ABSTRACT
The contrast between Mill and Marx has illustrated two very different social ideals, one oriented to the individual, the other to a conception of personal life subordinate to and dominated by overwhelming political and social controls. Few, as individuals, would opt for life under the second description, except in so far as they have become convinced of its inevitability, or, alternatively, have so closed their minds to the logic of their own position that they are inspired by the thought of their own capacity, as individuals, to bring about and assume leading positions in such a society. To the many paradoxes, then, generated by the notion of freedom may be added this: that only error or misunderstanding would lead a free individual to prefer a state-dominated to an individual-oriented society, since this one initial choice would pre-empt all further exercise of choice in areas of importance. If one is committed to the notion of choice, then, and persuaded of its possibility, the question of what are the conditions for the maintenance of the individual-oriented society will be of first importance.
