 Section 5 of essays on political economy. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Essays on political economy by Frédéric Bastiat. Section 5 4. Theatres, Fine Arts. ought the state to support the arts? There is certainly much to be said on both sides of this question. It may be said, in favor of the system of voting supplies for this purpose, that the arts enlarge, elevate, and harmonize the soul of a nation, that they divert it from too great an absorption in material occupations, encourage in it a love for the beautiful, and thus acts favorably on its manners, customs, morals, and even on its industry. It may be asked, what would become of music in France, without her Italian theater, and her conservatory, of the dramatic arts, without her theater-francois, of painting and sculpture, without our collections, galleries, and museums. It might even be asked whether without centralization and consequently the support of the fine arts, that exquisite taste would be developed, which is the noble appendage of French labor, and which introduces its productions to the whole world. In the face of such results, would it not be the height of imprudence to renounce this moderate contribution from all her citizens, which, in fact, in the eyes of Europe, realizes their superiority and their glory? To these and many other reasons, whose force I do not dispute, arguments no less forcible may be opposed. It might, first of all, be said, that there is a question of distributive justice in it. Does the right of the legislature extend to abridging the wages of the artisan, for the sake of, adding to the profits of the artist? M. Lamertine said, if you cease to support the theater, where will you stop? Will you not necessarily be led to withdraw your support from your colleges, your museums, your institutes, and your libraries? It might be answered, if you desire to support everything, which is good and useful, where will you stop? Will you not necessarily be led to form a civil list for agriculture, industry, commerce, benevolence, education? Then is it certain that government aid favors the progress of art? This question is far from being settled, and we see very well that the theaters which prosper are those which depend upon their own resources. Moreover, if we come to higher considerations, we may observe that wants and desires arise the one from the other and originate in regions which are more and more refined, in proportion, as the public wealth allows of their being satisfied. Let government ought not to take part in this correspondence, because in a certain condition of present fortune it could not by taxation stimulate the arts of necessity without checking those of luxury, and thus interrupting the natural course of civilization. I may observe that these artificial transpositions of wants, tastes, labor, and population place the people in a precarious and dangerous position without any solid basis. These are some of the reasons alleged by the adversaries of state intervention in what concerns the order in which citizens think their wants and desires should be satisfied, and to which, consequently, their activity should be directed. I am, I confess, one of those who think that choice and impulse ought to come from below and not from above, from the citizen and not from the legislature, and the opposite doctrine appears to me to tend to the destruction of liberty and of human dignity. But by a deduction as false as it is unjust, do you know what economists are accused of? It is that when we disapprove of government support we are supposed to disprove of the thing itself whose support is discussed, and to be the enemies of every kind of activity, because we desire to see those activities on the one hand free and on the other seeking their own reward in themselves. Thus, if we think that the state should not interfere by taxation in religious affairs, we are atheists. If we think the state ought not to interfere by taxation in education, we are hostile to knowledge. If we say that the state ought not by taxation to give a fictitious value to land or to any particular branch of industry, we are enemies to property and labor. If we think that the state ought not to support artists, we are barbarians who look upon the arts as useless. Against such conclusions as these, I protest with all my strength, far from entertaining the absurd idea of doing away with religion, education, property, labor, and the arts, when we say that the state ought to protect the free development of all these kinds of human activity without helping some of them at the expense of others, we think, on the contrary, that all these living powers of society would develop themselves more harmoniously under the influence of liberty, and that, under such an influence, no one of them would, as is now the case, be a source of trouble, of abuses, of tyranny, and disorder. Our adversaries consider that an activity, which is neither aided by supplies, nor regulated by government, is an activity destroyed. We think just the contrary. Their faith is in the legislature, not in mankind. Ours is in mankind, not in the legislature. Thus M. Lamertine said, upon this principle we must abolish the public exhibitions, which are the honor and the wealth of this country. But I would say to M. Lamertine, according to your way of thinking, not to support is to abolish, because, setting out upon the maxim that nothing exists independently of the will of the state, you conclude that nothing lives but what the state causes to live. But I oppose to this assertion the very example which you have chosen, and thank you to remark the most and noblest of exhibitions, one which has been conceived in the most liberal and universal spirit, and I might even make use of the term humanitary, for it is no exaggeration, is the exhibition now preparing in London, the only one in which no government is taking any part, and which is being paid for by no tax. To return to the fine arts. There are, I repeat, many strong reasons to be brought, both for and against the system of government assistance. The reader must see the special object of this work leads me neither to explain these reasons, nor to decide in their favor, nor against them. But M. Lamertine has advanced one argument which I cannot pass by in silence, for it is closely connected with this economic study. The economical question, as regards theatres, is comprised in one word, labour. It matters little what is the nature of this labour. It is as fertile, as productive, a labour as any other kind of labour in the nation. The theatres in France, you know, feed and salary no less than 80,000 workmen of different kinds, painters, masons, decorators, costumers, architects, etc., which constitute the very life and movement of several parts of this capital, and on this account they ought to have your sympathies. Your sympathies, say rather your money. And further on, he says, the pleasures of Paris are the labour and the consumption of the provinces, and the luxuries of the rich are the wages and bread of 200,000 workmen of every description who live by the manifold industry of the theatres on the surface of the Republic and to receive from these noble pleasures, which render France illustrious, the sustenance of their lives and the necessaries of their families and children. It is to them that you will give 60,000 francs. Very well, very well. Great applause. For my part I am constrained to say very bad, very bad. Confining this opinion, of course, within the bounds of the economical question which we are discussing. Yes, it is to the workmen of the theatres that a part, at least, of these 60,000 francs will go. A few bribes perhaps may be abstracted on the way. Perhaps if we were to look a little more closely into the matter we might find that the cake had gone another way and that those workmen were fortunate who had come in for a few crumbs. But I will allow for the sake of argument that the entire sum does go to the painters, decorators, etc. This is that which is seen. But once does it come. This is the other side of the question and quite as important as the former. Where do these 60,000 francs spring from? And where would they go if a vote of the legislature did not direct them first towards the Rue Rivoli and then towards the Rue Grinnell? This is what is not seen. Certainly nobody will think of maintaining that the legislative vote has caused this sum to be hatched in a ballot earn. That it is a pure addition made to the national wealth. That but for this miraculous vote these 60,000 francs would have been forever invisible and impalpable. It must be admitted that all the majority can do is to decide that they shall be taken from one place to be sent to another. And if they take one direction it is only because they have been diverted from another. This being the case it is clear that the taxpayer who has contributed one franc will no longer have this franc it is clear that he will be deprived of some gratification to the amount of one franc and that the workman whoever he may be who would have received it from him will be deprived of a benefit to that amount. Let us not therefore be led by a childish illusion into believing that the vote of the 60,000 francs may add anything whatever to the well-being of the country and to national labour. It displaces enjoyments it transposes wages that is all. Will