The political thought of James Mill is not as well known as it should be. This online discussion attempts to reassess his contribution to classical liberal political theory via his dichotomy between the ruling “Few” (or what he also called at times “the sinister interest” and the subject “Many.” As an activist in the movement for political and economic reform in England during the 1820s and 1830s James Mill and his fellow Philosophic Radicals sought to analyse the British establishment, the source of their power, how they used it to benefit themselves at the expense of ordinary people, and how they might be dislodged from their privileged position by a combination of electoral reform by opening up the franchise to the middle class and economic reform by repealing the protectionist corn laws. In the course of these campaigns he thought deeply about the nature of political power and democracy which the participants in this discussion will discuss at greater length. The lead essay is by Sandra J. Peart at the University of Richmond and the response essays are by Terence Ball at Arizona State University, Andrew Farrant at Dickinson College, and Quentin P. Taylor at Rogers State University. See the Archive of Liberty Matters.

Sandra Peart, Liberty Matters: James Mill on Liberty and Governance in the Context of the “Few” and the “Many” (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2014).

This online discussion is part of the series “Liberty Matters: A Forum for the Discussion of Matters pertaining to Liberty.” The political thought of James Mill is not as well known as it should be. This online discussion attempts to reassess his contribution to classical liberal political theory via his dichotomy between the ruling “Few” (or what he also called at times “the sinister interest” and the subject “Many.” The lead essay is by Sandra J. Peart at the University of Richmond and the response essays are by Terence Ball at Arizona State University, Andrew Farrant at Dickinson College, and Quentin P. Taylor at Rogers State University.

Principles of Equity. The Third Edition. Edited and with an Introduction by Michael Lobban (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2014).

Principles of Equity was first published in 1760 is Kames most lasting contribution to jurisprudence. He sought to explain the distinction between the nature of equity and common law and to address related questions, such as whether equity should be bound by rules and whether there should be separate courts of law and equity. The Principles is divided into three books. The first two, “theoretical,” books examine the powers of a court of equity as derived from justice and from utility, the two great principles Kames felt governed equity. The third book aims to be more practical, showing the application of these powers to several subjects, such as bankrupts.

The Principles of Sociology, in Three Volumes (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1898). Vol. 1.

Social Contract, Free Ride: A Study of the Public Goods Problem (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2008). Part of The Collected Papers of Anthony de Jasay.

Jasay refutes the common idea that we need a government as a provider of public goods. He argues that without taxation voluntary contributions to provide freely accessible benefits would be made by some members of groups adjusting their actions to the anticipated actions of other group members. Jasay concludes that when indivisibilities and the risks of non-provision are duly accounted for, voluntary contribution is an individually rational choice. The key argument for coercion turns out to be indecisive, and the need for a social contract at best unproven. See also A Conversation with Anthony de Jasay, part of Liberty Fund’s Intellectual Portrait series via Econlib.

A Fragment on Mackintosh, being Strictures on Some Passages in the Dissertation by Sir James Mackintosh prefixed to the Encyclopaedia Britannica (London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1870).

Mill’s critique of Sir James Mackintosh’s “Dissertation on the Progress of Ethical Philosophy” which was originally published in the seventh edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica. Mill comments on Mackintosh’s interpretation of Hobbes, Butler, and Bentham. In doing so he includes a lengthy reply to Mackintosh’s criticism of Mill’s essay on “government” and indirectly to Macaulay’s as well.