body；　from　the　country　in　which　they　first　grew　up；　while；　now　that
  they　have　been　chased　into　a　solitary　recess　in　the　midst　of　a　desert；
  many　in　this　country　openly　declare　that　it　would　be　right　（only
  that　it　is　not　convenient）　to　send　an　expedition　against　them；　and
  compel　them　by　force　to　conform　to　the　opinions　of　other　people。　The
  article　of　the　Mormonite　doctrine　which　is　the　chief　provocative　to
  the　antipathy　which　thus　breaks　through　the　ordinary　restraints　of
  religious　tolerance；　is　its　sanction　of　polygamy；　which；　though
  permitted　to　Mahomedans；　and　Hindoos；　and　Chinese；　seems　to　excite
  unquenchable　animosity　when　practised　by　persons　who　speak　English　and
  profess　to　be　a　kind　of　Christians。　No　one　has　a　deeper　disapprobation
  than　I　have　of　this　Mormon　institution；　both　for　other　reasons；　and
  because；　far　from　being　in　any　way　countenanced　by　the　principle　of
  liberty；　it　is　a　direct　infraction　of　that　principle；　being　a　mere
  riveting　of　the　chains　of　one　half　of　the　community；　and　an
  emancipation　of　the　other　from　reciprocity　of　obligation　towards　them。
  Still；　it　must　be　remembered　that　this　relation　is　as　much　voluntary
  on　the　part　of　the　women　concerned　in　it；　and　who　may　be　deemed　the
  sufferers　by　it；　as　is　the　case　with　any　other　form　of　the　marriage
  institution；　and　however　surprising　this　fact　may　appear；　it　has　its
  explanation　in　the　common　ideas　and　customs　of　the　world；　which
  teaching　women　to　think　marriage　the　one　thing　needful；　make　it
  intelligible　that　many　woman　should　prefer　being　one　of　several　wives；
  to　not　being　a　wife　at　all。　Other　countries　are　not　asked　to　recognise
  such　unions；　or　release　any　portion　of　their　inhabitants　from　their
  own　laws　on　the　score　of　Mormonite　opinions。　But　when　the　dissentients
  have　conceded　to　the　hostile　sentiments　of　others　far　more　than
  could　justly　be　demanded；　when　they　have　left　the　countries　to　which
  their　doctrines　were　unacceptable；　and　established　themselves　in　a
  remote　corner　of　the　earth；　which　they　have　been　the　first　to　render
  habitable　to　human　beings；　it　is　difficult　to　see　on　what　principles
  but　those　of　tyranny　they　can　be　prevented　from　living　there　under
  what　laws　they　please；　provided　they　commit　no　aggression　on　other
  nations；　and　allow　perfect　freedom　of　departure　to　those　who　are
  dissatisfied　with　their　ways。
  A　recent　writer；　in　some　respects　of　considerable　merit；　proposes
  （to　use　his　own　words）　not　a　crusade；　but　a　civilisade；　against　this
  polygamous　community；　to　put　an　end　to　what　seems　to　him　a
  retrograde　step　in　civilisation。　It　also　appears　so　to　me；　but　I　am
  not　aware　that　any　community　has　a　right　to　force　another　to　be
  civilised。　So　long　as　the　sufferers　by　the　bad　law　do　not　invoke
  assistance　from　other　communities；　I　cannot　admit　that　persons
  entirely　unconnected　with　them　ought　to　step　in　and　require　that　a
  condition　of　things　with　which　all　who　are　directly　interested
  appear　to　be　satisfied；　should　be　put　an　end　to　because　it　is　a
  scandal　to　persons　some　thousands　of　miles　distant；　who　have　no　part
  or　concern　in　it。　Let　them　send　missionaries；　if　they　please；　to
  preach　against　it；　and　let　them；　by　any　fair　means　（of　which　silencing
  the　teachers　is　not　one）；　oppose　the　progress　of　similar　doctrines
  among　their　own　people。　If　civilisation　has　got　the　better　of
  barbarism　when　barbarism　had　the　world　to　itself；　it　is　too　much　to
  profess　to　be　afraid　lest　barbarism；　after　having　been　fairly　got
  under；　should　revive　and　conquer　civilisation。　A　civilisation　that　can
  thus　succumb　to　its　vanquished　enemy；　must　first　have　become　so
  degenerate；　that　neither　its　appointed　priests　and　teachers；　nor
  anybody　else；　has　the　capacity；　or　will　take　the　trouble；　to　stand
  up　for　it。　If　this　be　so；　the　sooner　such　a　civilisation　receives
  notice　to　quit　the　better。　It　can　only　go　on　from　bad　to　worse；
  until　destroyed　and　regenerated　（like　the　Western　Empire）　by　energetic
  barbarians。
  Chapter　5。
  Applications。
  THE　PRINCIPLES　asserted　in　these　pages　must　be　more　generally
  admitted　as　the　basis　for　discussion　of　details；　before　a　consistent
  application　of　them　to　all　the　various　departments　of　government　and
  morals　can　be　attempted　with　any　prospect　of　advantage。　The　few
  observations　I　propose　to　make　on　questions　of　detail　are　designed
