How does sentiment of Fraternity of fellow feeling arise?

J. S. Mill says that this sentiment is a natural sentiment:

• "The social state is at once so natural, so necessary, and so habitual to man, that, except in some unusual circumstances or by an effort of voluntary abstraction he never conceives himself otherwise than as a member of a body; and this association is riveted more and more, as mankind are further removed from the state of savage independence. Any condition, therefore, which is essential to a state of society, becomes more and more an inseparable part of every person's conception of the state of things which he is born into, and which is the destiny of a human being. Now, society between human beings, except in the relation of master and slave, is manifestly impossible on any other footing than that the interests of all are to be consulted. Society between equals can only exist on the understanding that the interests of all are to be regarded equally. And since in all states of civilisation, every person, except an absolute monarch, has equals, every one is obliged to live on these terms with some body; and in every age some advance is made towards a state in which it will be impossible to live permanently on other terms with any body. In this way people grow up unable to conceive as possible to them a state of total disregard of other people's interests."

Ideas of Mill and the Future society

There are many narrative is going with the following ideas ever since Mill had penned it down the On Liberty particularly the following a bit.

• “The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

A Nobel Low: Krugman Calls Small Government Philosophies Racist

Cord Blomquist asks: 

• “How does Krugman attempt to do this?  First, he points to the G.O.P., as though Republicans are the vanguard of small government.  He claims that, “Forty years ago the G.O.P. decided, in effect, to make itself the party of racial backlash.” 
  
• Mr. Krugman knows better and is hoping that smearing the philosophy of limited governement with accusations of racism will save him the work of presenting real, honest arguments against a very powerful set of ideas. 
  
• Those powerful ideas were developed by philosophers and economists like Adam Smith, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman—giants of the academy. 
  
• Hayek and Friedman especially must be known to Krugman.  Both were recipients of the same prize as Mr. Krugman, the Nobel Prize in Economics. 
  
• Both were also more reasoned in their opinions than Mr. Krugman. 
  
• Rather than dismissing ideas he disagrees with as racist, Mr. Krugman ought to get back to his academic roots and engage in a little constructive dialogue.  Perhaps that would prevent him from producing the the kind of thoughtless drivel he’s been allowed to publish in the New York Times”.
  

Politician fools liberals in India

The Economist says (If) “JOHN STUART MILL…..dismissed the British Conservative Party as the stupid party..”. it is appropriate to say in India also where the so called elected politician fools liberals for everything and the same is the judiciary.