 Section 4 of Sophisms of the Protectionists. This is a LibriVox recording, while LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Sophisms of the Protectionists by Frédéric Bastia, translated by Horace White. Section 4 5. Our productions are overloaded with taxes. This is but a new wording of the last Sophism. The demand made is that the foreign article should be taxed in order to neutralize the effects of the tax, which weighs down national produce. It is still then, but the question of equalizing the facilities of production. We have but to say that the tax is an artificial obstacle, which has exactly the same effect as a natural obstacle, i.e. the increasing of the price. If this increase is so great that there is more loss in producing the article in question than in attracting it from foreign parts by the production of an equivalent value, let it alone. Individual interest will soon learn to choose the lesser of two evils. I might refer the reader to the preceding demonstration for an answer to this Sophism, but it is one which recur so often in the complaints and the petitions I had almost said the demands of the protectionist school that it deserves a special discussion. If the tax in question should be one of a special kind directed against fixed articles of production, I agree that it is perfectly reasonable that foreign produce should be subjected to it. For instance, it would be absurd to free foreign salt from impulse duty, not that in an economical point of view France would lose anything by it. On the contrary, whatever may be said, principles are invariable, and France would gain by it, as she must always gain by avoiding an obstacle, whether natural or artificial. But here the obstacle has been raised with a fiscal object. It is necessary that this end should be attained, and if foreign salt were to be sold in our market free from duty, the Treasury would not receive its revenue and would be obliged to seek it from something else. There would be evident inconsistency in creating an obstacle with a given object and then avoiding the attainment of that object. It would have been better at once to seek what was needed in the other impulse without taxing French salt. Such are the circumstances under which I would allow upon any foreign article a duty not protecting but fiscal. But the supposition that a nation, because it is subjected to heavier impulse than those of another neighbouring nation, should protect itself by tariffs against the competition of its rival, is a Sophism, which it is now my purpose to attack. I have said more than once that I am opposing only the theory of the protectionists with the hope of discovering the source of their errors, where I just pose to enter into controversy with them. I would say, why direct your tariffs principally against England and Belgium, both countries more overloaded with taxes than any in the world? Have I not a right to look upon your argument as a mere pretext? But I am not of the number of those who believe that prohibitionists are guided by interest and not by conviction. The doctrine of protection is too popular not to be sincere. If the majority could believe in freedom, we would be free. Without doubts it is individual interest which weighs us down with tariffs, but it acts upon conviction. The state may make either a good or a bad use of taxes. It makes a good use of them when it renders to the public services equivalent to the value received from them. It makes a bad use of them when it expends this value, giving nothing in return. To say in the first case that they place the country, which pays them in more disadvantageous conditions for production than the country which is free from them, is esophism. We pay, it is true, twenty millions for the administration of justice and the maintenance of the police. But we have justice and the police. We have the security which they give, the time which they save us. And it is most probable that production is neither more easy nor more active among nations, where, if there be such, each individual takes the administration of justice into his own hands. We pay, I grant, many hundred millions for roads, bridges, ports, railways. But we have these railways, these ports, bridges and roads. And unless we maintain that it is a losing business to establish them, we cannot say that they place us in a position inferior to that of nations who have, it is true, no taxes for public works. But who likewise have no public works. And here we see why, even while we accuse internal taxes of being a cause of industrial inferiority, we direct our tariffs precisely against those nations which are the most taxed. It is because these taxes, well used, far from insuring, have ameliorated the conditions of production to these nations. Thus we again arrive at the conclusion that the protectionist sophisms not only wonder from, but are the contrary, the very antithesis of truth. As to unproductive imposts, suppress them if you can. But surely it is a most singular idea to suppose that their evil effect is to be neutralized by the addition of individual taxes to public taxes. Many thanks for the compensation. The state, you say, has taxed us too much. Surely this is no reason why we should tax each other. A protective duty is a tax directed against foreign produce. But which returns, let us keep in mind, upon the national consumer. It is not, then, a singular argument to say to him, because the taxes are heavy, we will raise prices higher for you, and because the state takes a part of your revenue, we will give another portion of it to benefit a monopoly. But let us examine more closely this sophism so accredited among our legislators. Although, strange to say, it is precisely those who keep up the unproductive imposts, according to our present hypothesis, who attribute to them afterwards our supposed inferiority, and seek to re-establish the equilibrium by further imposts and new clogs. It appears to me to be evident that protection, without any change in its nature and effects, might have taken the form of a direct tax, raised by