it be said that for one kind of gratification and one kind of labour it substitutes more urgent more moral, more reasonable gratifications in labour? I might dispute this I might say by taking 60,000 francs from the taxpayers you diminish the wages of labourers drainers, carpenters blacksmiths and increase in proportion those of the singers there is nothing to prove that this latter class calls for more sympathy than the former M. Lambertine does not say that it is so he himself says that the labour of the theatres is as fertile, as productive as any other not more so and this may be doubted for the best proof that the latter not so fertile as the former lies in this that the other is to be called upon to assist it but this comparison between the value and the interesting merit of different kinds of labour forms no part of my present subject all I have to do here is to show that if M. Lambertine and those persons who commend his line of arguments have seen on one side the salaries gained by the providers of the comedians they ought on the other to have seen the salaries lost by the providers of the taxpayers for once of this they have exposed themselves to ridicule by mistaking a displacement for a gain if they were true to their doctrine there would be no limits to their demands for government aid for that which is true of one frank and of sixty thousand is true under parallel of a hundred millions of francs when taxes are the subject of discussion you ought to prove their utility by reasons from the root of the matter but not by this unlucky assertion the public expenses support the working classes this assertion disguises the important fact that public expenses always supersede private expenses and that therefore we bring a livelihood to one workman instead of another but add nothing to the share of the working class as a whole your arguments are fashionable enough but they are too absurd to be justified by anything like reason five public works nothing is more natural than that a nation after having assured itself that an enterprise will benefit the community should have it executed by means of a general assessment but I lose patience I confess when I hear this economic blunder advanced in support of such a project besides it will be a means of creating labor for the workmen the state opens a road builds a palace straightens a street cuts a canal and so gives work to certain workmen this is what is seen it deprives certain other workmen of work and this is what is not seen the road is begun a thousand workmen come every morning leave every evening and take their wages this is certain if the road had not been decreed if the supplies had not been voted these good people would have had neither work nor salary there this also is certain but is this all? does not the operation as a whole contain something else? at the moment when M. Dupin pronounces the emphatic words the assembly has adopted do the millions descend miraculously on a moon beam into the coffers of M. M. Fould and Vigno? in order that the evolution may be complete as it is said must not the state organize the receipts as well as the expenditure? must it not set its tax-gatherers and taxpayers to work the former to gather and the latter to pay? study the question now in both its elements while you state the destination given by the state to the millions voted do not neglect to state also the destination which the taxpayers would have given but cannot now give to the same then you will understand that the public enterprise is a coin with two sides upon one is engraved a laborer at work with this device that which is seen on the other is a laborer out of work with the device that which is not seen the sophism which this work is intended to refute is the more dangerous one applied to public works in as much as it serves to justify the most wanton enterprises that are facing extravagance when a railroad or a bridge are of real utility it is sufficient to mention this utility but if it does not exist what do they do recourse is had to this mystification we must find work for the workmen accordingly orders are given that the drains in the Champt-de-Mar be made and unmade the great napoleon it is said thought he was doing a very philanthropic work by causing ditches to be made and then filled up he said therefore what signifies the result all we want is to see wealth spread among the laboring classes but let us go to the root of the matter we are deceived by money to demand the cooperation of all the citizens in a common work in the form of money is in reality to demand a concurrence in kind for everyone procures by his own labor the sum to which he is taxed now if all the citizens were to be called together and made to execute in conjunction a work useful to all this would be easily understood the reward would be found in the results of the work itself but after having called them together if you force them to make roads which no one will pass through palaces which no one will inhabit and this under the pretext of finding them work it would be absurd and they would have a right to argue with this labor we have nothing to do we prefer working on our own account a proceeding which consists in making the citizens cooperate in giving money but not labor does not in any way alter the general results the only thing is that the loss would react upon all parties by the former those whom the state employs escape their part of the loss by adding to it that which their fellow citizens have already suffered there is an article in our constitution which says society favors and encourages the development of labor by the establishment of public works by the state the departments and the parishes of employing persons who are in want of work as a temporary measure on any emergency during a hard winter this interference with the taxpayer may have its use it acts in the same way as securities it adds nothing either to labor or to wages but it takes labor and wages from ordinary times to give them at a loss it is true to times of difficulty as a permanent general systematic measure it is nothing else than a ruinous mystification an impossibility which shows a little excited labor which is seen and hides a great deal of prevented labor which is not seen six the intermediates society is the total of the forced or voluntary services which men perform for each other that is to say of public services and private services the former imposed and regulated by the law which it is not always easy to change even when it is desirable may survive with it their own usefulness and still preserve the name of public services even when they are no longer public services at all but rather public annoyances the latter belong to the sphere of the will of individual responsibility everyone gives and receives what he wishes and what he can after a debate they have always the presumption of real utility in exact proportion to their comparative value this is the reason why the former description of services so often becomes stationary while the latter obey the law of progress while the exaggerated development of public services by the waste of strength which it involves fastens upon society a fatal syncofency it is a singular thing that several modern sex attributing this character to free and private services are endeavoring to transform professions into functions these sex violently oppose what they call intermediates they would gladly suppress the capitalist the banker, the speculator the projector, the merchant and the trader accusing them of interposing between production and consumption to extort from both without giving either anything in return or rather they would transfer to the state the work which they accomplish for this work cannot be suppressed the sophism of the socialists on this point is showing to the public what it pays to the intermediates in exchange for their services and concealing from it what is necessary to be paid to the state here is the usual conflict between what is before our eyes and what is perceptible to the mind only between what is seen and what is not seen it was at the time of the scarcity in 1847 that the socialist schools attempted and succeeded in popularizing their fatal theory they knew very well that the most absurd notions have always a chance with people who are suffering malisunda fame therefore by the help of the fine words trafficking in men by men speculation on hunger monopoly they began to blacken commerce and to cast a veil over its benefits what can be the use they say of leaving to the merchants the care of importing food from the united states and the crimea why do not the state the departments and the towns organize a service for provisions and a magazine for stores they would sell at a return price and the people poor things would be exempted from the tribute which they pay to free that is to egotistical individuals and anarchical commerce the tribute paid by the people to commerce is that which is seen the tribute which the people would pay to the state or to its agents in the socialist system is what is not seen in what does this the tribute which the people pay to commerce consist in this that two men render each other a mutual service in all freedom and under the pressure of competition and reduced prices when the hungry stomach is a paris and corn which can satisfy is a todessa the suffering cannot cease till the