conclusion without discussing the premises, he would no doubt have realized that the problem could not be used as he limited it. based on such a simple basis. A man who, whether by promise or conduct, encourages another to trust that he will continue a certain course of action, expects and intends what will happen to him, and bases part of his life plan on that assumption, then he There is a new set of moral obligations owed to that person, which he may choose to renounce, but which cannot be ignored. As for the consequences to others caused by the relationship between the two contracting parties, resulting in a special situation for the third party, or even the existence of a third party as in the marriage relationship, then the contracting parties will have no effect on those third parties. Neither party is free from obligations, and the fulfillment of such obligations, or at least the manner in which they are to be fulfilled, must be greatly affected by the continuation or cessation of the existing relationship between the contracting parties.This is not to say, and I cannot concede that, that these duties go so far as to require the performance of the contract at the expense of all happiness, however reluctantly; What Walter said should not affect the legal freedom of the two parties to terminate the contract (I also believe that there should not be much impact), and it must also greatly affect the morality of both parties. The kind of freedom in Shanghai.It is the duty of a man to take all these circumstances into account before he decides to take a step which affects the interests of others so greatly; Be morally responsible.I make this superficial remark for the better illustration of the general principle of liberty, not because of any necessity in this particular question, on which the interests of the child are usually discussed in the opposite direction. Treat it as everything without focusing on the interests of the big man. I have said before that, because of the lack of an accepted general principle, people often grant liberty where it should not be granted, and often do not grant liberty where it should be granted.In the world of modern Europe there is one thing in which the liberty is strongest, and it seems to me to be quite misplaced.As far as a person is concerned, he should be free to do what he likes with his own affairs, but he should not be equally free to do what he likes on behalf of