the state, and distributed as a premium to privileged industry. Let us admit that foreign iron could be sold in our market at eight francs, but not lower, and French iron at not lower than twelve francs. In this hypothesis, there are two ways in which the state can secure the national market to the home producer. The first is to put upon foreign iron a duty of five francs. This is evident would exclude it, because it could no longer be sold at less than thirteen francs, eight francs for the cost price, five for the tax, and at this price it must be driven from the market by French iron, which we have supposed to cost twelve francs. In this case, the buyer, the consumer, will have paid all the expenses of the protection given. The second means would be to lay upon the public a tax of five francs, and to give it as a premium to the iron manufacturer. The effect would, in either case, be equally a protective measure. Foreign iron would, according to both systems, be alike excluded. For our iron manufacturer could sell at seven francs, what with the five francs premium, would thus bring him in twelve. While the price of sale being seven francs, foreign iron could not obtain a market at eight. In these two systems, the principle is the same. The effect is the same. There is but this single difference. In the first case, the expensive protection is paid by a part, in the second, by the whole of the community. I frankly confess my preference for the second system, which I regard as more just, more economical, and more legal. More just, because, if society wishes, to give bounties to some of its members, the whole community ought to contribute. More economical, because it would banish many difficulties and save the expenses of collection. More legal, lastly, because the public would see clearly into the operation and know what was required of it. But if the protective system had taken this form, would it not have been laughable enough to hear it said, We pay heavy taxes for the army, the navy, the judiciary, the public works, the schools, the public debt, etc. These amount to more than a thousand million. It would therefore be desirable that the state should take another thousand million to relieve the poor iron manufacturers, or the suffering stockholders of coal mines, or those unfortunate lumber dealers, or the useful cod fishery. This it must be perceived by an attentive investigation is the result of the sophism in question. In vain, gentlemen, are all your efforts. You cannot give money to one without taking it from another. If you are absolutely determined to exhaust the funds of the taxable community, well, but at least, do not mock them, do not tell them, we take from you again in order to compensate you for what we have already taken. It would be a too tedious undertaking to endeavor to point out all the fallacies of this sophism. I will therefore limit myself to the consideration of it in three points. You argue that France is overburdened with taxes, and deduce thence the conclusion that it is necessary to protect such and such an article of produce. But protection does not relieve us from the payment of these taxes. If, then, individuals devoting themselves to any one objective industry should advance this demand, we, from our participation in the payment of taxes, have our expenses of production increased, and therefore ask for a protective duty which shall raise our price of sale. What is this but a demand on their part to be allowed to free themselves from the burden of the tax by laying it on the rest of the community? Their object is to balance by the increased price of their produce the amount which they pay in taxes. Now as the whole amount of these taxes must enter into the Treasury and the increase of price must be paid by society, it follows that where this protective duty is imposed society has to bear not only the general tax but also that for the protection of the article in question. But it is answered let everything be protected. Firstly, this is impossible and again, were it possible how could such a system give relief? I will pay for you you will pay for me but not the less still there remains the tax to be paid. Thus you are the dupes of an illusion you determine to raise taxes for the support of an army, a navy, the church, university, judges, roads, etc. Afterwards you seek to disburden from its portion of the tax first one article of industry then another, then a third always adding to the burden of the mass of society you thus only create interminable complications if you can prove that the increase of price resulting from protection falls upon the foreign producer I grant something specious in your argument but if it be true that the French people paid the tax before the passing of the protective duty and afterwards that it has paid not only the tax but the protective duty also truly I do not perceive wherein it has profited but I go much further and maintain that the more oppressive our taxes are the more anxiously ought we to open our ports and frontiers to foreign nations less burdened than ourselves and why? in order that we may share with them as much as possible the burden which we bear is it not an incontestable maxim in political economy tax is must in the end fall upon the consumer the greater than our commerce the greater the portion which will be reimbursed to us of taxes incorporated in the produce which we will have sold to foreign consumers whilst we on our part will have made to them only a lesser reimbursement because according to our hypothesis their produce is less taxed than ours again finally has it ever occurred to you to ask yourself whether these heavy taxes which you adduce as a reason for keeping up the prohibitive system may not be the result of this very system itself to what purpose would be our great standing armies and our powerful navies if commerce were free balance of trade our adversaries adopted a system of tactics which embarrasses us not a little do we prove our doctrine they admit the truth of it in the most respectful manner do we attack their principles they