corn is brought into contact with the stomach there are three means by which this contact may be affected first the famished men may go themselves and fetch the corn second they may leave this task to those to whose trade it belongs third they may club together and give the office in charge to public functionaries which of these three methods possesses the greatest advantages in every time in all countries and the more free and lightened and experienced they are men have voluntarily chosen the second I confess that this is sufficient in my opinion to justify this choice I cannot believe that mankind as a whole is deceiving itself upon a point which touches it so nearly but let us now consider the subject for 36 millions of citizens no end fetch the corn they want from Odessa is a manifest impossibility the first means then goes for nothing the consumers cannot act for themselves they must of necessity have recourse to intermediates officials or agents but observe that the first of these three means would be the most natural in reality the hungry man has to fetch his corn it is a task which concerns himself a service due to himself if another person on whatever ground performs this service for him takes the task upon himself this letter has a claim upon him for a compensation I mean by this to say that intermediates contain in themselves the principle of remuneration however that may be since we must refer to what the socialists call a parasite I would ask which of the two is the most exacting parasite the merchant or the official commerce free of course otherwise I could not reason upon it commerce I say is led by its own interests to study the seasons to give daily statements of the state of the crops to receive information from every part of the globe to foresee wants for hands it has vessels always ready correspondence everywhere and it is its immediate interest to buy at the lowest possible price to economize in all the details of its operations and to attain the greatest results by the smallest efforts it is not the French merchants only who are occupied in procuring provisions for France in time of need and if their interest leads them to accomplish their task at the smallest possible cost the competition which they create amongst each other leads them no less irresistibly to cause the consumers to partake of the profits of those realized savings the corn arrives it is to the interest of commerce to sell it as soon as possible so as to avoid risks to realize its funds and to begin again the first opportunity directed by the comparison of prices it distributes food over the whole service of the country beginning always at the highest price that is where the demand is the greatest it is impossible to imagine an organization more completely calculated to meet the interest of those who are in wants and the beauty of this organization unperceived as it is by the socialists results from the very fact that it is free it is true the consumer is obliged to reimburse commerce for the expenses of conveyance freight, storeroom commission, etc but can any system be devised in which he who eats corn is not obliged to defray the expenses whatever they may be of bringing it within his reach the remuneration for the service performed has to be paid also but as regards its amount this is reduced to the smallest possible sum by competition and as regards its justice it would be very strange if the artisans of Paris would not work for the artisans of Marseille when the merchants of Marseille work for the artisans of Paris if according to the socialist intervention the state were to stand in a stead of commerce what would happen I should like to be informed where the saving would be to the public would it be in the price of purchase imagine the delicates of 40,000 parishes arriving at our desa on a given day and on the day of need imagine the effect upon prices would the saving be in the expenses would fewer vessels be required fewer sailors fewer transports fewer sloops or would you be exempt from the payment all these things would it be in the profits of the merchants would your officials go to a desa for nothing would they travel and work on the principle of fraternity must they not live must not they be paid for their time and do you believe that these expenses would not exceed a thousand times the two or three percent which the merchant gains at the rate of which he is ready to treat and then consider the difficulty of levying so many taxes and of dividing so much food think of the injustice of the abuses inseparable from such an enterprise think of the responsibility which would weigh upon the government the socialists who have invented these follies and who in the days of distress have introduced them into the minds of the masses take to themselves literally the title of advanced men and it is not without some danger that custom that tyrant of tongues authorizes the term and the sentiment which it involves advanced this supposes that these gentlemen can see further than the common people that their only fault is that they are too much in advance of their age and if the time is not yet come they are suppressing certain free services pretended parasites the fault is to be attributed to the public which is in the rear of socialism I say from my soul and my conscience the reverse is the truth and I know not to at a barbarous age we should have to go back if we would find the level of socialist knowledge on this subject these modern sectarians incessantly oppose association they overlook the fact that society under a free regulation is a true association far superior to any of those which proceed from their fertile imaginations let me illustrate this by an example before a mutual services and to helping each other in a common object and that all may be considered with respect to others intermediates if for example in the course of the operation the conveyance becomes important enough to occupy one person the spinning another the weaving another why should the first be considered a parasite more than the other two the conveyance must be made must it not does not he who performs it devote to it his time in trouble and by doing so does he not spare that of his colleagues do more or other than this for him are they not equally dependent for remuneration that is for the division of the produce upon the law of reduced price is it not in all liberty for the common good that this separation of work takes place and that these arrangements are entered into what do we want with a socialist then who under the pretense of organizing for us comes despotically to break up our voluntary arrangements to check the division of labor to substitute isolated efforts for combined ones and to send civilization back is association as I describe it here in itself less association because everyone enters and leaves it freely chooses his place in it judges and bargains for himself on his own responsibility with him the spring and warrant of personal interest that it may deserve this name is it necessary that a pretended reformer should come and impose upon us his plan and his will and as it were to concentrate mankind in himself the more we examine these advanced schools the more do we become convinced that there is but one thing at the root of them ignorance proclaiming itself infallible and claiming despotism in the name of this infallibility I hope the reader will excuse this digression it may not be altogether useless at a time when declamations springing from Saint Simonian, Philanstrian and Icarian books are invoking the press and the tribune and which seriously threaten the liberty of labor and commercial transactions end of section 5 recording by Katie Riley February 2010 section 6 of Essays on Political Economy this is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org Essays on Political Economy by Frédéric Bastiat section 6 section 6 7 Restrictions M. Prohibant it was not I who gave him this name but M. Charles Dupin devoted his time and capital to converting the ore found on his land into iron as nature had been more lavish towards the Belgians they furnished the French with iron cheaper than M. Prohibant which means that all the French could obtain a given quantity of iron with less labor by buying it from the honest Flemings therefore guided by their own interest they did not fail to do so and every day there might be seen a multitude of nail smiths black smiths, cartwrights machinists, ferriers and laborers going themselves or sending intermediates to supply themselves in Belgium this displeased M. Prohibant exceedingly at first it occurred to him to put an end to this abuse by his own efforts it was the least he could do for he was the only sufferer I will take my carbine said he I will put four pistols into my belt I will fill my cartridge box I will gird on my sword and go thus equipped to the frontier there the first black smith, nail smith ferrier, machinist or locksmith who presents himself to do his own business and not mine I will kill to teach him how to live at the moment of starting M. Prohibant made a few reflections which calmed down his warlike ardor a little he said to himself in the first place it is not absolutely impossible that the purchasers of iron and enemies should take the thing ill and instead of letting me kill them should kill me instead and then even were I to call out all my servants