others under the pretext that other people's affairs are his own affairs.On the part of the state, it should respect the individual liberty of each man in matters peculiar to him, while at the same time it is obliged to maintain a careful control over the power which it allows each man to exercise over others.Yet the State has almost completely neglected this duty of its own in the matter of family relations, which, in its immediate effect on the happiness of mankind, is more profound than all the others put together. An important question.The husband's almost despotic power over his wife needs no further elaboration here, for nothing is more necessary than that the wife should have the same rights as other men, and with Others are equally protected by the law; and secondly because those who justify this established injustice do not use liberty as an excuse at all, but openly speak from the standpoint of champions of power.Speaking of misapplying the concept of liberty with regard to children, this really constitutes an obstacle to the fulfillment of the State's obligations.People think that their children are really (rather than in a metaphorical sense) a part of whose children, and when the law shows that the absolute control of the parents over their children is not allowed to be interfered with by outsiders, it will appear. even more than when their own liberty of action is interfered with; and human beings have generally valued liberty far less than they valued power.Take the matter of education as an example.Is it not almost an axiom that the state should require and compel a certain degree of education of every man who is a citizen by birth?But who is not afraid to admit and assert this truth?Yes, no one denies that once a parent has brought a person into the world, he should give him an education so that he can perform his duties well to others and himself throughout his life. Theirs (or, according to existing laws and customs, only the father's) is one of the most sacred duties.But, although all were unanimous in proclaiming this duty upon the father, none could bear it when it was heard that he was to be compelled to perform it.Not only is he not required to make any effort or sacrifice to obtain an education for his children, but even if there is a free education in front of him, are they allowed to accept it or not?Everyone has not yet realized that it is a disservice to that unfortunate offspring, and