THE VIRTUE OF MAJORITIES.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9606, 22 December 1896, Page 6

THE VIRTUE OF MAJORITIES.

TO THK EDITOR OF THB PRESS. Sir, —I felt much inclined to " chortle " when I read your leading article in this morning's paper on the virtue of majorities. I am afraid you have given yourself over completely to the enemy. You have certainly cast away the two best bower anchors of the Individualist, J. S. Mill and Herbert Spencer. Neithei* can be brought forward in future as your " guide, philosopher and friend," for you have laid your finger on the fundamental weakness of each in showing the sieve-like nature of the maxims which lie at the basis of their social polity. It is true, indeed,' my fridhd, "that hardly any actions are. purely self-regard-ing," or to put it in other words, that great bogey of yours, the abstract individual, of whose "liberty " we hear so much, has no existence except upon paper. If our actions are not self-regarding they must interfere with the actions of others; but when we take this admission m connection with what follows, we may well hold up our hands in surprise, for you concede more than the most advanced Democrat would care to have. Let us put your two statements together, draw a conclusion, and then endeavour to understand, if possible, your test cases. You say (1) " Hardly any actions are purely self-regarding;" (2) " the bare majority must rule in all case3 where it is impossible for the majority to hold and act upon their opinions, and the minority at the same time to hold and act upon theirs r" Youv argument scarcely admits of being thrown into a syllogism in the form in which you have put it, and in this consists the chief difficulty in attacking it; but the conclusion manifestly is the bare majority must rule in all cases except in those few in which actions are purely self-regarding. You cannot escape this. Now let us take shortly yonr applications, which are strange indeed. You proceed at once to assume (after your previous admissions, note) that there are cases in which it is possible for both the minority and the majority to hold and act on their opinions at the same time— that is to say, up goes the " bogey man " once more whom yon have just now overturned. The individual is again regarded as a discreet unit in the State, when you have just admitted that he is nothing of the sort.

After a false application of your own principle, you come to what is no doubt a just conclusion on the question of religious intolerance and the prohibition of tobacco. I have not time nor you the space to consider these questions further here, but let us take w shortly aa possible the burning

question of the day—license or no license. "It is possible," you say, " for abstainers to abstain and for drunkards to drink in the same place and under the same circumstances, without mutual interference." This, of course, is quite inconsistent with " Hardly any action., are purely self-regarding " of your previous column, unle_s you regard this as one of the exceptions include! under the word "hardly," but is it an exception? I can class myself practically with the abstainers ; but 1 have not infrequentlv been " discommoded " in many ways by drunkards, robbed of my sleep, and even on various occasions been placed in considerable danger of life i'tid limb by drunken travellers, coachmen and sailors. On two occasions I have been compelled to give up visiting places I much wished to see, because those whose duty it was to have taken me there were drunk ; yet I dare say my experiences in this matter have been much less unpleasant than those of many others ; and yet you have the boldness to avsert that it is possible " for abstaiiners to abstain aud drunkards to drink in the same place and under the same circumstances, without mutual interferen.-es." What about the poor wives and children of the drunkards, Sir Editor? Many of them are no doubt abstainers, are they not interfered with ? On the other hand the drunkard has a right to say to the abstainer, " Your uncongenial temper has spoiled my pleasure, I have told you trade secrets when in my cups, I have been aroused from n-y drunken sleep to attend to your wants, yon have even endeavoured to have the licensing law enforced against me, and are indeed continually interfering with me in numberless ways." Clearly then, there is mutual interference between the abstainers and drunkards, both in their capacity as members of one State, and in their organisations. Such being the case the bare majority must, according to your own showing, rule ; and 3 r our own conclusion is in direct contradiction to the principle you have laid down.

I have not time to pursue the discussion further at preseut; aud may I say that if my letter is already rather lengthy it is because your article is somewhat disjointed. —Yours, &c,

Altiora Pkto. [We have not -.feast away " J. S. ( Mill . and Herbert Spencer; we merely said their maxims, which we quoted, did not go far enough. If our correspondent had taken the whole scope of the article on which he comments, and many other articles which we have written on the same subject, he would have known that we have always been in favour of the drunkard being restrained, and even punished, when he interferes with the rights and comfort of others. What we deny is the right of the total abstainer to dictate to the moderate man,- or vice vers&.— Ed. Press.]