we should not be able to defend the passages in short this proceeding would cost me very dear much more so than the result would be worth M. Prohibant was on the point of resigning himself to his sad fate that of being only as free as the rest of the world when a ray of light darted across his brain he recollected that at Paris there is a great manufactory of laws what is a law said he to himself it is a measure to which when once it is decreed be it good or bad everybody is bound to conform for the execution of the same a public force is organized and to constitute the said public force men and money are drawn from the whole nation if then I could only get the great Parisian manufactory to pass a little law Belgian iron is prohibited I should obtain the following results the government would replace the few valets that I was going to send to the frontier by 20,000 of the sons of those refractory blacksmiths ferriers, artisans, machinists loxmas, nail smiths and labor burrs then to keep these 20,000 custom house officers in health and good humor it would distribute among them 25 millions of francs taken from these blacksmiths nail smiths, artisans and laborers they would guard the frontier much better would cost me nothing I should not be exposed to the brutality of the brokers should sell the iron at my own price and have the sweet satisfaction of seeing our great people terrified that would teach them to proclaim themselves perpetually the harbingers and promoters of progress in Europe oh, it would be a capital joke and deserves to be tried so Emperor Hibbins went to the law manufactory another time, perhaps I shall relate the story of his underhand dealings but now I shall merely mention his visible proceedings he brought the following consideration to you of the legislating gentleman Belgian iron is sold in France at 10 francs which obliges me to sell mine at the same price I should like to sell at 15 but cannot do so on account of this Belgian iron which I wish was at the bottom of the Red Sea I beg you will make a law that no more Belgian iron shall enter France immediately I raise my price 5 francs and these are the consequences for every hundred weight of iron that I shall deliver to the public I shall receive 15 francs instead of 10 I shall grow rich more rapidly extend my traffic and employ more workmen my workmen and I shall spend much more freely to the great advantage of our tradesmen for miles around these latter, having more custom will furnish more employment to trade and activity on both sides will increase in the country this fortunate piece of money which you will drop into my strongbox will, like a stone thrown into a lake give birth to an infinite number of concentric circles charmed with his discourse delighted to learn that it is so easy to promote, by legislating the prosperity of a people the lawmakers voted the restriction talk of labour and economy they said what is the use of these painful means of increasing the national wealth when all that is wanted for this object is a decree and, in fact, the law produced all the consequences announced by M. Perhippans the only thing was it produced others which he had not foreseen to do him justice his reasoning was not false but only incomplete in endeavoring to obtain a privilege he had taken cognizance of the effects which are seen leaving in the background those which are not seen he had pointed out only two personages whereas there are three concerned in the affair it is for us to supply this involuntary or premeditated omission it is true the crown piece thus directed by law into M. Perhippans' strongbox is advantageous to him and to those whose labour it would encourage and if the act had caused the crown piece to descend from the moon these good effects would not have been counterbalanced by any corresponding evils unfortunately the mysterious piece of money does not come from the moon but from the pocket of a blacksmith or a nailsmith or a cartwright or a farrier or a labourer or a shipwright in a word from James B. the grain more of iron than when he was paying ten francs thus we can see at a glance that this very much alters the state of the case for it is very evident that M. Perhippans' prophet is compensated by James B.'s laws and all that M. Perhippans can do with the crown piece for the encouragement of national labour James B. might have done himself the stone has only been thrown upon one part of the lake because the law has prevented it from being thrown upon another therefore that which is not seen supersedes that which is seen and at this point there remains as the residue of the operation a piece of injustice and, sad to say a piece of injustice perpetrated by the law this is not all I have said that there is always a third person left in the background I must now bring him forward that he may reveal to us a second loss of five francs then we shall have the entire results of the transaction James B. is the possessor of fifteen francs the fruit of his labour he is now free what does he do with his fifteen francs he purchases some article of fashion for ten francs and with it he pays or the intermediate pay for him for the hundred weight of Belgian iron after this he has five francs left he does not throw them into the river but, and this is what is not seen he gives them to some tradesmen in exchange for some enjoyment to a bookseller, for instance for Basway's discourse on universal history thus as far as national labour is concerned, it is encouraged to the amount of fifteen francs there is ten francs for the Paris article five francs to the bookselling trade as to James B. he obtains for his fifteen francs two gratifications there is first, a hundred weight of iron second, a book the decree is put in force how does it affect the condition of James B how does it affect national labour James B. pays every son team of his five francs two M. prohibit and therefore is deprived of the pleasure of a book or of some other thing of equal value he loses five francs this must be admitted it cannot fail to be admitted that when the restriction raises the price of things the consumer loses the difference but then it is said national labour is the gainer no it is not the gainer for since the act it is no more encouraged than it was before to the amount of fifteen francs the only thing is that since the act fifteen francs of James B go to the metal trade while before it was put in force they were divided between the milliner and the bookseller the violence used by M. prohibit on the frontier or that which he causes to be used by the law may be judged very differently in a moral point of view some persons consider that plunder is perfectly justifiable if only sanctioned by law but for myself i cannot imagine anything more aggravating however it may be the economical results are the same in both cases look at the thing as you will but if you are impartial you will see that no good can come of legal or illegal plunder we do not deny that it affords M. prohibit or his trade or if you will national industry a profit of five francs but we affirm that it causes two losses one to James B who pays fifteen francs where he otherwise would have paid ten the other to national industry which does not receive the difference take your choice of these two losses and compensate with it the profit which we allow the other will prove not the less a dead loss here is the moral to take by violence is not to produce but to destroy truly if taking by violence was producing this country of ours would be a little richer than she is eight machinery a curse on machines every year their increasing power devotes millions of workmen to pauperism by depriving them of work and therefore of wages and bread to curse on machines this is the cry which is raised by vulgar prejudice and echoed in the journals but to curse machines is to curse the spirit of humanity it puzzles me to conceive how any man can feel any satisfaction in such a doctrine for if true what is its inevitable consequence that there is no activity prosperity wealth or happiness possible for any people except for those who are stupid and inert and to whom God has not granted the fatal gift of knowing how to think to observe to combine to invent and to obtain the greatest results with the smallest means on the contrary rags, meanhuts poverty and in a nation are the inevitable lot of every nation which seeks and finds an iron, fire, wind, electricity magnetism the laws of chemistry and mechanics in a word in the powers of nature and assistance to its natural powers we might as well say with Rousseau every man that thinks is a depraved animal this is not all if this doctrine is true since all men think and invent since all to last and at every moment of their existence seek the cooperation of the powers of nature and try to make the most of a little by reducing either the work of their hands or their expenses so as to obtain the greatest possible amount of gratification with the smallest possible amount of labor it must follow as a matter of course that the whole of mankind is rushing towards its decline by the same mental aspiration towards progress which torments each of its members hence it ought to be made known by statistics that the inhabitants of Lancashire abandoning that land of machines seek for work in Ireland where they are unknown and by history that barbarism darkens