to society as a whole, that a man begets a child without adequate anticipation of feeding not only his body but also the training of his mind. Moral crimes; and it is not yet recognized that, if the parents do not fulfill this duty, the state should supervise it, so that it is fulfilled as far as possible under the burden of the parents. People are now turning the difficult questions of what the state should teach and how it should be taught, etc., into the subjects of partisan polemics, wasting the time and labor which should be devoted to the administration of education in quarrels about education; Obligation, and all these difficulties will be brought to an end.As long as the government is determined to require every child to receive a good education, it does not need to worry about preparing for this education.The joy of being parents allows children to get education wherever they want. This is up to them. The state only needs to help children from poorer families to pay school fees, and pay all school fees for children who are completely unaffordable. This is enough.You know, it is one thing to have education compelled by the state, and quite another to have that education directed by the state itself; of.If it is said that all or most of the education of the people is placed in the hands of the state, I am no less opposed than anyone else. I have already mentioned how important the individuality of character is, and how important differences of opinion and behavior are. All of this goes hand in hand with the equally ineffable importance of educational diversity.To have a general education administered by the state would be nothing more than to cast men alike in a mold; The majority of the people—the one to please—inevitably forms a certain tyranny over the minds and, naturally, over the person, in proportion to its effectiveness and success.This kind of state-organized and controlled education, if it has any room to exist, should exist only as one of many competitive experiments, and should only have the purpose of demonstrating and encouraging other educational institutions to achieve a certain standard of excellence. conduct.In fact, only when the state of society as a whole is so backward that it cannot or does not want to organize any proper educational institution, instead of the government taking up the enterprise, under the consideration of "the lesser of two evils", it can Let the government itself