abandon them with the best possible grace they only ask that our doctrine which they acknowledge to be true should be confined to books and that their principles which they allow to be false established in practice if we will give up to them the regulation of our tariffs they will leave us triumphant in the domain of theory assuredly said Mr. Gutierre de Romelais lately assuredly no one wishes to call up from their graves the defunct theories of the balance of trade and yet Mr. Gutierre after giving this passing blow to error goes on immediately afterwards and for two hours consecutively to reason as though this error were a truth give me Mr. Le Stoibedois here we have a consistent reasoner a logical arguer there is nothing in his conclusions which cannot be found in his premises he asks nothing in practice which he does not justify in theory his principles may per chance be false and this is the point in question but he has a principle he believes he proclaims allowed that if France gives 10 to receive 15 she loses 5 and surely with such a belief nothing is more natural than that he should make laws consistent with it he says what it is important to remark is that constantly the amount of importation is augmenting and surpassing that of exportation every year France buys more foreign produce and sells less of her own produce this can be proved by figures in 1842 we see the importation exceed the exportation by 200 millions this appears to me to prove in the clearest manner that national labor is not sufficiently protected that we are provided by foreign labor and that the competition of our rivals oppresses our industry the law in question appears to me to be a consecration of the fact that our political economists have assumed a false position in declaring that in proportion to produce bought there is always a corresponding quantity sold it is evident that purchases may be made not with the habitual productions of a country not with its revenue not with the results of actual labor but with its capital with the accumulated savings which should serve for reproduction a country may spend dissipate its profits and savings may impoverish itself and by the consumption of its national capital progress gradually to its ruin this is precisely what we are doing we give every gear 200 millions to foreign nations well here at least is a man whom we can understand there is no hypocrisy in this language the balance of trade is here clearly maintained and defended France imports 200 millions more than she exports then France loses 200 millions yearly and the remedy it is to check importation the conclusion is perfectly consistent it is then with Mr. Lester Bedouin that we will argue for how is it possible to do so with Mr. Goutier if you say to the latter the balance of trade is a mistake he will answer so I have declared it in my exordium if you exclaim but it is a truth he will say thus I have clasped it in my conclusions political economists may me for arguing with Mr. Lester Bedouin to combat the balance of trade is they say neither more nor less than to fight against a windmill but let us be on our guard the balance of trade is neither so old nor so sick nor so dead as Mr. Goutier is pleased to imagine for all the legislature Mr. Goutier himself included are associated by their votes with the theory of Mr. Lester Bedouin however not to fatigue the reader I will not seek to investigate too closely this theory but will contend myself with subjecting it to the experience of facts it is constantly alleged in opposition to our principles that they are good only in theory but gentlemen do you believe that merchants books are good in practice it does appear to me that there is anything which can have a practical authority when the object is to approve profit and loss that this must be commercial accounts we cannot suppose that all the merchants of the world for centuries back should have so little understood their own affairs as to have kept their books in such a manner as to represent gains as losses and losses as gains truly it would be easier to believe that Mr. Lester Bedouin is a bad political economist a merchant, one of my friends having had two business transactions with very different results I have been curious to compare on this subject the accounts of the counter with those of the custom house interpreted by Mr. Lester Bedouin with the sanction of our 600 legislators Mr. T dispatched from Haver a vessel freighted for the United States with French merchandise principally Parisian articles valued at 200,000 francs such was the amount entered at the custom house the cargo on its arrival at New Orleans had paid 10% expenses and was liable to 30% duties which raised its value to 280,000 francs it was sold at 20% profit on its original value which being 40,000 francs the price of sale was 320,000 francs which the assignee converted into cotton this cotton again had to pay for expenses of transportation insurance, commissions, etc 10% so that when the return cargo arrived at Haver its value had risen to 452,000 francs and it was thus entered at the custom house finally Mr. T realized again on this return cargo 20% profits amounting to 70,400 francs the cotton thus sold for the sum of 422,400 francs if Mr. Lester Bedouin requires it I will send him an extract from the books of Mr. T he will there see credited to the account of profit and loss that is to say set down as gained to sums the one of 40,000 the other of 70,000 francs and Mr. T feels perfectly certain that as regards these there is no mistake in his accounts now what conclusion does Mr. Lester Bedouin draw from the sums entered into the custom house in this operation he then learns that France has exported 200,000 francs and imported 352,000 from whence the honorable deputy concludes that she has spent dissipated the profits of her previous savings and that she is impoverishing herself and progressing to her ruin and that she has squandered on a foreign nation 152,000 francs per capital sometime after this transaction Mr. T dispatched another vessel again freighted with