on liberty-第32章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！




prescription；　the　presence　of　some　third　person　might　be　required；



to　bring　home　the　fact　to　the　purchaser；　in　case　there　should



afterwards　be　reason　to　believe　that　the　article　had　been　applied　to



criminal　purposes。　Such　regulations　would　in　general　be　no　material



impediment　to　obtaining　the　article；　but　a　very　considerable　one　to



making　an　improper　use　of　it　without　detection。



　　The　right　inherent　in　society；　to　ward　off　crimes　against　itself



by　antecedent　precautions；　suggests　the　obvious　limitations　to　the



maxim；　that　purely　self…regarding　misconduct　cannot　properly　be



meddled　with　in　the　way　of　prevention　or　punishment。　Drunkenness；



for　example；　in　ordinary　cases；　is　not　a　fit　subject　for　legislative



interference；　but　I　should　deem　it　perfectly　legitimate　that　a　person；



who　had　once　been　convicted　of　any　act　of　violence　to　others　under　the



influence　of　drink；　should　be　placed　under　a　special　legal



restriction；　personal　to　himself；　that　if　he　were　afterwards　found



drunk；　he　should　be　liable　to　a　penalty；　and　that　if　when　in　that



state　he　committed　another　offence；　the　punishment　to　which　he　would



be　liable　for　that　other　offence　should　be　increased　in　severity。



The　making　himself　drunk；　in　a　person　whom　drunkenness　excites　to　do



harm　to　others；　is　a　crime　against　others。　So；　again；　idleness；　except



in　a　person　receiving　support　from　the　public；　or　except　when　it



constitutes　a　breach　of　contract；　cannot　without　tyranny　be　made　a



subject　of　legal　punishment；　but　if；　either　from　idleness　or　from



any　other　avoidable　cause；　a　man　fails　to　perform　his　legal　duties



to　others；　as　for　instance　to　support　his　children；　it　is　no　tyranny



to　force　him　to　fulfil　that　obligation；　by　compulsory　labour；　if　no



other　means　are　available。



　　Again；　there　are　many　acts　which；　being　directly　injurious　only　to



the　agents　themselves；　ought　not　to　be　legally　interdicted；　but　which；



if　done　publicly；　are　a　violation　of　good　manners；　and　coming　thus



within　the　category　of　offences　against　others；　may　rightly　be



prohibited。　Of　this　kind　are　offences　against　decency；　on　which　it



is　unnecessary　to　dwell；　the　rather　as　they　are　only　connected



indirectly　with　our　subject；　the　objection　to　publicity　being



equally　strong　in　the　case　of　many　actions　not　in　themselves



condemnable；　nor　supposed　to　be　so。



　　There　is　another　question　to　which　an　answer　must　be　found；



consistent　with　the　principles　which　have　been　laid　down。　In　cases



of　personal　conduct　supposed　to　be　blamable；　but　which　respect　for



liberty　precludes　society　from　preventing　or　punishing；　because　the



evil　directly　resulting　falls　wholly　on　the　agent；　what　the　agent　is



free　to　do；　ought　other　persons　to　be　equally　free　to　counsel　or



instigate？　This　question　is　not　free　from　difficulty。　The　case　of　a



person　who　solicits　another　to　do　an　act　is　not　strictly　a　case　of



self…regarding　conduct。　To　give　advice　or　offer　inducements　to　any　one



is　a　social　act；　and　may；　therefore；　like　actions　in　general　which



affect　others；　be　supposed　amenable　to　social　control。　But　a　little



reflection　corrects　the　first　impression；　by　showing　that　if　the



case　is　not　strictly　within　the　definition　of　individual　liberty；



yet　the　reasons　on　which　the　principle　of　individual　liberty　is



grounded　are　applicable　to　it。　If　people　must　be　allowed；　in



whatever　concerns　only　themselves；　to　act　as　seems　best　to　themselves；



at　their　own　peril；　they　must　equally　be　free　to　consult　with　one



another　about　what　is　fit　to　be　so　done；　to　exchange　opinions；　and



give　and　receive　suggestions。　Whatever　it　is　permitted　to　do；　it



must　be　permitted　to　advise　to　do。　The　question　is　doubtful　only



when　the　instigator　derives　a　personal　benefit　from　his　advice；　when



he　makes　it　his　occupation；　for　subsistence　or　pecuniary　gain；　to



promote　what　society　and　the　State　consider　to　be　an　evil。　Then；



