The Mills

James Mill and his son, John Stuart Mill supported the utilitarian doctrine. James Mill, carrying on the tradition of Bentham, argued that representative democracy is the only legitimate form of government, as it alone conforms to the principles of utility. He also supported ‘property as the chief source of pleasure. Linking the right to property with the doctrine of utility he says, ‘the greatest possible happiness of society is … attained by insuring to every man the greatest possible quantity of the produce of his labor.²⁸ Here James Mill combines Locke’s concern for property without invoking the theory of natural rights (utilitarianism opposed the theory of natural rights) with the utilitarian principle and argues for a form of government that ensures the greatest liberty for acquiring property. For James Mill, as for other liberal thinkers, liberal democratic government based on representation must ensure the conditions for individuals to pursue their goal of acquisition and happiness. He rejected the monarchical and aristocratic forms of government as unsuitable for achieving the happiness of individual. According to Macpherson, ‘the case for a democratic system’ argued by Bentham and James Mill, ‘is purely a protective case’. The democratic government based on ‘one person, one vote’ will be the mechanism to protect the citizens against the government.²⁹ Macpherson classifies Bentham and James Mill’s views of democratic government as ‘protective democracy’.

Though John Stuart Mill revised the doctrine of utilitarianism on the grounds of an individual’s moral self-development and is generally considered a supporter of positive liberty and grounds of welfare, his ideas contributed to negative liberty also. Mill was a staunch defender of freedom of speech and expression. He supported the view that the individual so far as his ‘self-regarding’ activities are concerned should not be interfered with. In fact, J. S. Mill’s primary objective in defending individual liberty in such a way is to find out the ‘nature and limits of the power a society can legitimately exercise over the individual’. As such, it is not only a clearest expression of defence of individual liberty against government’s power but also against the tyranny of the society, which in a democratic set up is majority.

Tom Paine who celebrated the Rights of Man also contributed to the cause of limited government and individual liberty espoused classical liberalism. He denounced the State as a ‘necessary evil’ and supported the concept of the natural rights of man. However, Paine did not support the social contract theory and rejected it as a ‘clog in the wheel of progress’. His support to the natural rights is grounded on teleological basis, as is the case with Green. This means, rights are inherent in the very existence of man as its purpose or teleos is human life. Paine argued for a limited state with limited functions. He says, ‘while society in any state is blessing, government, even in the best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one’.³⁰ What Paine means is that society in any state (even could be a state of nature) is good; institution of government by social contract to come out of the state of nature (not a wholly undesirable state for Paine) is to be tolerated as a necessary evil. Tom Paine would never accept an absolutist or maximalist state, as it would be worst.

Seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Europe and America were the period of negative liberalism. Negative liberalism insists on non-interference or only minimal and necessary interference by the State in the political and economic realm of the individual. In the political field, the liberal democratic set-up with charter of rights, separation of power and check and balances have been favoured. Interference of the State in production, commerce, trade and industry and entrepreneurship is denied to ensure economic liberty of the individual. This philosophy of negative liberalism or classical liberalism was in expectation with and in support to the rising industrial and capitalist class in Europe and America. It served or sought to serve the cause of the rising capitalist class against what Ricardo would like to call, the rent-seeking landlords, also provided ground against the political, domination of the aristocratic class. Thus, liberal democracy and free economy were made the two wheels of the same cart—capitalism. However, this cart was imbalanced, as Carlyle ridiculed it as ‘anarchy plus a constable’³¹—capitalist economy as anarchy and limited state as a constable. Carlyle’s ridicule was one example of humanistic reaction against the condition that capitalism unleashed.