Mill and Economic Liberty

This is originally all one paragraph but I am separating out here three sections

1) Again, trade is a social act. Whoever undertakes to sell any description of goods to the
public, does what affects the interest of other persons, and of society in general; and
thus his conduct, in principle, comes within the jurisdiction of society ...

2) But it is now recognized, though not till after a long struggle, that both the cheapness and the good quality of commodities are most effectually provided for by leaving the producers andsellers perfectly free, under the sole check of equal freedom to the buyers for supplying themselves elsewhere. This is the so-called doctrine of Free Trade, which rests on grounds different from, though equally solid with, the principle of individual liberty asserted in this Essay.

3) As the principle of individual liberty is not involved in the doctrine of Free Trade, so neither is it in most of the questions which arise respecting the limits of that doctrine: as for example, what amount of public control is admissible for the prevention of fraud by adulteration; how far sanitary precautions, or arrangements to protect work people employed in dangerous occupations, should be enforced on employers. Such questions involve considerations of liberty, only in so far as leaving people to themselves is always better, cæteris paribus, than controlling them: but that they may be legitimately controlled for these ends, is in principle undeniable.

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Chapter V Applications

#1, As has been pointed out by many before me, applies to almost any action. If that is all it takes to nullify the "principle of liberty", then it seems almost everything comes under the jurisdiction of society.

#2, Mill continually argues that his moral theory is based on calculations of utility. How is it that any bona fide "principle" rests on different grounds?

#3, Mill is in line with other economists like Sidgwick who allow for a list of regulations. These lists are are much longer than those of the radical capitalists; it is the legitimacy of control that radical capitalists will challenge.

Economic Liberty

In the first chapter of "Capitalism and Freedom" Milton Friedman argues that economic and political liberty are connected. Specifically that economic liberty is necessary for political liberty. Friedman devotes most of the discussion to an analysis of freedom under socialism where socialism is understood as state ownership of the means of production.

His argument also applies to a host of market economists who do not see the connection. In "The End of Laissez faire" Keynes argues that semi-autonomous state agencies are the optimal form of organization. Friedman directly addresses whether such agencies could plausible be expected to remain autonomous.

Friedman's argument also directly addresses John Stuart Mill's claim in On Liberty that "the principle of individual liberty is not involved in the doctrine of Free Trade" (Chapter V pp 166-169. See Library Page ). As Friedman rightly points out, economic freedom is an important freedom in its own right. Second, the freedom that the principle of liberty seeks to protect is not somehow immune or separate from the economic sphere.

To live and believe as I see fit requires I be able to employ resources for my survival, comfort, and even promulgation of my beliefs. In a society where the state owned everything, if I disagree with the state it is no more possible to live my own life than it is to own my own property. Those who disagree with Walmart can shop, and seek employment, elsewhere. Those who disagree with the central committee have no such option.