indeed；　a　new　element　of　complication　is　introduced；　namely；　the



existence　of　classes　of　persons　with　an　interest　opposed　to　what　is



considered　as　the　public　weal；　and　whose　mode　of　living　is　grounded　on



the　counteraction　of　it。　Ought　this　to　be　interfered　with；　or　not？



Fornication；　for　example；　must　be　tolerated；　and　so　must　gambling；　but



should　a　person　be　free　to　be　a　pimp；　or　to　keep　a　gambling…house？　The



case　is　one　of　those　which　lie　on　the　exact　boundary　line　between



two　principles；　and　it　is　not　at　once　apparent　to　which　of　the　two



it　properly　belongs。



　　There　are　arguments　on　both　sides。　On　the　side　of　toleration　it



may　be　said　that　the　fact　of　following　anything　as　an　occupation；



and　living　or　profiting　by　the　practice　of　it；　cannot　make　that



criminal　which　would　otherwise　be　admissible；　that　the　act　should



either　be　consistently　permitted　or　consistently　prohibited；　that　if



the　principles　which　we　have　hitherto　defended　are　true；　society　has



no　business；　as　society；　to　decide　anything　to　be　wrong　which　concerns



only　the　individual；　that　it　cannot　go　beyond　dissuasion；　and　that　one



person　should　be　as　free　to　persuade　as　another　to　dissuade。　In



opposition　to　this　it　may　be　contended；　that　although　the　public；　or



the　State；　are　not　warranted　in　authoritatively　deciding；　for　purposes



of　repression　or　punishment；　that　such　or　such　conduct　affecting



only　the　interests　of　the　individual　is　good　or　bad；　they　are　fully



justified　in　assuming；　if　they　regard　it　as　bad；　that　its　being　so



or　not　is　at　least　a　disputable　question：　That；　this　being　supposed；



they　cannot　be　acting　wrongly　in　endeavouring　to　exclude　the　influence



of　solicitations　which　are　not　disinterested；　of　instigators　who



cannot　possibly　be　impartial…　who　have　a　direct　personal　interest　on



one　side；　and　that　side　the　one　which　the　State　believes　to　be



wrong；　and　who　confessedly　promote　it　for　personal　objects　only。　There



can　surely；　it　may　be　urged；　be　nothing　lost；　no　sacrifice　of　good；　by



so　ordering　matters　that　persons　shall　make　their　election；　either



wisely　or　foolishly；　on　their　own　prompting；　as　free　as　possible



from　the　arts　of　persons　who　stimulate　their　inclinations　for



interested　purposes　of　their　own。　Thus　（it　may　be　said）　though　the



statutes　respecting　unlawful　games　are　utterly　indefensible…　though



all　persons　should　be　free　to　gamble　in　their　own　or　each　other's



houses；　or　in　any　place　of　meeting　established　by　their　own



subscriptions；　and　open　only　to　the　members　and　their　visitors…　yet



public　gambling…houses　should　not　be　permitted。　It　is　true　that　the



prohibition　is　never　effectual；　and　that；　whatever　amount　of



tyrannical　power　may　be　given　to　the　police；　gambling…houses　can



always　be　maintained　under　other　pretences；　but　they　may　be



compelled　to　conduct　their　operations　with　a　certain　degree　of　secrecy



and　mystery；　so　that　nobody　knows　anything　about　them　but　those　who



seek　them；　and　more　than　this　society　ought　not　to　aim　at。



　　There　is　considerable　force　in　these　arguments。　I　will　not　venture



to　decide　whether　they　are　sufficient　to　justify　the　moral　anomaly



of　punishing　the　accessary；　when　the　principal　is　（and　must　be）



allowed　to　go　free；　of　fining　or　imprisoning　the　procurer；　but　not　the



fornicator…　the　gambling…house　keeper；　but　not　the　gambler。　Still　less



ought　the　common　operations　of　buying　and　selling　to　be　interfered



with　on　analogous　grounds。　Almost　every　article　which　is　bought　and



sold　may　be　used　in　excess；　and　the　sellers　have　a　pecuniary



interest　in　encouraging　that　excess；　but　no　argument　can　be　founded　on



this；　in　favour；　for　instance；　of　the　Maine　Law；　because　the　class



of　dealers　in　strong　drinks；　though　interested　in　their　abuse；　are



indispensably　required　for　the　sake　of　their　legitimate　use。　The



interest；　however；　of　these　dealers　in　promoting　intemperance　is　a



real　evil；　and　justif