Endörfer has recently argued that proponents of the harm principle are wrong to exempt market harms as potential justifications for state interference. I argue that – contrary to suggestions in Endörfer’s article – John Stuart Mill did not exempt market harms from his harm principle. On Mill’s view, the state can (as a matter of principle) legitimately interfere with free markets to prevent market harms where they occur but, on the whole, it is better policy not to interfere. Mill’s general preference for free trade rests on utilitarian considerations and not on his harm principle, which does not exclude market harms.

中文翻译：

---

JS Mill 和市场危害：对 Endörfer 的回应

Endörfer 最近辩称，伤害原则的支持者将市场伤害豁免作为国家干预的潜在理由是错误的。我认为——与 Endörfer 文章中的建议相反——John Stuart Mill 并没有从他的损害原则中免除市场损害。在密尔看来，国家可以（原则上）合法地干预自由市场以防止市场损害发生，但总的来说，最好的政策是不干预。密尔对自由贸易的普遍偏好是基于功利主义的考虑，而不是基于他的损害原则，后者不排除市场损害。