conduct the business of the schools and universities; just as the government may conduct itself the business of joint stock companies in a country where no private enterprise of some kind is fit to undertake the important work of industry. But generally speaking, if there is no shortage of people in the country who are qualified to conduct educational undertakings under the protection of the government, as long as the law provides for compulsory education and the state pays poor children scholarships to ensure that running schools will not be unpaid, then they will would be able and willing to provide an equally good education on a voluntary basis. 实行这项法律规定的工具只能是公开考试，施及所有儿童，并从早岁开始。可以规定一个年龄，叫每一儿童开始受试，以断定他（或她）是否已能阅读。如果有个孩子还不能阅读，对于他的父亲，除非他有可得原谅的充足理由，就可处以一笔适中的罚款，必要时还可叫他用自己的劳动来筹措缴纳，并由他负担费用把孩子送入学校。每过一年应举行一次新的考试，逐渐扩展考试科目的范围，这样就在实际上强制了所有儿童普遍获得特别是普遍保有一定的最小限度的普通知识。在这个最小限度之外，还应当有各种科目的自愿考试，凡精通程度达到一定标准的人可以要求发给证书。为防范国家会通过这些安排来对人们的意见施加不正当的影响起见，凡考试中甚至较高一级的考试中所测验的知识（除那部分工具性的知识如各种语言文字及其用法之类不计外）应当严格地限制在事实和实证科学的范围之内。关于宗教、政治或者其他有争论的课题的考试，不应当变成测验意见真伪，而应当只是测验事实知识，例如说某某作家、某某学派或者某某教会曾根据什么什么理由主张什么什么意见。在这种制度之下，方兴的一代在一切有争论的真理方面并不会比现在的一代陷于较为困难的处境；他们仍然和后者一样可以被培育成或奉国教或不奉国教的人，国家只不过照管他们成为有教养的教徒或者有教养的非教徒罢了。不阻挡他们在受到各种其他教育的同一学校中也受到宗教教育，假如他们的父母愿意的话。国家若试图在有争论的题目上使它的公民得到倾于一方的结论，就是一种罪恶；但是若要断定并证明一个人在任何所设的值得注意的题目上保有为做出结论所必需的知识，却是很正当的。一个攻读哲学的学生，不论他是信服康德（Kant）还是信服洛克（Locke）！或者甚至两个都不信服，若能既经得起关于康德的考试，又经得起关于洛克的考试，那总是更好一些；同样，若对一个无神论者给以有关基督教各种证验的考试，只要不要求他宣称相信它们，那也没有理由可以反对。关于较高的各部门知识的考试，我以为应当是完全自愿的。若让政府握有这样的权力，一说某人不够资格就不能得到职业，即使是不能得到教书的职业，那就未免太危险了。我和罕波尔特的意见一样，认为对凡来应试并经测验及格的人，都应授予学位或者其他关于学问成就或职业成就的官方证书；但是这类证件除会受到公众意见对其证言的重视外，绝不应当更成为在职业竞争上压倒他人的优越条件。 把自由的概念用错了地方，便会阻碍人们在最有根据可以认定父母负有道德义务的事情上认识不到这种道德义务，也会阻碍国家在有些最有根据应当课以法律义务的事情上不去课加这种法律义务；不止在教育问题上是这样。造成一个人的存在，这件事实本身就是人类生活范围中最有责任的行动之一。谁要承揽这个责任，谁要授与可以是祸可以是福的生命，除非那个被授与生命的人将来至少会有取得称意生存的一般机会，那就是对那个人的犯罪行为。在一个人口已经过多或者有人口过多的威胁的国度里，若生出为数稍多的孩子，结果会因有他们的竞争而降低劳动的报酬，这对于一切依靠劳动报酬维持生活的人们也是一个严重的侵犯。欧洲大陆许多国度在法律中规定，凡男女双方不能表现有维持一家生活的手段时便不得结婚，这并没有越出国家的合法权力的范围；这种法律无论定得合宜不合宜（这问题主要地要看当地的情况和情绪而定），都不能认为它违犯自由而加以反对。 这种法律乃是国家为禁止有害行动而作的干涉；这种行动既然有害于他人，即使说还不宜加以法律的惩罚，也是应当受到谴责，受到社会的诟非的。但目前流行的自由观念却是：一方面，在看到一个人在只关自身的事情上遭到到真正侵犯时，竟十分容易屈从；另一方面，对那人的意向，当任其纵情做去，结果是把一个或几个不幸的、堕落的生命加于后代，还会对影响所及的许多旁人以他们的行动通过任何方式引起多种祸害的时候，反倒反对施加任何约束。人类既这样奇怪地尊重自由，又那样奇怪地缺乏对于自由的尊重，我们只要把这两方面比照一下，就可以想象一个人竟享有一种不可少的为害他人的权利，却一点也没有只求自娱而无伤于人的权利。 最后，我还保留一些篇幅要谈谈一大类有关政府干涉的限度问题，这问题虽与本文的主题密切相连，但严格说来却不在它的范围之内。有一类事情，其所以不容政府干涉的理由并不涉及自由的原则；问题不在拘束个人行动，而在帮助他们行动；这也就是要问，政府应否为了人们的好处而替他们办些事或者叫他们办些事，而不要把那些事一概留给他们自己去办，无论是每人各自去办或者是自愿联合起来去办。 