the epics of civilization and that civilization shines in times of ignorance and barbarism there is evidently in this a mass of contradictions something which revolts us and which leads us to suspect that the problem contains within it an element of solution which has not been sufficiently disengaged here is the whole mystery behind that which is seen lies something which is not seen I will endeavor to bring it to light the demonstration I shall give will only be a repetition of the preceding one for the problems are one and the same men have a natural propensity to make the best bargain they can when not prevented by an opposing force that is they like to obtain as much as they possibly can for their labor whether the advantage is obtained from a foreign producer or a skillful mechanical producer the theoretical objection which is made to this propensity is the same in both cases in each case it is reproached with the apparent inactivity which it causes to labor now labor rendered available not inactive is the very thing which determines it and therefore in both cases the same practical obstacle force is opposed to it also the legislature prohibits foreign competition and forbids mechanical competition for what other means can exist for arresting a propensity which is natural to all men but that of depriving them of their liberty in many countries it is true the legislature strikes at only one of these competitions and confines himself to grumbling at the other this only proves one thing that is that the legislature is inconsistent we need not be surprised at this on a wrong road inconsistency is inevitable if it were not so mankind would be sacrificed a false principle never has been and never will be carried out to the end now for our demonstration which shall not be a long one James B. had two francs which he had gained by two workmen but it occurs to him that an arrangement of ropes and weights might be made which would diminish the labor by half therefore he obtains the same advantage saves a franc and discharges a workman he discharges a workman this is that which is seen and seeing this only it is said see how misery attends civilization this is the way that liberty is fatal to equality the human mind is made a conquest and immediately a workman is cast into the gulf of pauperism James B. may possibly employ the two workmen but then he will give them only half their wages for they will compete with each other and offer themselves at the lowest price thus the rich are always growing richer and the poor poorer society wants remodeling a very fine conclusion and worthy of the preamble happily preamble and conclusion are both false because behind the half of the phenomenon which is seen lies the other half which is not seen the franc saved by James B. is not seen no more are the necessary effects of this saving since in consequence of his invention James B. spends only one franc to enhance labor in the pursuit of a determined advantage another franc remains to him if then there is in the world a workman with unemployed arms there is also in the world a capitalist with an unemployed franc these two elements meet and combine and it is as clear as daylight that between the supply and demand of labor and between the supply and demand of wages is in no way changed the invention and the workman paid with the first franc now perform the work which was formerly accomplished by two workmen the second workman paid with the second franc realizes a new kind of work what is the change then which has taken place an additional national advantage has been gained in other words the invention is a gratuitous triumph a gratuitous profit for mankind from the form which I have given to my demonstration the following inference might be drawn it is the capitalist who reaps all the advantage from machinery the working class if it suffers only temporarily never profits by it since by your own showing they displace a portion of the national labor without diminishing it it is true but also without increasing it I do not pretend in this slight treatise to answer every objection the only end I have in view is to combat a vulgar, widely spread and dangerous prejudice I want to prove that a new machine only causes the discharge of a certain number of hands when the remuneration which pays them is abstracted by force these hands and this remuneration would combine to produce what it was impossible to produce before the invention once it follows that the final result is an increase of advantages for equal labor who is the gainer by these additional advantages first it is true the capitalist the inventor the first who succeeds in using the machine and this is the reward of his genius and courage in this case, as we have just seen he affects a saving upon the expense of production which, in whatever way it may be spent and it always is spent employs exactly as many hands as the machine caused to be dismissed but soon competition obliges him to lower his prices in proportion to the saving itself and then it is no longer the inventor who reaps the benefit of the invention it is the purchaser of what is produced the consumer, the public including the workmen in a word, mankind and that which is not seen is that the saving thus procured for all consumers creates a fund when wages may be supplied and which replaces that which the machine has exhausted thus in a more mentioned example James B obtains a profit by spending two francs in wages thanks to his invention the hand labor costs him only one franc so long as he sells the thing produced at the same price he employs one workmen less in producing this particular thing and that is what is seen but there is an additional workmen employed by the franc that he has saved this is that which is not seen when, by the natural progress of things James B is obliged to lower the price of the thing produced by one franc then he no longer realizes a saving then he has no longer a franc to dispose of to procure for the national labor a new production but then another gainer takes his place and this gainer is mankind buys the thing he has produced pays a franc less and necessarily adds this saving to the fund of wages and this again is what is not seen another solution founded upon facts has been given of this problem of machinery it was said machinery reduces the expense of production and lowers the price of the thing produced the reduction of the profit causes an increase of consumption which necessitates an increase of production and finally the introduction of as many workmen or more after the invention as were necessary before it as a proof of this printing, weaving, etc are instanced this demonstration is not a scientific one it would lead us to conclude that if the consumption of the particular production of which we are speaking remains stationary or nearly so machinery must injure labor this is not the case suppose that in a certain country all the people wore hats if by machinery the price could be reduced half it would not necessarily follow that the consumption would be doubled would you say that in this case a portion of the national labor had been paralyzed yes according to the vulgar demonstration but according to mine no for even if not a single hat more should be bought in the country the entire fund of wages would not be the less secure that which failed to go to the hat making trade would be found to have gone to the economy realized by all the consumers and would then serve to pay for all the labor which the machine had rendered useless and to excite a new development of all the trades and thus it is that things go on I have known newspapers to cost 80 francs now we pay 48 here is a saving of 32 francs to the subscribers it is not certain or at least necessary that the 32 francs would take the direction of the journalist trade but it is certain and necessary too that if they do not take this direction they will take another one makes use of them for taking in more newspapers another to get better living another better clothes another better furniture it is thus that the trades are bound together they form a vast whole whose different parts communicate by secret canals what is saved by one profits all it is very important for us to understand that savings never take place at the expense of labor and wages nine credit in all times but more specially of late years attempts have been made to extend wealth by the extension of credit I believe it is no exaggeration that since the revolution of February the Parisian presses have issued more than 10,000 pamphlets crying up this solution of the social problem the only basis alas of the solution is an optical delusion if indeed an optical delusion can be called a basis at all the first thing done is to confuse cash with produce then paper money with cash and from these two confusions it is pretended that a reality can be drawn it is absolutely necessary in this question to forget money, coin bills and other instruments by means of which productions pass from hand to hand our business is with the productions themselves which are the real objects of the loan for when a farmer borrows 50 francs to buy a plow it is not in reality the 50 francs which are lent to him, but the plow and when a merchant borrows 20,000 francs to purchase a house it is not the 20,000 francs which he owes but the house money only appears for the sake of