What are the main features of an oligopolistic market? How do these firms set their prices? How we can distinguish oligopolistic firm from a monopolistic competitive firm?
This essay will first outline Mill’s ideas on non-intervention, the colonial exception and how this relates to his ideas on individual liberty, before evaluating how these ideas contradict each other. Firstly, it will contend that his view that colonialism is nurturing the local people to prepare them for gaining individual liberty is inconsistent given the violent nature of British colonialism. Secondly, it will argue that Mill’s own arguments for non-intervention, in the case of a civilised nation, contradict the exception he makes for colonialism, before arguing, thirdly, that Mill’s view on colonialism was narrow minded, as by ignoring other cultures he was actually taking away those people’s individual liberty. This will lead to the conclusion that although Mill’s arguments have some merit, the exception he makes to allow colonialism does contradict his commitment to individual liberty. This essay will focus on the example of India due to Mill’s great connection to that specific colony through this career at the East India Company. Before 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 th>GET ANSWER