不涉及侵犯自由问题而反对政府干涉的可有三种不同的情况。 第一种是，所要办的事，若由个人来办会比由政府来办更好一些。一般说来，凡办理一项事业或者决定怎样来办和由谁来办那项事业，最适宜的人莫若在那项事业上有切身利害关系的人。这条原理就判定了，立法机关或政府官吏不应当象一度通行过的那样干涉到普通的工业生产过程。这部分问题已经有政治经济学家作过充分详尽的讨论，而且和本文的原则也没有特殊的关连。 第二种的反对则比较切近于我们的主题。有许多事情，虽然由一些个人来办一般看来未必能象政府官吏办得那样好，但是仍宜让个人来办而不要由政府来办；因为作为对于他们个人的精神教育的手段和方式来说，这样可以加强他们主动的才能，可以锻炼他们的判断能力，还可以使他们在留给他们去对付的课题上获得熟习的知识。人们之所以主张陪审制度（在非政治性的案件上），主张自由的、平民的地方自治和城市自治，主张由自愿的联合组织来办理工业和慈善事业，这一点乃是主要的理由，虽然不是唯一的理由。这些都不是自由问题，只是在遥远的趋势上和自由问题有关；但它们乃是发展问题。这些事情，在另一场合，还可以作为国民教育的一部分来加以细论；这实在也就是说，它们乃是对于一个公民的特种训练，乃是自由人民的政治教育的实践部分，足以把他们从个人的和家庭的自私性的狭小圈子中拔出来，足以使他们习惯于领会共同的利益和管理共同有关的事情，也就是足以使他们习惯于从公的或半公的动机出发来行动，并以促进彼此联合而不是导致彼此孤立的目的来指导自己的行为。一个自由组织若缺乏这些习惯和力量就既不能活动也不能维持；如若干国度中政治自由不充分建筑在地方自由的基础上便往往只昙花一现，就是例证。纯粹地方性事务应由地方管理，巨大工业企业应由自愿出资者的联合组织管理，这两点之所以值得推荐，还有其更进一步的理由，那就是本文前面所提出的发展的个别性和行动方式的歧异性所具有的各种优点。政府的工作趋于到处一样化，相反，个人和自愿联合组织则会做出各种不同的实验，得出无穷多样的经验。政府所能做的有用之事，只是使自己成为一个集中保管者，积极地把多种试验所得出的经验分发和传播出去。它的任务在于使得每一个实验者不是只许自己实验不容别人实验，而是都能够从另一些实验者那里获得教益。 主张限制政府干涉的第三种理由也即最有力的理由乃是说，不必要地增加政府的权力，会有很大的祸患。在政府现有职能之外的每一增加，都是以更加扩大散布其对人们希望和恐惧心理的影响，都足以使得活跃而富于进取性的一部分公众愈来愈变成政府的依存者，或者变成旨在组成政府的某一党派的依存者。假如公路、铁路、银行、保险机关、巨大的合股公司、大学、以及各种公共兹善机关等都变成政府的分支机构；再假如市政公会和地方议事会以及现在传留给它们的一切也都变成中央行政系统的一些部门；又假如所有这些不同事业的从业员都由政府来任用和支付薪金，因而其生活上的每一提高都要巴望政府来赐予；那么，即使有一切所谓出版自由和平民的立法组织，也不足以使这个国度或任何国度成为一个名符其实的自由之国。并且，这种行政机器愈是构造得有效率和科学化，网罗最有资格的能手来操纵这个机器的办法愈是巧妙，为患就愈大。 在英国，近来有人建议，政府行政职务上所用职员一概应以竞试的办法来选取，以便为那些职务求得所能得到的最有智力和最有教养的人士。关于这个建议，赞成和反对两方面都有不少言论和文章。反对方面所最坚持的论据之一是说，国家的永久公仆这个职业在薪金报酬和显要地位两点上都并没有足以吸引高才的前景，那些高才总是能够在各种职业方面或者在公司和其他公众团体的职务方面找到更诱人的生涯的。我想，这种论据若由维护这个命题的朋友用来答复对于它的主要质难，人们不会感到惊异。现在竟出诸反对者之口，这就很奇怪了。这里所提出作为反对那个建议的制度的说法恰恰成为它的保险闸。如果一国中所有高才竟能被吸入政府的职务中去，那么一个趋向于做到这种结果的建议才真足以引起不安。试想，假如凡需要组织协调或需要以广大和全面的见解来从事的社会事业，其各个部分都掌握在政府手中；又假如政府的职司普遍都有最能干的人来充任；那么，一国中所有扩大起来的文化和实践出来的智慧，除掉那些纯粹思考性的以外，势必都集中于一个人数众多的官僚机构，而群体中其余的人势必只注目在它身上来谋求一切：一般群众要做什么，须求它指导和指挥；有能力有大志的人们则向它谋求个人的升进。于是，谋求钻进这个官僚机构，钻进之后又谋求步步高升，就成为大家进取的唯一目标。在这种政制之下，不仅在外边的公众由于缺少实践经验之故没有资格来批评或约制这个官僚机构的工作，就是专制制度的偶然机遇或者平民制度的自然运用间或使一们若者若干有志改革的统治者掌握大权，也不能实施与这个官僚机构利益相反的改革。从一些有充分机会的观察者的记载看来，俄罗斯帝国的可悲情况就是这样。沙皇本人也没有权力反对那个官僚集团；他能把那个集团的任何一人放逐到西伯利亚，但是他不能脱离他们或者违反他们的意志而进行统治。他们对于沙皇的每项诏令都有一个不声不响的否决权，只要不把它付诸实施就得了。在文明比较先进和反抗精神较多的国度里，一般公众既习惯于指望国家替他们代办一切，或者至少习惯于若不问准国家让做什么以至怎样做法便什么为他们自己的事也不去做，他们自然就要认定凡有临到他们身上的灾祸一概应由国家负责，而一到灾祸超过他们忍耐限度的时候，他们就起来反对政府而形成所谓革命；是另一个某人，不论有没有向国族取得合法的权威，跃上了统治者的席位，又对那个官僚机构发布他的命令，而一切事态仍与以前无异，那个官僚机构既未改变，也没有别人能够取而代之。 在惯于自己处理自己的事务的人民当中，景况就迥不相同了。在法国，很大一部分人民曾从事于兵役，其中有很多人至少担任过下士级的军官，因此在每次平民起事当中总有些人能够担当领导，并能临时做出相当象样的行动计划。