The British state has co-opted the harm principle for its own interests
For too long, the state has justified all sorts of intrusive and illiberal measures as necessary to protect their citizens from "harm". They've co-opted the harm principle. It is time we took it back.
This article will mark the beginning of Voices for a Free Future's weekly guest articles from leading voices and rising talent in Westminster and the free market movement. We hope that each guest article will bring an interesting new perspective to the fight for a free future!
In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill famously said, “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” This statement is known as Mill’s harm principle and has become a cornerstone of liberal thought worldwide. This 19th-century idea still shapes debates on law, free speech, and public health. While initially the principle seems straightforward, many issues in modern Britain challenge its clarity.
In Mill’s Victorian age, there was very limited state intervention. Paradoxically, liberalism at this time effectively asked the state to do more to protect the most vulnerable from harm while protecting fundamental rights to personal liberty. This theory assumes rational individuals and defines harm as a tangible injury.
Today, Britain finds itself in the opposite situation. The state has become large, inefficient, and overly paternalistic. Harm is now understood as anything from a minor inconvenience to risks that may only materialise years later. While many could use the harm principle to back up laws creating a smoke-free generation or to protect minorities, does this really amount to the physical harm Mill was talking about in his time?
Mill’s original theory was both a comment on paternalism and the proper limits of state intervention. This enabled Victorians to enjoy a freer society, protected from the various dangers of the period. The harm principle allowed individuals to embrace personal freedom in any way they desired, so long as it didn’t infringe upon another person’s rights to do the same.
The harm principle gave people personal responsibility for their actions rather than a state mandate and allowed them to drink, smoke, or take drugs without the government specifying the quantities they could consume. It assumed individual rationality and promoted minimal government interference, only in the case of direct and tangible injury. This idea of personal liberty, together with Edmund Burke’s earlier theories of cultural conservatism and organic society, helped shape 19th-century politics.
After Mill’s time, many of Britain’s laws on free speech and human rights came from his ideas. He strongly advocated for racial and gender equality, partially shaped by his wife, Harriet Taylor, a pre-eminent feminist. Mill’s ideas gave Britain a strong culture of suspicion of government and admiration for the underdog, which often framed itself as the citizenry against the government.
Public debates still rage, however, about where the harm principle should be invoked. Should harms that may manifest years later or harms affecting only oneself be prohibited by the government? My answer is a resounding no; letting the government decide what is best for you can easily encourage state tyranny. As rational actors, individuals themselves are best placed to determine what they do to their own bodies.
Britain is now a completely different society. The harm principle is sound in theory. Yet modern Britain’s problems often yield divergent policy conclusions. Mill himself was a staunch defender of free speech; however, the harm principle is too often used as an excuse to bring in laws against free speech, claiming that some speech causes psychological harm that later manifests physically. This is stretching the harm principle to its limits, reducing liberty to spare others potential offence.
Modern technology has blurred the line between public and private spaces. Lucy Connolly, recently released, served more than a year in prison for supposedly inciting violence against migrants. This was even though she had posted and subsequently deleted her social media post miles away from any kind of protest. It is flawed for the justice system to treat this as equivalent to saying the same thing in front of a baying mob. Politicians increasingly view disinformation as a “harm” to democracy. In reality, by banning some speech online, the government risks letting these views permeate the debate rather than having the general public debunk it.
In a similar way to speech, those in power now use the harm principle as a backdoor to paternalism. Ultimately, you should be able to pursue whatever lifestyle you choose, provided that it doesn’t infringe on another person’s right to freely live their lives. The government doesn’t define the harm principle like that and sees potential harm to oneself years down the line as a reason to heavily regulate drinking, gambling, and tobacco. Firstly, this policy takes accountability out of your hands and makes it a decision for the government to make, removing your freedom of choice. Secondly, it conflates Mill’s definition of direct, tangible injury with something that could potentially happen to you. The government wants to ban cigarettes because they are carcinogenic. Yet the harms of a single cigarette are not immediate; they accrue over years of heavy use. That places smoking outside Mill’s scope, which is focused on preventing direct harm to others, not risk to oneself. While Mill makes exceptions to children and those of unsound mind, he reiterates the individual’s right to make their own lifestyle choices, clarifying after his harm principle that “His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant” for the state to ban a behavioural choice that only impacts the individual.