facilitating the arrangements between the parties Peter may not be disposed to lend his plow but James may be willing to lend his money what does William do in this case? he borrows money of James and with this money he buys the plow of Peter but in point of fact no one borrows money for the sake of money itself money is only the medium by which to obtain possession of productions now it is impossible in any country to transmit from one person to another more productions than that country contains whatever may be the amount of cash and of paper which is in circulation the whole of the borrowers cannot receive more plows houses, tools and supplies of raw material then the lenders altogether can furnish for we must take care not to forget that every borrower supposes a lender and that what is once borrowed implies a loan this granted what advantage is there in institutions of credit it is that they facilitate between borrowers and lenders the means of finding and trading with each other but it is not in their power to cause an instantaneous increase of the things to be borrowed and lent and yet they ought to be able to do so if the aim of the reformers is to be attained since they aspire to nothing less than to place plows, houses tools and provisions in the hands of all those who desire them and how do they intend to affect this by making the state security for the loan let us try and fathom the subject for it contains something which is seen and also something which is not seen we must endeavor to look at both we will suppose that there is but one plow in the world and that two farmers apply for it Peter is the possessor of the only plow which is to be had in France John and James wish to borrow it John, by his honesty, his property and good reputation offers security he inspires confidence he has credit James inspires little confidence it naturally happens that Peter lends his plow to John but now according to the socialist plan the state interferes and says to Peter lend your plow to James I will be security for its return and this security will be better than that of John for he has no one to be responsible for him but himself and I, although it is true that I have tax payers and it is with their money that, in case of need I shall pay you the principle and interest consequently Peter lends his plow to James this is what is seen and the socialists rub their hands and say, see how well our plan has answered thanks to the intervention of the state poor James has a plow he will no longer be obliged to dig the ground he is on the road to make a fortune it is a good thing for him and an advantage to the nation as a whole indeed it is no such thing it is no advantage to the nation for there is something behind which is not seen it is not seen that the plow is in the hands of James only because it is not in those of John it is not seen that if James farms instead of digging it will be reduced to the necessity of digging instead of farming that, consequently what was considered an increase of loan is nothing but a displacement of loan besides, it is not seen that this displacement implies two acts of deep injustice it is an injustice to John who, after having deserved and obtained credit by his honesty and activity, sees himself robbed of it it is an injustice to the taxpayers who are made to pay a debt which is no concern of theirs will anyone say that government offers the same facilities to John as it does to James but as there is only one plow to be had two cannot be lent the argument always maintains that thanks to the intervention of the state more will be borrowed than there are things to be lent for the plow represents here the bulk of available capitals it is true I have reduced the operation to the most simple expression of it but if you submit the most complicated government institutions of credit to the same test you will be convinced that they can have but one result viz, to displace credit not to argument it in one country and in a given time there is only a certain amount of capital available and all are employed in guaranteeing the non-payers the state may indeed increase the number of borrowers and thus raise the rate of interest always to the prejudice of the taxpayer but it has no power to increase the number of lenders and the importance of the total of the loans there is one conclusion however I would not for the world be suspected of drawing I say that the law ought not to favour artificially the power of borrowing but I do not say that it ought not to restrain them artificially if in our system of mortgage or in any other there be obstacles to the diffusion of the application of credit let them be got rid of nothing can be better or more just than this which is consistent with liberty and it is all that any who are worthy of the name of reformers will ask end of section 6 recording by Katie Riley February 2010 section 7 of essays on political economy this is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to balance here please visit LibriVox.org essays on political economy by Frédéric Bastia section 7 10 Algeria here are four orators disputing for the platform first all the four speak at once then they speak one after the other what have they said some very fine things certainly about the power and the grandeur of France about the necessity of sewing if we would reap about the brilliant future of our gigantic colony about the advantage of diverting to a distance the surplus of our population etc. etc. magnificent pieces of eloquence and always adorned with this conclusion vote 50 millions more or less for making ports and roads in Algeria for sending immigrants thither for building houses and breaking up land by doing so you will relieve the French workmen encourage African labor and give a stimulus to the commerce of Marseille it would be profitable every way yes it is all very true if you take no account of the 50 millions until the moment when the state begins to spend them if you only see where they go and not once they come if you look only at the good they are to do when they come out of the tax gatherers bag and not at the harm which has been done and the good which has been prevented by putting them into it yes at this very limited point of view all is profit the house which is built in Barbary is that which is seen the harbor made in Barbary is that which is seen the work caused in Barbary is what is seen a few less hands in France is what is seen a great stir with goods at Marseille is still that which is seen but besides all this there is something which is not seen the 50 millions expended by the state cannot be spent as they otherwise would have been by the tax payers it is necessary to deduct from all the good attributed to the public expenditure which has been affected all the harm caused by the prevention of private expense unless we say that James B would have done nothing with the crown that he had gained and of which the tax had deprived him an absurd assertion for if he took the trouble to earn it it was because he expected the satisfaction of using it he would have repaired the palings in his garden which he cannot now do and this is that which is not seen he would have minority's field which now he cannot do and this is what is not seen he would have added another story to his cottage which he cannot do now and this is what is not seen he might have increased the number of his tools which he cannot do now and this is what is not seen he would have been better fed better clothed have given a better education to his children and increased his daughter's marriage portion this is what is not seen he would have become a member of the Mutual Assistance Society but now he cannot this is what is not seen on one hand are the enjoyments of which he has been deprived and the means of action which have been destroyed in his hands on the other are the labor of the drainer, the carpenter the smith, the tailor the village schoolmaster which he would have encouraged and which are now prevented all this is what is not seen much is hoped from the future prosperity of Algeria be it so but the drain to which France is being subjected ought not to be kept entirely out of sight the commerce of Marseille is pointed out to me but if this is to be brought about by means of taxation I shall always show that an equal commerce is destroyed thereby in other parts of the country it is said there is an immigrant transported into Barbary there is a relief to the population of France in the country I answer how can that be if in transporting this immigrant to Algiers you also transport two or three times the capital which would have served to maintain him in France the only object I have in view is to make it evident to the reader that in every public expense behind the apparent benefit there is an evil which it is not so easy to discern as far as in me lies I would make him form a habit of seeing both and taking account of both when a public expense is proposed it ought to be examined in itself separately from the pretended encouragement of labour which results from it for tins encouragement is a delusion whatever is done in this way at the public expense private expense would have done all the same therefore the interest of labour is always out of the question it is not the object of this treatise to criticise the intrinsic merit of the public expenditure as applied to Algeria but