domestic produce to the amount of 200,000 francs but the vessel foundered after leaving the port and Mr. T had only farther to inscribe on his books two little items thus worded sundries due to X 200,000 francs for purchase of diverse articles dispatched by vessel N profit and loss due to sundries 200,000 francs for final and total loss of cargo in the meantime the custom house inscribed 200,000 francs upon its list of exportations and as there can of course be nothing to balance this entry on the list of importations it hence follows that Mr. Lester Diboudois in the chamber must see in this wreck a clear profit to France of 200,000 francs we may draw hence yet another conclusion viz that according to the balance of trade theory France has an exceedingly simple manner of constantly doubling her capital it is only necessary to accomplish this that she should after entering into the custom house her articles for exportation cause them to be thrown into the sea by this course her exportations can speedily be made to equal her capital importations will be nothing and our gain will be all which the ocean will have swallowed up you are joking the protectionists will reply you know that it is impossible that we should utter such absurdities nevertheless I answer you utter them and what is more you give them life you exercise them practically upon your fellow citizens as much at least as is in your power to do the truth is that the theory of the balance of trade should be precisely reversed the profits accruing to the nation from any foreign commerce should be calculated by the over plus of the importation above the exportation this over plus after the deduction of expenses is the real gain here we have the true theory and it is one which leads directly to freedom and trade I now gentlemen abandon you this theory as I have done all those of the preceding chapters do with it as you please exaggerate it as you will it has nothing to fear push it to the farthest extreme imagine if it so please you that foreign nations should inundate us with useful produce of every description and ask nothing in return that our importations should be infinite and our exportations nothing imagine all this and still I defy you to prove that we will be the poorer in consequence end of section 4 recording by Katie Riley April 2010 section 5 of Sophisms of the Protectionists this is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org Sophisms of the Protectionists by Frédéric Bastia translated by Horace White section 5 7 Petition from the manufacturers of candles, wax lights lamps, chandeliers reflectors, snuffers extinguishers and from the producers of tallow, oil resin, alcohol and generally of everything used for lights to the honorable the members of the chamber of deputies gentlemen you are in the right way you reject abstract theories, abundance cheapness, concerns you little you are entirely occupied with the interest of the producer whom you are anxious to free from foreign competition in a word you wish to secure the national market to national labor we come now to offer you an admirable opportunity for the application of your what shall we say your theory your doctrine your system your principle but you do not like doctrines you hold systems in horror and as far as principles you declare that there are no such things in political economy we will say then your practice your practice without theory and without principle we are subjected to the intolerable competition of a foreign rival and in some ways it would seem such superior facilities for the production of light that he is enabled to inundate our national market at so exceedingly reduced a price that the moment he makes his appearance he draws off all custom from us and thus an important branch of French industry with all its innumerable ramifications is suddenly reduced to a state of complete stagnation this rival who is no other than the sun carries on so bitter a war against us that we have every reason to believe that he has been excited to this course by our perfidious neighbor England good diplomacy this for the present time in his belief we are confirmed by the fact that in all his transactions with this proud island he is much more moderate and careful than with us our petition is that it would please your honorable body to pass a law whereby shall be directed the shutting up of all windows, dormers, skylights, shutters, curtains vizistas, oj-buf in a word all openings, holes chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is used to penetrate into our dwellings to the prejudice of the profitable manufacturers we flatter ourselves we have been enabled to bestow upon the country which country cannot, therefore without ingratitude leave us now to struggle unprotected through so unequal a contest we pray your honorable body not do mistake our petition for a satire nor to repulse us without at least hearing the reasons which we have to advance in its favor and first if by shutting out as much as possible all access to the natural light you thus create the necessity for artificial light is there in France an industrial pursuit which will not, through some connection with this important object be benefited by it if more tallow be consumed there will arise a necessity for an increase of cattle and sheep thus artificial meadows must be in greater demand and meat wool, leather and above all, manure this basis of agricultural riches must become more abundant if more oil be consumed it will cause an increase in the cultivation of the olive tree this plant luxuriant and exhausting to the soil will come in good time to profit by the increased fertility which the raising of cattle will have communicated to our fields our heaths will become covered with resinous trees numerous swarms of bees will gather upon our mountains the perfumed treasures which are now cast upon the winds useless as the blossoms from which they emanate there is in short no branch of agriculture which would not be greatly developed by the granting of our petition navigation would equally profit thousands of vessels would