John Stuart Mill and the Dangers from Unrestrained Government

Richard Ebeling emails:

Dear Bob,

I have a new article on the news and commentary website, “EpicTimes,” on, “John Stuart Mill and the Dangers from Unrestrained Government.”

The “classical economists” of the nineteenth century were often insightful and wise in their understanding of the dangers from government intervention in the market place.

Even John Stuart Mill, who is often considered the “bridge” between the older advocates of laissez-faire and the compromisers whose arguments have lead to socialism and the interventionist state, was not a fool on the consequences of unstrained government regulation.

He explained in a manner that still rings true today that government and its political manipulators are always tempted by and attempting to use the coercive power at their disposal to benefit themselves (and their friends) at the expense of others in society.

He keenly understood the lack of knowledge and ability on the part of politicians and bureaucrats to direct economic affairs better than allowing each person to decide how best to use their knowledge and abilities in free market association with others.

And he proposed limiting the voting franchise to only those not receiving government subsidies, redistributions and benefits, because those who received such favors from government would use their votes to maintain them and enlarge them at the expense of the net taxpaying members of society.

So, what lead such an astute thinker and economist, at the end of the day, to be an influence for the growth of the very government powers he warned against? His starting premise on political and economic policy issues was the misdirected notion that government should attempt to advance the common “happiness” of “society” and individuals had to conform to – to sacrifice for – how this common good and general welfare came to be defined.

He had turned his back on the earlier tradition of “natural rights,” that each individual had certain rights to life, liberty and property as derived by reason and reflection on the nature of man. And that government’s purpose and limits were to secure and protect each individual in his rights, rather than to make the individual a slave to a mythical collective concept of the “good of the whole” somehow separate from and independent of the good of each peaceful himself.

http://www.epictimes.com/richardebeling/2015/08/john-stuart-mill-and-the-dangers-from-unrestrained-government/

Best,
Richard