I cannot withhold a general observation it is that the presumption is always unfavourable to collective expenses by way of tax why for this reason first justice always suffers from it in some degree James B. had laboured to gain his crown in the hope of receiving a gratification from it it is to be regretted that the exchequer should interpose and take from James B this gratification to bestow it upon another certainly it behooves the exchequer or those who regulate it to give good reasons for this it has been shown that the state gives a very provoking one when it says to employ workmen for James B as soon as he sees it will be sure to answer it is all very fine but with this crown I might employ them myself apart from this reason others present themselves without disguise by which the debate between the exchequer and poor James becomes much simplified if the state says to him I take your crown to pay the who saves you the trouble of providing for your own personal safety for paving the street which you are passing through every day for paying the magistrate who causes your property and your liberty to be respected to maintain the soldier who maintains our frontiers James B. unless I am much mistaken will pay for all this without hesitation but if the state were to say to him I take this crown may I give you a little prize in case you cultivate your field well or that I may teach your son something that you have no wish that he should learn or that the minister may add another to his score of dishes at dinner I take it to build a cottage in Algeria in which case I must take another crown every year to keep an immigrant at it and another hundred to maintain a soldier to guard this immigrant and another crown to maintain a general soldier, etc., etc. I think I hear poor James exclaim this system of law is very much like a system of cheat the state foresees the objection and what does it do? it jumbles all things together and brings forward just that provoking reason which ought to have nothing whatever to do with the question it talks of the effect of this crown upon labor it points to the cook and purveyor of the minister it shows an immigrant a soldier and a general living upon the crown it shows in fact what is seen and if James B. has not learned to take into the account what is not seen James B. will be duped and this is why I want to do all I can to impress it upon his mind by repeating it over and over again as the public expenses displace labor without increasing it a second serious presumption presents itself against them to displace labor is to displace laborers and to disturb the natural laws which regulate the distribution of the population over the country if 50 million francs are allowed to remain in the possession of the taxpayers since the taxpayers are everywhere they encourage labor in the 40,000 parishes in France they act like a natural tie which keeps everyone upon his native soil they distribute themselves amongst all imaginable laborers and trades if the state, by drawing off these 60 million francs from the citizens accumulates them and expends them on some given point it attracts to this point a proportional quantity of displace labor a corresponding number of laborers belonging to other parts a fluctuating population which is out of its place and I venture to say dangerous when the fund is exhausted now here is the consequence and this confirms all I have said this feverish activity is as it were forced into a narrow space it attracts the attention of all it is what is seen the people applaud they are astonished at the beauty and facility of the plan and expect to have it continued and extended that which they do not see is that an equal quantity of labor which would probably be more valuable has been paralyzed over the rest of France eleven frugality and luxury it is not only in the public expenditure that what is seen eclipses what is not seen setting aside what relates to political economy this phenomenon leads to false reasoning it causes nations to consider their moral and their material interests as contradictory to each other what can be more discouraging or more dismal for instance there is not a father of a family who does not think that his duty to teach his children order system the habits of carefulness of economy and of moderation in spending money there is no religion which does not thunder against pomp and luxury this is as it should be but on the other hand how frequently do we hear the following remarks to hoard is to drain the veins of the people the luxury of the great is the comfort of the little prodigals ruin themselves but they enrich the state it is the superfluity of the rich which makes bread for the poor here certainly is a striking contradiction between the moral and the social idea how many eminent spirits after having made the assertion repose in peace it is a thing I never could understand for it seems to me that nothing can be more distressing than to discover two opposite tendencies in mankind why it comes to degradation at each of the extremes economy brings it to misery prodigality plunges it into moral degradation happily these vulgar maxims exhibit economy and luxury in a false light taking account as they do of those immediate consequences which are seen and not of the remote ones which are not seen let us see if we can rectify this incomplete view of the case Mondor and his brother Aristus after dividing the parental inheritance have each an income of 50,000 francs Mondor practices the fashionable philanthropy he is what is called a squanderer of money he renews his furniture several times a year changes his equipages every month people talk of his ingenious contrivances to bring them sooner to an end in short he surpasses the fast livers of Balzek and Alexander Dumas and thus everybody is singing his praises it is tell us about Mondor Mondor forever he is the benefactor of the workmen a blessing to the people it is true he revels in dissipation he splashes the passersby his own dignity and that of human nature are lowered a little but what of that he does good with his fortune if not with himself he causes money to circulate he always sends the tradespeople away satisfied he's not money made round that it may roll Aristus has adopted a very different plan of life he's not an egotist he is at any rate an individualist for he considers expense seeks only moderate and reasonable enjoyments thinks of his children's prospects and in fact he economizes and what do people say of him what is the good of a rich fellow like him he is a skinflint there is something imposing perhaps in the simplicity of his life N.T. is humane too and benevolent and generous but he calculates he does not spend his income his house is neither brilliant nor bustling what good does he do to the paper hangers the carriage makers the horse dealers and the confectioners these opinions which are fatal to morality are founded upon what strikes the eye the expenditure of the prodigal and another which is out of sight the equal and even superior expenditure of the economist but things have been so admirably arranged by the divine inventor of social order that in this as in everything else political economy and morality far from clashing agree and the wisdom of Aristus is not only more dignified but still more profitable than the folly of Mander and when I say profitable I do not mean only profitable to Aristus or even to society in general but more profitable to the workmen themselves to the trade of the time to prove it it is only necessary to turn the mind's eye to those hidden consequences of human actions which the bodily eye does not see yes the prodigality of Mander has visible effects in every point of view everybody can see his landals his faetans his delicate paintings on his sailings his rich carpets the brilliant effects of his house everyone knows that his horses run upon the turf the dinners which he gives at the hotel de Paris attract the attention of the crowds on the boulevards and it is said that he is the first man far from saving his income he is very likely breaking into his capital that is what is seen it is not so easy to see with regard to the interest of workers what becomes of the income of Aristus if we were to trace it carefully however we should see that the whole of it down to the last farthing affords work to the laborers that is the fortune of Mander only there is this difference the wanton extravagance of Mander is doomed to be constantly decreasing and to come to an end without fail whilst the wise expenditure of Aristus will go on increasing from year to year and if this is the case then most assuredly the public interest will be in unison with morality Aristus spends upon himself 20,000 francs a year if that is not sufficient to content him he does not deserve to be called a wise man he is touched by the miseries which oppress the poorer classes he thinks he is bound in conscience to afford them some relief and therefore he devotes 10,000 francs to acts of benevolence amongst the merchants the manufacturers and the agriculturalists are suffering under temporary difficulties he makes himself acquainted with their situation that he may assist them with prudence and efficiency and to this work he devotes 10,000 francs more then he does not forget that he has daughters to portion and sons for whose prospects it is his duty to provide