soon be employed in the whale fisheries and thence would arise a navy capable of sustaining the honor of France and of responding to the patriotic sentiments of the undersigned petitioners cattle merchants, etc but what words can express the magnificence which Paris will then exhibit cast an eye upon the future and behold the guildings the bronzes the magnificent crystal chandeliers lamps, reflectors and candelabras which will glitter in the spacious stores compared with which the splendor of the present day will appear trifling and insignificant there is none not even the poor manufacturer of resin in the midst of his pine forests nor the miserable minor in his dark dwelling but you would enjoy an increase of salary and of comforts gentlemen if you will be pleased to reflect you cannot fail to be convinced that there is perhaps not one Frenchman from the opulent stockholder of Anzen down to the poorest vendor of matches who is not interested in the success of our petition we foresee your objections gentlemen but there is not one that you can oppose to us which you will not be obliged to gather from the works of the partisans of free trade we dare challenge you to pronounce one word against our petition which is not equally opposed to your own practice and the principle which guides your policy do you tell us that if we gain by this protection France will not gain because the consumer must pay the price of it we answer you you have no longer any right to cite the interest of the consumer for whenever this has been found to compete with that of the producer you have invariably sacrificed the first you have done this to encourage labor to increase the demand for labor the same reason should now induce you to act in the same manner you have yourselves already answered the objection when you were told the consumer is interested in the free introduction of iron, coal, corn, wheat, clause, etc. your answer was yes, but the producer is interested in their exclusion thus also if the consumer is interested in the admission of light, we, the producers pray for its interdiction you have also said the producer and the consumer are one if the manufacturer gains by protection he will cause the agriculture list to gain also if agriculture prospers, it opens a market for manufactured goods thus we, if you confer upon us the monopoly of furnishing light during the day will as a first consequence by large quantities of tallow, coals, oil, resin, wax, alcohol, silver, iron, bronze, crystal for the supply of our business and then we and our numerous contractors having become rich our consumption will be great and will become a means of contributing to the comfort and competency of the workers in every branch of national labor will you say that the light of the sun is a gratuitous gift and that to repulse gratuitous gifts is to repulse riches under pretence of encouraging the means of obtaining them take care, you carry the death blow to your own policy remember that hitherto you have always repulsed foreign produce because it was an approach to a gratuitous gift and the more in proportion as this approach was more close you have in obeying the wishes of other monopolists acted only from a half motive to grant our petition there is a much fuller inducement to repulse us precisely for the reason that our case is a more complete one than any which have preceded it would be to lay down the following equation plus times plus equals minus in other words it would be to accumulate absurdity upon absurdity labor and nature concur in different proportions according to country and climate in every article of production the portion of nature is always gratuitous labor alone regulates the price if a Lisbon orange can be sold at half the price of a Parisian one it is because a natural and gratuitous heat does for the one with the other only obtains from an artificial and consequently expensive one when therefore we purchase a Portuguese orange we may say that we obtain it half gratuitously and half by the right of labor is at half price compared to those of Paris now it is precisely on account of this demigratuity excuse the word that you argue in favor of exclusion how you say could national labor sustain the competition of foreign labor when the first has everything to do and the last is rid of half the trouble the son taking the rest of the business upon himself if then the demigratuity can determine you to check competition on what principle can the entire gratuity be alleged as a reason for admitting it you are no logicians if refusing the demigratuity as hurtful to human labor you do not a fortiori and with double zeal reject the full gratuity again when any article as coal iron cheese or cloth comes to us from foreign countries with less labor than if we produced it ourselves the difference in price is a gratuitous gift conferred upon us and the gift is more or less considerable according as the difference is greater or less it is the quarter the half or the three quarters of the value of the produce in proportion as the foreign merchant requires the three quarters of the half or the quarter of the price it is as complete as possible when the producer offers as the son does with light the whole in free gift the question is and we put it formally whether you wish for France the benefit of gratuitous consumption or the supposed advantages of laborious production choose but be consistent and does it not argue the greatest inconsistency to check as you do the importation of coal iron cheese and goods a foreign manufacturer merely because and even in proportion as their price approaches zero while at the same time you freely admit and without limitation the light of the sun whose price is during the whole day at zero eight discriminating duties a poor laborer of Gironde had raised with the greatest possible care and attention a nursery of vines from which after much labor he at last succeeded in producing a pipe of wine and forgot in the joy of his success that each drop of this precious nectar had cost a drop of sweat to his brow I will sell it said he