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，hewasunablewhenhesawitsdefectstoseethetruelineifanyoneyetseesthetruelineofconciliation。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