The harm principle is also co-opted for what is known as collective harms. Some liberals believe that the government should step in to ban fossil fuels and polluting emissions. I believe that to justify this, using the harm principle is to misunderstand its point. Climate change is pressing, but Mill would likely have favoured taxes and regulations that preserved choice while discouraging harmful behaviour.
Overall, the harm principle stands today as one of the best defences of individual liberty and a small state. Leaders should be careful not to co-opt it for their own interests and instead look at what Mill truly meant by a “harm” to others. Crucially, John Stuart Mill’s theories gave individuals the right to treat people’s lives as their own, to be free to express themselves as they saw fit and to lead a life outside the remit of the state. Lawmakers should distinguish between direct harm and mere offence, whether immediate or potential.
What do you think? Has the state gone too far in trying to protect its citizens from “harm”. Is the modern world simply too complicated for the use of such a simple concept as the harm principle? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.
Edward Newson is a politics graduate and political commentator with Young Voices UK.
Those who have read this piece may be interested in the Rt Hon Steve Baker’s recent piece for Voices for a Free Future on what he believes an authentically conservative position would look like.
What would be an "authentically Conservative position"?
The Telegraph reports Conservative Leader Kemi Badenoch has asked Conservative MPs to “take an authentically conservative position”. What could this mean? Thatcherism, updated? Avoidance of change? Nostalgia?
 | A guest post by
|
Really good article. To your questions:
1) Yes, the state gone too far in trying to protect its citizens from a nebulous concept of “harm”.
2) No the modern world is not too complicated for the use of such a simple concept as the harm principle.
A couple of observations:
Any legislation to prevent psychological harm is problematic as psychological harm is subjective i.e. dependent on the mental state of the recipient.
There are many that say Climate change is pressing but there are many others with a counter or dissenting view. So how does favouring taxes and regulations preserve choice? Also where is the direct physical harm which you refer to and which harmful behaviour that causes it needs to be discouraged?
An interesting point of view. The assumption that a Victorian theologian without the benefits of a modern society’s view and modern interpretations is in itself flawed. Whatever it was he wanted to express in little words was for then. We have hopefully by now, moved on from a poor state of affairs to one that is much more complicated and holistic for a modern society. Simplicity of view is too simple in my view. You can’t wrap up everything in a neat little sentence. I wish you could and harbouring that wish now in thinking it applies is deluding yourselves. There is nothing wrong with a big state. In fact it’s much more caring, free and serving if it is. A small state abdicates its responsibility to people. And to think people can be fair equitable and decent enough to make good decisions to go the right things is as wrong today as it was then. Some can, I’m sure you can. But a lot can’t. No, what has led you to wanting a small state is not about freedoms that are being infringed. Or speech that is being silenced. No, it’s all about cost. The idea that with freedoms gone small state snd less cost is, I suspect, the ideal for you. The motivator of your objection. My view is much more radical to this way. I believe we should have more! More money to begin with. More Spending of money that presently gets unspent each month. Make the economy work to pay for a government and services that actually work. We have free speech. And haven’t lost it. We are free to exist. But the democracy we choose is that the 49% have to accept and adhere to the 51%. That’s tough yes, but it’s freedom with consent. By consent and it works. It’s the best way to achieve freedom for all safely. I would put a spend by date on money to make it rotate. I would allow the people to earn more, spend more and enjoy more. Have more revenue for pensions. We should only need one! A bloody good one. I would have proper borders, paid for by extra tax revenue from a tsunami of SPENDING. I would have a well paid border force to turn the boats back to France. Make them have them back! I’d have ID cards, we have driving licences and bank cards no difference in my mind. I’d have everyone’s DNA on record. So we can catch the criminals easily. I’d have more cameras and more police. Not less. What we need is a decent leader. Not a leader who is just another fool or villain or doesn’t know right from wrong. We have the ability to prove our every move to prevent abuse. So modern improvements can and should protect abuse of the system. But we don’t have good leaders. That’s our problem of late. Future forward thinking is best. Not everything in the past is better. Old wise men snd women are great role models. But we have to do better. Every generation do better. Our monetary system is as old as money itself. Spend hoping it’ll come back again. We can make it come back using modern digital money. So why aren’t we using it? This is a classic example of ignorance through a wish for simplicity and a lack of forward thinking. Every old economist would have used it had it been available! That’s my evidence for looking in the right direction for salvation. Not backward. IMO.