to his wife and with the proceeds I will buy thread which will serve you to make a trousseau for our daughter the honest countrymen arriving in the city there met an Englishman and a Belgian the Belgian said to him give me your wine and I in exchange will give you fifteen bundles of thread the Englishman said give it to me and I will give you twenty bundles but the custom house officer standing by said to the laborer my good fellow make your exchange if you choose with the Belgian but it is my duty to prevent you from doing so with the Englishman what exclaimed the countrymen you wish me to take fifteen bundles of Brussels thread when I can have twenty from Manchester certainly do you not see that France would be a loser do you believe twenty bundles instead of fifteen I can scarcely understand this said the laborer nor can I explain it said the custom house officer but there is no doubt of the fact for deputies, ministers and editors all agree that a people is impoverished in proportion as it receives a large compensation for any given quantity of its produce the countryman was obliged to include his bargain with the Belgian his daughter received but three-fourths of her trousseau and these good folks are still puzzling themselves to discover how it can happen that people are ruined by receiving four instead of three and why they are richer with three dozen towels instead of four nine wonderful discovery at this moment when all minds are occupied in endeavoring to discover the most economical means of transportation when, to put these means into practice we are leveling roads improving rivers perfecting steamboats establishing railroads and attempting various systems of traction atmospheric hydraulic, pneumatic, electric, etc at this moment when I believe everyone is seeking insincerity the solution of this problem to bring the price of things in their place of consumption as near as possible to their price in that of production I would believe myself acting a culpable part towards my country towards the age in which I live and towards myself if I were longer to keep secret the wonderful discovery which I have just made I am well aware that the self-illusions of inventors have become proverbial but I have nevertheless the most complete certainty of having discovered an infallible means of bringing the produce of the entire world into France and reciprocally to transport hours with a very important reduction of price infallible and yet this is but a single one of the advantages of my astonishing invention which requires neither plans nor devices nor laboratory studies nor engineers nor machinists nor capital nor stockholders nor governmental assistants there is no danger of shipwrecks of explosions of shocks of fire nor of the displacement of rails it can be put into practice without preparation from one day to another but the contrary it will not augment the number of government functionaries nor the exigencies of government officers but the contrary it will put in hazard the liberty of no one but the contrary I have been led to this discovery not from accidents but observation and I will tell you how I had this question to determine how does any article made for instance at Brussels bear an increased price on its arrival at Paris it was immediately evident to me that this was the result of obstacles of various kinds existing between Brussels and Paris first there is distance which cannot be overcome without trouble and loss of time and either we must submit to these in our own person or pay another for bearing them for us then come rivers accidents heavy and muddy roads there are so many difficulties to be overcome in order to do which causeways are constructed bridges built roads cut and paved railroads established etc but all this is costly and the article transported must bear its portion of the expense there are robbers too on the roads and this necessitates guards etc now among these obstacles there is one which we ourselves have placed and that at no little expense between Brussels and Paris this consists of men planted along the frontier armed to the teeth whose business it is to place difficulties in the way of the transportation of goods from one country to another these men are called custom house workers and their effect is precisely similar to that of steep and boggy roads they retard and put obstacles in the way of transportation thus contributing to the difference which we have remarked between the price of production and that of consumption to diminish which difference as much as possible is the problem which we are seeking to resolve here then we have found its solution we will thus have constructed a northern railroad which will cost us nothing nay more we will be saved great expenses and we'll begin from the first day to save capital really I cannot but ask myself in surprise how our brains could have admitted so whimsical a piece of folly as to induce us to pay many millions to destroy the natural obstacles interposed between France and other nations only at the same time to pay so many millions more in order to replace them by artificial obstacles which have exactly the same effect so that the obstacle removed and the obstacle created neutralize each other things go on as before and the only result of our trouble is a double expense an article of belgian production is worth at Brussels 20 francs and from the expenses of transportation 30 francs at Paris a similar article of perisian manufacture costs 40 francs what is our course under these circumstances first we impose a duty of at least 10 francs on the belgian article so as to raise its price to a level with that of the perisian the government with all paying numerous officials to attend to the levying of this duty the article thus pays 10 francs for transportation 10 for the tax this done we say to ourselves transportation between Brussels and Paris is very dear let us spend 2 or 3 millions in railways and we will reduce it one half evidently the result of such a course will be to get the belgian article at Paris for 35 francs vis 20 francs price