第33章

Thatistosay，thatthedistinctiondrawnbytheoldindividualismbetweenthestateinstitutionsandthosecreatedbyprivateactionceasestohavetheoldsignificance。Whenasocietyoncedevelopsanelaborateandcomplexstructure，itbecomesalmostpedantictodrawaprofounddistinctionbetweenasystemwhichispracticallyindispensableandonewhichislegallyimperative。

IwillnotinquirefurtherwhetherMill’spositioncouldbemadelogicallycoherent。Onethingisprettyclear。Ifhisviewshadbeenactuallyadopted；ifthestateeducated，nationalisedtheland，supportedthepoor，restrainedmarriage，regulatedlabourwhereindividualcompetitionfailed，anduseditspowertoequalisewealth，itwouldverysoonadoptstateSocialism，andlosesightofMill’sreservations。Mill，asIbelieve，hadbeenquiterightwhenheinsistedonthevastimportanceofstimulatingthesenseofindividualresponsibility。Thatis，andmustalwaysbe，oneessentialmomentoftheargument。Hismisfortunewas，thathavingabsorbedanabsolutesysteminhisyouth，andacceptingitsclaimstoscientificvalidity，hewasunablewhenhesawitsdefectstoseethetrueline(ifanyoneyetseesthetrueline)ofconciliation。Hisdoctrine，therefore，containedfragmentsofoppositeandinconsistentdogmas。Whilefancyingthathewasdevelopingtheindividualisttheories，headoptednotonlySocialism，butevenaversionofSocialismopentotheobjectionsonwhichhesometimesforciblyinsisted。MillandtheSocialistarebothindividualists；onlytheSocialistmakesrightprecedefact，andMillwouldmakefactprecederight。

Everyindividual，saystheSocialist，hasarighttosupport；theconsequencesofgrantingtherightmustbelefttoProvidence。

This，saysMillfollowingMalthus，wouldbefatal，becausetheindividualwouldhavenomotivetosupporthimself。Hemustonlyhavesucharightasimpliespersonalresponsibility。Butthen，asfactsalsoshow，manyindividualsmaybeunabletosupportthemselveseveniftheywishit，andtheirresponsibilitybecomesamockery。Ifweenforcedutiesonall，mustwenotmakethedutypossible？Mustnoteveryonebesotrainedandsoplacedthatworkwillbesureofreward？Thereistheproblem，whichheseesandfeels，thoughhisanswerseemstoimplyadoubtfulshiftingbetweenantagonistictheories。

VIII。LOGICALMETHOD

ImustglancefinallyattherelationofMill’smethodtohisgeneralprinciples。Inanearlyessay(162*)hedeclaresthatthemethodmustbe’apriori，’thatis，asheexplains，’reasoningfromanassumedhypothesis。’(163*)IntheLogicitistreatedasacaseofthe’directdeductivemethod。’Thisinvolvesanimportantpointinhissystem。HehadderivedfromComte，ashetellsus，(164*)onlyone’leadingconception’ofapurelylogicalkind，theconception，namely，ofthe’historical’or’inversedeductivemethod。’Thismethod，impliedinComte’ssociology，starts，asMillsays，fromthe’collationofspecificexperience。’NowMillagreesthatthis’historical’methodwasappropriatetosociologyingeneral。Heagrees，too，withComtethatitwasnotthemethodusedbyeconomists。But，whereasComtehadinferredthatpoliticaleconomymustforthatreasonbeashamscience，(165*)Millholdsthateconomistswerejustifiedinusingadifferentmethod。Comte，hethought，hadfailedtoseethatincertaincasesthemethodof’directdeduction’wasapplicabletosociologicalinquiry。Onesuchcase，thoughhewillnotundertaketodecidewhatotherinstancestheremaybe，ispoliticaleconomy。(166*)Hedecidesthatthedifficulties，regardedbyComteasinsuperable，maybeovercome。Hisearlyaccountisstillvalid；andhethereforeexplicitlyrejectsthe’historical’method。

Iconfessthattheuseofthesetechnicalphrasesappearstometoberathermagniloquent，andtoleadtosomeconfusion。

Settingthemaside，Mill’sviewmaybebrieflystated。Heargues，inth