It is not so with the distribution of wealth. That is a matter of human institution solely.
Society can subject the distribution of wealth to whatever rules it thinks best.
Whether property is privately owned or communally owned, whether wealth is retained by those who produce it or redistributed to others, Mill argued, was a matter of social consensus. He admitted that under present conditions men were guided by the motive of self-interest, and a seizing or redistributing of their property or wealth might have disincentive effects on their willingness to produce. But he believed that changes in the institutional arrangements of society could modify human nature as well, making men more communally oriented in their motives for action. His only fundamental concern was the potential loss of personal liberty in a fully communist society. The idea of remaking man and society has dominated human thought since ancient times.