and therefore he considers it a duty to lay by and put out to interest 10,000 francs the following is a list of his expenses first personal expenses 20,000 francs second, benevolent objects 10,000 francs third, offices of friendship 10,000 francs fourth, saving 10,000 francs let us examine each of these items and we shall see that not a single farthing escapes the labour first, personal expenses these, as far as work people and tradesmen are concerned have precisely the same effect as an equal sum spent by Mander this is self-evident therefore we shall say no more about it second, benevolent objects the 10,000 francs devoted to this purpose benefit trade in an equal degree they reach the butcher the tailor and the carpenter the only thing is that the bread the meat and the clothing are not used by Aristis but by those whom he has made his substitutes now this simple substitution of one consumer for another in no way affects trade in general it is all one whether Aristis spends a crown or desires some unfortunate person to spend it instead third, offices of friendship the friend to whom Aristis lends or gives 10,000 francs does not receive them to bury them that would be against the hypothesis he uses them to pay for goods or to discharge debts in the first case trade is encouraged will anyone pretend to say that it gains more by Mander's purchase of a thoroughbred horse for 10,000 francs worth of stuffs by Aristis or his friend for if this sum serves to pay a debt a third person appears Viz the creditor who will certainly employ them upon something in his trade his household or his farm he forms another medium between Aristis and the workmen the names only are changed the expense remains and also the encouragement to trade fourth saving there remains now the 10,000 francs saved and it is here as regards the encouragement to the arts, to trade labor and the workmen that Mander appears far superior to Aristis although in a moral point of view Aristis shows himself in some degree superior to Mander I can never look at these apparent contradictions between the great laws of nature without a feeling of physical uneasiness which amounts to suffering we're mankind reduced to the necessity of choosing between two parties one of whom injures his interest and the other his conscience we should have nothing to hope from the future happily this is not the case and to see Aristis regain his economical superiority as well as his moral superiority it is sufficient to understand this consoling maxim which is no less true from having a paradoxical experience to save is to spend what is Aristis's object in saving 10,000 francs is it to bury them in his garden no certainly he intends to increase his capital and his income consequently this money instead of being employed his own personal gratification is used for buying land a house etc or it is placed in the hands of a merchant or a banker follow the progress of this money in any one of these cases and you will be convinced that through the medium of vendors or lenders it is encouraging labor quite as certainly as of Aristis following the example of his brother had exchanged it for furniture jewels for when Aristis buys lands or rents for 10,000 francs he is determined by the consideration that he does not want to spend this money this is why you complain of him but at the same time the man who sells the land or the rent is determined by the consideration that he does want to spend the 10,000 francs in some way so that the money is spent in any case either by Aristis or by others in his stead with respect to the working class to the encouragement of labor there is only one difference between the conduct of Aristis and that of Mondor Mondor spends the money himself and around him and therefore the effect is seen Aristis spending it partly through intermediate parties and at a distance the effect is not seen but in fact those who know how to attribute effects to their proper causes will perceive that what is not seen is as certain as what is seen this is proved by the fact that in both cases the money circulates and does not lie in the iron chest of the wise man any more than it does in that of the spend-thrift it is therefore false to say that economy does actual harm to trade as described above it is equally beneficial with luxury but how far superior is it if instead of confining our thoughts to the present moment we let them embrace a longer period 10 years pass away what has become of Mondor and his fortune and his great popularity Mondor is ruined instead of spending 60,000 francs every year in the social body he is perhaps a burden to it in any case he is no longer the delight of shopkeepers he is no longer the patron of the arts and of trade he is no longer of any use to the workmen nor are his successors whom he has brought to want at the end of the same 10 years Aristus not only continues to throw his income into circulation but he adds an increasing sum from year to year to his expenses he enlarges the national capital that is the fund which supplies wages and as it is upon the extent of this fund that the demand for hands depends he assists in progressively increasing the remuneration of the working class if he dies he leaves children whom he has taught to succeed him in this work of progress and civilization in a moral point of view the superiority of frugality over luxury is indisputable it is consoling to think that it is so in political economy to everyone who not confining his views to the immediate effects of phenomena and his investigations to their final effects 12 he who has a right to work has a right to profit brethren you must club together to find me work at your own price this is the right to work i.e. elementary socialism of the first degree brethren you must club together to find me work at my own price this is the right to profit i.e. refined socialism or socialism of the second degree both of these live upon such of their effects as are seen they will die by means of those effects which are not seen that which is seen is the labor and the profit excited by social combination that which is not seen is the labor and the profit to which the same combination would give rise if it were left to the taxpayers in 1848 the right to labor for a moment showed two faces this was sufficient to ruin it in public opinion one of these faces was called national workshops the other 45 son teams millions of francs went daily from the rivoli to the national workshops this was the fair side of the medal and this is the reverse if millions are taken out of a cash box they must first have been put into it this is why the organizers of the right to public labor apply to the taxpayers now the peasants said i must pay 45 son teams then i must deprive myself of some clothing i cannot manure my field i cannot repair my house and the country workman said as our townsman deprives himself of some clothing there will be less work for the tailor as he does not improve his field there will be less work for the drainer as he does not repair his house there will be less work for the carpenter and mason it was then proved that two kinds of meal cannot come out of one sack and that the work furnished by the government was done at the expense of labor paid for by the taxpayer this was the death of the right to labor which showed itself as much a chimera as an injustice and yet the right to profit which is only an exaggeration of the right to labor is still alive and flourishing ought not the protectionist to blush at the part he would make society play he says to it you must give me work and more than that lucrative work i have foolishly fixed upon a trade by which i lose 10% if you impose a tax of 20 francs upon my countrymen and give it to me i shall be a gainer instead of a loser now profit is my right you owe it to me now any society which would listen to this sophist burden itself with taxes to satisfy him and not perceive that the loss to which any trade is exposed is no less a loss when others are forced to make up for it such a society i say would deserve the burden inflicted upon it thus we learn by the numerous subjects which i have treated that to be ignorant of political economy is to allow ourselves to be dazzled by the immediate effect of a phenomenon to be acquainted with it is to embrace in thought and in forethought the whole compass of effects i might subject a host of other questions to the same test but i shrink from the monotony of a constantly uniform demonstration and i conclude by applying to political economy what chateaubriand says of history there are two consequences in history an immediate one which is instantly recognized and one in the distance which is not at first perceived these two consequences often contradict each other the former are the results of our own limited wisdom the latter those of that wisdom which endures the providential effect appears after the human event god rises up behind men deny if you will the supreme council disown its action dispute about words designate by the term force of circumstances or reason what the vulgar call providence but look to the end of an accomplished fact and you will see that it has always produced the contrary of what was expected from it if it was not established at first upon morality and justice chateaubriand's post humus memoirs end of section 7 recording by katie reilly february 2010