at Brussels 10 francs duty 5 francs transportation by railroad 35 francs total or market price at Paris could we not have attained the same end by lowering the tariff to 5 francs we would then have 20 francs price at Brussels 20 francs duty 10 francs transportation on the common road 35 francs total or market price at Paris and this arrangement would have saved us the 200 million spent upon the railroad besides the expense saved in custom house surveillance which would of course diminish in proportion as the temptation to smuggling would become less but it is answered that duty is necessary to protect Parisian industry so be it but do not then destroy the effect of it by your railroad for if you persist in your determination to keep the belgian article on a par with the Parisian at 40 francs you must raise the duty to 15 francs in order to have 20 francs price at Brussels 15 francs protective duty transportation by railroad 40 francs total at equalized prices and now I ask of what benefits under these circumstances is the railroad frankly is it not humiliating to the 19th century than it should be destined to transmit to future ages the example of such pure realities seriously and gravely practiced to be the dupe of another is bad enough but to employ all the forms and ceremonies of legislation in order to cheat one's own self to doubly cheat one's own self and that too in a mere mathematical account truly this is calculated to lower a little the pride of this enlightened age 10. Reciprocity we have just seen that all which renders transportation difficult acts in the same manner as protection or if the expression be preferred that protection tends towards the same result as obstacles to transportation a tariff may then be truly spoken of as a swamp a rut, a steep hill in a word an obstacle whose effect is to argument the difference between the price of consumption and that of production it is equally inconsistible that a swamp, a bog, etc. are veritable protective tariffs there are people few a number it is true but such there are who begin to understand that obstacles are not the less obstacles because they are artificially created and that our well-being is more advanced by freedom of trade than by protection precisely as a canal is more desirable than any hilly and difficult road but they still say this liberty ought to be reciprocal if we take off our taxes in favor of Spain while Spain does not do the same towards us it is evident that we are duped let us then make treaties of commerce upon the basis of a just reciprocity let us yield where we are yielded to let us make the sacrifice of buying that we may obtain the advantage of selling persons who reason thus are, I am sorry to say whether they know it or not governed by the protectionist principle they are only a little more inconsistent than the pure protectionists as these are more inconsistent than the absolute prohibitionists I will illustrate this by a fable stalta and pura full-town and boy-town there were, it matters not where two towns stalta and pura which at great expense had a road built which connected them with each other some time after this was done the inhabitants of stalta became uneasy and said, pura is overwhelming us with its productions that must be attended to they established therefore a core of obstructors so called because their business was to place obstacles in the way of the wagon trains which arrived from pura soon after, pura also established a core of obstructors after some centuries people having become more enlightened the inhabitants of pura began to discover that these reciprocal obstacles might possibly be reciprocal injuries they sent therefore an ambassador to stalta who, passing over the official phraseology spoke much to this effect we have built a road and now we put obstacles in the way of this road this is absurd it would have been far better to have left things in their original position for then we would not have been put to the expense of building our road in the words of creating difficulties in the name of pura I come to propose to you not to renounce at once our system of mutual obstacles for this would be acting according to a theory and we despise theories as much as you do but to lighten somewhat these obstacles weighing at the same time carefully our respective sacrifices the ambassador having thus spoken the town of stalta and asked time to reflect manufacturers agriculturalists were consulted and at last after some years deliberation it was declared that the negotiations were broken off at this news the inhabitants of pura held a council an old man who it has always been supposed had been secretly bribed by stalta rose and said those raised by stalta are injurious to our sales this is a misfortune those which we ourselves create injure our purchases this is a second misfortune we have no power over the first but the second is entirely depended upon ourselves let us then at least get rid of one since we cannot be delivered from both let us suppress our core of obstructors stalta to do the same some day or other she will learn to understand better her own interests a second counsellor a man of practice and of facts uncontrolled by theories and wise in ancestral experience replied we must not listen to this dreamer this theorist, this innovator this utopian this political economist this friend to stalta if the embarrassments of the road were not carefully weighed and exactly equalized between stalta and pura there would be more difficulty in going than in coming in exportation than in importation we would be with regard to stalta in the inferior condition in which haver, nance, bordeaux, lisbon london, hamburg and new orleans are in relation to cities placed higher up the rivers, signe, lure garon, tagus thames, the elbe and the mississippi for the difficulties of ascending must always be greater than those of descending rivers a voice exclaims but the cities near the mouths of the river have always prospered more than those high up the stream this is not possible the same voice but it is a fact that they have then