法国人在军事方面是如此，美国人即在各项行政事务方面能够做到这样；试令没有政府来管他们，美国人的任何一个团体都能即时组成政府，以足够的智慧、秩序和果断来进行那个或任何其他公共事务。 凡自由人民都应该是这样；而凡能够这样的人民必定是有自由的；这样的人民永不会因有什么人或者什么团体能够抓住并控制住中央管理机构就让自己为他们所奴役。对于这样的人民，没有一个官僚机构能希望强使他们去做或者去经受他们所不欢喜的事。可是若在凡事必经官僚机构来办的地方，凡为官僚机构所真正反对的事就没有一件能办得通。 这种国度的结构乃是把这个国族的经验和实际能力组织成一个有纪律的团体，为了对其余的人进行管治；这个组织自身愈是完善，它从群体各等级中为自己吸收并训练最能干的人员愈是成功，那么它对包括这官僚机构的成员在内的一切人们的束缚也就愈加完整。因为管治者自己也成为他们的组织和纪律的奴隶，正不亚于被管治者之成为管治者的奴隶。中国的一个大官和一个最卑下的农夫一样，同是一种专制政体的工具和仆役。耶稣会的一个个别会友乃是这社团的最卑微的奴隶，虽然这社团自身却是为成员们的集体权力和地位而存在的。 还有一点也不可忘记，那就是说，若把一国中的主要能手尽数吸收入管治团体之内，这对于那个团体自身的智力活动和进步说来，也迟早是致命的。他们既经结成一个队伍，运用着一个和所有制度一样必然要在很大程度上依靠定则来进行的制度，这个官吏团体便不免在经常的诱引下逐步堕入惰性相沿的例行公事之中，或者，假如他们有时也厌弃那种老马推磨的作风的话又猝然陷入这个团体的某一领导成员所偶然幻想出来的没有完全经过证验的、不成熟的见解里面。要遏止这两种貌似相反实则密切相联的趋势，要刺激这个团体的能力使其保持高度水准，唯一的条件是应对在这个团体外面的有同等能力的监视批评负责。因此，要在政府之外保有某些手段来形成这种能力，并给以为对重大实际事务做出正确判断所必需的机会和经验，这是必不可少的。如果我们还想永久保有一个有技巧、有效率的工作团体——尤其是一个能够创新和愿意采取改进办法的团体；如果我们还不想让我们的官僚机构堕落为一个腐儒机构，那么，这个团体就切不可把一切足以养成为管治人类所需要的才具的职业都垄断起来。 要判定那些对于人类自由和进步是如此可怕的灾祸究竟到哪一点就开始发生，或者更清楚地说，要判定那些灾祸究竟到哪一点就会压过在社会公认的领袖之下集体应用社会力量以排除社会福祉的障碍所得到的好处而开始成为灾祸；要尽量获致集中权力和集中智慧的优点而又不致把一般活动过量地转入政府方面，这乃是政治艺术中最困难最复杂的问题之一。这问题在很大程度上乃是一个细目问题，须从多种不同的考虑来看，而无法定出一条绝对的规则。但是据我所信，有一条妥当的实践原则，有一个心目中应存的理想，有一个足以测定旨在克服这个困难的一切安排的标准，可以用如下的字句表述出来：要做到符合于效率原则的最大限度的权力分散；但也要尽可能做到最大限度的情报集中，还要尽最大的可能把情报由中枢散播出去。譬如说，在内政的行政管理方面，例如在新英格兰诸省，凡不宜由直接有关的人们自己去办的各项事务，都应细加分类，各设官职，人选则由各个地方自行选出；但是在此之外，在地方事务的每一部门，中央还应各设一个监督机关，形成一般政府的一个部门。这个监督机关的职能是要把各地方在各该部门工作中所得各种情报和经验，要把外国类似工作中所得各种情报和经验，还要把政治科学一般原则中所有各种情报和经验，全都集中起来，象集中在一个焦点那样。 这个中央机关应当有权了解一切做过的事情，其特殊义务则在使一个地方所得出的知识能为其他地方所利用。由于它所处地位高，观察范围广，不为一个地方的琐细偏见和狭隘眼光所局限，所以它的通报自然就带有很大的权威；至于它的实际权力，作为一个永久性的设置来说，我以为应当只限于强迫地方官吏服从为指导他们而制定的法律。凡在一般法规中没有预作规定的事，一概应由地方官吏自行裁处，但要对他们的选民负责。 若违犯法规，他们应对法律负责，而法规本身则应由立法机关制定；中央行政权威只应注视法规之执行，如见法规未得正当实行，应视事件的性质，或向法院诉请强制执行，或向原选机构诉请罢免那未照立法精神执行法规的工作人员。照它的一般概念说来，英国的中央救济会所试图施加于全国救济税管理人员的监督就是这样。它行使权力如有超过这个限度之处，在那种特殊情况下也是正当和必要的，那是为了要在不仅对各个地方而且对整个群体都有深刻影响的事情上纠正一些积习甚深的不良管理；因为，任何地方都不容有一种道德权利，可以因管理失当之故而把自己变成一个贫民窝巢，以致必然流向其他地方，从而有损于整个劳动群体的精神的和物质的状况。 中央救济会之保有实行行政强制和制定附属法规的权力（但是由于对这个问题的舆论情况，他们很少行使这些权力），这在头等的有关全国利益的情事上固不失为正当，但若监督到纯属地方利益的事情，那就完全不适当了。但是，一个对各个地方供给情报并进行指导的中央机关在一切行政部门中是同样有价值的。一切政府的活动，只要不是妨碍而是帮助和鼓舞个人的努力与发展，那是不厌其多的。可是，政府一到不去发挥个人和团体的活动与力量却以它自己的活动去代替他们的活动的时候；一到不是对他们进行指教、劝导并有时指摘而是叫他们在束缚之下工作，或是叫他们退立一旁而自己去代替他们工作的时候，害处就开始发生了。国家的价值，从长远看来，归根结蒂还在组成它的全体个人的价值。一个国家若只图在管理技巧方面或者在事务细节实践上所表现的类似的东西方面稍稍较好一些，而竟把全体个人智力的扩展和提高这一基本利益推迟下来；一个国家若只为——即使是为着有益的目的——使人们成为它手中较易制驭的工具而阻碍他们的发展，那么，它终将看到，小的人不能真正做出大的事；它还将看到，它不惜牺牲一切而求得的机器的完善，由于它为求机器较易使用而宁愿撤去了机器的基本动力，结果将使它一无所用。