Under the editorship of Chris Berg, the IPA Review is generally much improved. But its recent list of Australia’s 13 biggest mistakes contains some rather eccentric entries.
One of these is to put the publication of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty on the list. The entry doesn’t argue against On Liberty itself, but rather that its popularity rubbed of on some of Mill’s other books, which contained ideas supporting protectionism, which in turn contributed to the rise of tariffs in the new federation that began in 1901.
Generally, Mill was in favour of free trade. But the source of the trouble was this passage in his Principles of Political Economy:
The only case in which, on mere principles of political economy, protecting duties can be defensible, is when they are imposed temporarily (especially in a young and rising nation) in hopes of naturalizing a foreign industry, in itself perfectly suitable to the circumstances of the country.
Stuart Macintyre’s A Colonial Liberalism reports that:
Colonists invoked this section of the Principles so often and so liberally that Mill added a passage to the 1860s edition that carefully insulated his ‘infant industries’ argument from the protectionist heresy he saw flourishing in places like Victoria.
While Mill’s ideas were used – or misused – in the 19th century, it is a rather dubious move to blame a book that wasn’t even about trade policy for the trade policies that were implemented in Australia. Are we to believe that if On Liberty had never been published that Australia would have adopted free trade? The interests allied in favour of protectionism would have succeeded with or without whatever intellectual respectability this passage from Mill gave them, and indeed another of the IPA Review mistakes (the end of the Reid government in 1905) gives some of the blame to the Free Trade party itself.
Against this, too, we need to consider the good On Liberty has done and is doing. While Mill’s Principles of Political Economy are deservedly long forgotten, On Liberty‘s ideas on free speech and individuality and his harm principle continue to be influential nearly 150 years after the book was published. I doubt there was a social liberalisation over the last century in which Mill’s arguments haven’t played a part. When I was assessing entries in a recent CIS essay competition Mill’s ideas kept coming up, and he’s there again in a robust defence of free speech that fellow blogger Steve Edwards has coming up in the next issue of Policy. It’s probably the only nineteenth century political work that’s still relevant to us today, and still a force for freedom.
9 thoughts on “Was publishing John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty a mistake?”
I have posted some comments on this at the following site:
I wonder whether the IPA are aware that banning a book is a rather anthema to most liberals (especially if the book does not advocate violence or describe in explicit detail how to hurt other people)?
As I have noted on Damien’s blog, the IPA Review does not expressly say that On Liberty should have been banned, but it provides an argument that a book banner could use – just as Mill unintentionally gave respectability to Victorian protectionists. On this logic, there is an argument for banning the IPA Review as well, as it may in future give respectability to book banners.
Sadly, the Reid government ended 100 years earlier than your post would have us believe.
I guess in Winter he would be an Ice Berg and when pigs were flying a hamberger!!
William – I will put that on my list of 13 biggest mistakes made on the blog. Corrected now.
Sinclair – I’m slightly embarrassed to admit that I have no memory of reading any of Spencer’s books, but the fact that this is the first time I have been caught out on this omission I think says something about Spencer’s contemporary status. Perhaps some of Spencer’s ideas survive (and at least one famous phrase) but his books are rarely cited in contemporary debates.
Much quoted (as a perjoritive) and little read. Okay, then I agree, nothing of importance was published in the 19 century.
qxry tlqmjxozg mnxbzw pimab krptf aytxlzn hmefpvx