evaluating Mill’s argument that colonialism does not contradict his commitment to individual liberty, it is important to outline what Mill means by individual liberty, what his views on non-intervention are and why he believes intervention is acceptable in the case of colonialism. For Mill the idea of individual liberty is a person’s right not to be interfered with by others, even if it’s in their best interest, unless their actions affect another person; this is also known as the Harm Principle. (Mill 2011: 18) Mill clearly respects individual liberty with his view that foreigners should not intervene in other nations affairs, even when the native rulers are despotic. (Mill 2006: 252) He also argues that by not helping oppressed people you may limit their liberty in the short term, but not in the longer term. With foreign support, Mill argues that liberty will not be as permanent as liberty fought for by themselves, and it is only after an “arduous struggle” that people will have a strong enough love for liberty that it will last. (Mill 2006: 262). It should be noted that Mill would, however, advocate intervention in the case of foreign rule where even those “most attached to freedom” may still not have a chance against a more powerful foreign power controlling them. (Mill: 2006: 263) In this case Mill believes that the imbalance of power would need to be addressed to give the people a chance to gain their individual liberty through a fair struggle. (Mill 2006: 263). A further exception to the principle of non-intervention is his acceptance of colonialism in “uncivilised nations”. (Mill 2006: 259). By this Mill means those societies that he views as less developed than Britain. Mill argues that the people living in these nations are not capable of living by the Harm Principle and valuing individual liberty. This is because firstly, the Harm Principle depends on reciprocity and he believes that “barbarians”, the people of these “uncivilised” societies, are not capable of this (Mill 2006: 259). Secondly, they are not past a point in their development where they would not benefit from being conquered by foreigners. (Mill 2006: 259). Despite these things, however, Mill still only advocated for colonialism and governing these uncivilised people against their will where “the end” is the “improvement” of these people by pedagogical coercion. (Mill 2011:19) This means nurturing them to understand the rule of law and enforcing a British style education system and hence helping to prepare them for their struggle to gain self-rule and individual liberty. However, the British imperialism that Mill defends is far from the imperialism advanced by most historians, as Britain was not nurturing societies to prepare them for self-rule and to adopt individual liberty. (Tunick 2006: 587) Although we cannot expect Mill to apply the norms of today, his ideas clearly lack a greater perspective as he didn’t consider that civilised people like the British might actually be barbaric, and capable of massacres and corruption. For example, the East India Company enforced obdurate monopolies over rice that led to a famine in 1770 that killed a third of the population of Bengal. (Ryan 2014: 1-14) Sullivan claims that Mill acknowledged the brutality of the British, but continued to maintain that their presence would still lead to a better civilisation that valued individual liberty. (Sullivan 1983: 611) However, this seems very unlikely as clearly the people were not being nurtured as he intended. Therefore, since the local people are not being improved to the extent that they are ready to adopt the principle of individual liberty and Mill believes intervention>