  to　illustrate　the　principles；　rather　than　to　follow　them　out　to
  their　consequences。　I　offer；　not　so　much　applications；　as　specimens　of
  application；　which　may　serve　to　bring　into　greater　clearness　the
  meaning　and　limits　of　the　two　maxims　which　together　form　the　entire
  doctrine　of　this　Essay；　and　to　assist　the　judgment　in　holding　the
  balance　between　them；　in　the　cases　where　it　appears　doubtful　which
  of　them　is　applicable　to　the　case。
  The　maxims　are；　first；　that　the　individual　is　not　accountable　to
  society　for　his　actions；　in　so　far　as　these　concern　the　interests　of
  no　person　but　himself。　Advice；　instruction；　persuasion；　and
  avoidance　by　other　people　if　thought　necessary　by　them　for　their　own
  good；　are　the　only　measures　by　which　society　can　justifiably　express
  its　dislike　or　disapprobation　of　his　conduct。　Secondly；　that　for
  such　actions　as　are　prejudicial　to　the　interests　of　others；　the
  individual　is　accountable；　and　may　be　subjected　either　to　social　or　to
  legal　punishment；　if　society　is　of　opinion　that　the　one　or　the　other
  is　requisite　for　its　protection。
  In　the　first　place；　it　must　by　no　means　be　supposed；　because　damage；
  or　probability　of　damage；　to　the　interests　of　others；　can　alone
  justify　the　interference　of　society；　that　therefore　it　always　does
  justify　such　interference。　In　many　cases；　an　individual；　in　pursuing　a
  legitimate　object；　necessarily　and　therefore　legitimately　causes
  pain　or　loss　to　others；　or　intercepts　a　good　which　they　had　a
  reasonable　hope　of　obtaining。　Such　oppositions　of　interest　between
  individuals　often　arise　from　bad　social　institutions；　but　are
  unavoidable　while　those　institutions　last；　and　some　would　be
  unavoidable　under　any　institutions。　Whoever　succeeds　in　an　overcrowded
  profession；　or　in　a　competitive　examination；　whoever　is　preferred　to
  another　in　any　contest　for　an　object　which　both　desire；　reaps
  benefit　from　the　loss　of　others；　from　their　wasted　exertion　and
  their　disappointment。　But　it　is；　by　common　admission；　better　for　the
  general　interest　of　mankind；　that　persons　should　pursue　their
  objects　undeterred　by　this　sort　of　consequences。　In　other　words；
  society　admits　no　right；　either　legal　or　moral；　in　the　disappointed
  competitors　to　immunity　from　this　kind　of　suffering；　and　feels
  called　on　to　interfere；　only　when　means　of　success　have　been
  employed　which　it　is　contrary　to　the　general　interest　to
  permit…　namely；　fraud　or　treachery；　and　force。
  Again；　trade　is　a　social　act。　Whoever　undertakes　to　sell　any
  description　of　goods　to　the　public；　does　what　affects　the　interest
  of　other　persons；　and　of　society　in　general；　and　thus　his　conduct；
  in　principle；　comes　within　the　jurisdiction　of　society：　accordingly；
  it　was　once　held　to　be　the　duty　of　governments；　in　all　cases　which
  were　considered　of　importance；　to　fix　prices；　and　regulate　the
  processes　of　manufacture。　But　it　is　now　recognised；　though　not　till
  after　a　long　struggle；　that　both　the　cheapness　and　the　good　quality　of
  commodities　are　most　effectually　provided　for　by　leaving　the　producers
  and　sellers　perfectly　free；　under　the　sole　check　of　equal　freedom　to
  the　buyers　for　supplying　themselves　elsewhere。　This　is　the　so…called
  doctrine　of　Free　Trade；　which　rests　on　grounds　different　from；
  though　equally　solid　with；　the　principle　of　individual　liberty
  asserted　in　this　Essay。　Restrictions　on　trade；　or　on　production　for
  purposes　of　trade；　are　indeed　restraints；　and　all　restraint；　qua
  restraint；　is　an　evil：　but　the　restraints　in　question　affect　only　that
  part　of　conduct　which　society　is　competent　to　restrain；　and　are
  wrong　solely　because　they　do　not　really　produce　the　results　which　it
  is　desired　to　produce　by　them。　As　the　principle　of　individual
  liberty　is　not　involved　in　the　doctrine　of　Free　Trade；　so　neither　is
  it　in　most　of　the　questions　which　arise　respecting　the　limits　of
  that　doctrine；　as；　for　example；　what　amount　of　public　control　is
  admissible　for　the　prevention　of　fraud　by　adulteration；　how　far
  sanitary　precautions；　or　arrangements　to　protect　workpeople　employed
  in　dangerous　occupations；　should　be　enforced　on　employers。　Such
  questions　involve　considerations　of　liberty；　only　in　so　far　as　leaving
  people　to　themselves　is　always　better；　caeteris　paribus；　than
  controlling　them：　but　that　they　may　be　legitimately　controlled　for
  these　ends　is　in