prospered contrary to rule such conclusive reasoning stagger the assembly the orator went on to convince them thoroughly and conclusively by speaking of national independence national honor, national dignity national labor overwhelming importation tributes, ruinous competition in short he succeeded in determining the assembly to continue their system of obstacles and I can now point out a certain country where you may see road builders and obstructors working with the best possible understanding by the decree of the same legislative assembly paid by the same citizens the first to improve the road the last to embarrass it end of section 5 recording by Katie Riley April 2010 section 6 of Sophisms of the Protectionists this is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org Sophisms of the Protectionists by Frédéric Bastia translated by Horace White section 6 11 absolute prices if we wish to judge between freedom of trade and protection to calculate the probable effect of any political phenomenon we should notice how far its influence tends to the production of abundance or scarcity and not simply of cheapness or dearness of price we must be aware of trusting to absolute prices it would lead to inextricable confusion Mr. Matthew Doombal after having established the fact that protection raises prices adds the augmentation of price increases the expenses of life and consequently the price of labor and everyone finds in the increase of the price of his produce the same proportion as in the increase of his expenses thus if everybody pays as consumer everybody receives also as producer it is evident that it would be easy to reverse the argument and say if everybody receives as producer everybody must pay as consumer now what does this prove nothing whatever unless it be that protection transfers riches uselessly and unjustly robbery does the same again to prove that the complicated arrangements of the system give even simple compensation it is necessary to adhere to the consequently of Mr. Doombal and to convince oneself that the price of labor rises with that of the articles protected this is a question of fact which I refer to Mr. Moreau de Gennay becking him to examine whether the rate of wages was found to increase with the stock of the mines of Anson for my own part I do not believe in it because I think that the price of labor like everything else is governed by the proportion existing between the supply and the demand now I can perfectly well understand that restriction will diminish the supply of coal and consequently raise its price but I do not as clearly see that it increases the demand for labor thereby raising the rate of wages this is the less conceivable to me because the sum of labor required depends upon the quantity of disposable capital and protection while it may change the direction of capital and transfer it from one business to another cannot increase it one penny this question which is of the highest interest we will examine elsewhere I return to the discussion of absolute prices and declare that there is no absurdity which cannot be rendered specious by such reasoning as that of Mr. de Donbao imagine an isolated nation possessing a given quantity of cash and every year burning the half of its produce I will undertake to prove by the theory of Mr. de Donbao that this nation will not be the less rich in consequence of such a procedure for the result of the conflagration must be that everything would double in price an inventory made before this event would offer exactly the same nominal value as one made after it who then would be the loser if John buys his clothed deer he also sells his corn at a higher price if Peter makes a loss on the purchase of his corn he gains it back by the sale of his cloth thus everyone finds in the increase of the price of his produce the same proportion as in the increase of his expenses and thus if everybody pays as consumer everybody also receives as producer all this is nonsense the simple truth is that whether men destroy their corn by cloth by fire or by use the effect is the same as regards price but not as regards riches for it is precisely in the enjoyment of the use that riches in other words comfort, well-being exist protection may in the same way while it lessens the abundance of things raise their prices so as to leave each individual numerically speaking as when unembarrassed by it but because we put down in an inventory 3 hectiliters of corn at 20 francs or 4 hectiliters at 15 francs and sum up the nominal value of each at 60 francs does it thence follow that they are equally capable of contributing to the necessity of the community to this view of consumption it will be my continual endeavor to lead the protectionists for in this is the end of all my efforts the solution of every problem I must continually repeat to them that restriction by impeding commerce by limiting the division of labor by forcing it to combat difficulties of situation and temperature must in it's result diminish the quantity produced by any fixed quantum of labor and what can it benefit us the greater quantity produced under the protective system bears the same nominal value as the greater quantity produced under the free trade system man does not live on nominal values but on real articles of produce and the more abundant these articles are no matter what price they bear the richer is he 12 does protection raise the rate of wages workmen your situation is singular you are robbed as I will presently prove to you but no, I retract the word we must avoid an expression which is violence perhaps indeed incorrect in as much as this spoilation, wrapped in the sophisms which disguise it is practiced, we must believe without the intention of the spoiler and with the consent of the spoils but it is nevertheless true that you are deprived of the just compensation of your labor while no one thinks of causing justice to be rendered to you if you could be consoled by noisy appeals to philanthropy to powerless charity to degrading almsgiving or if high sounding words would relieve you these indeed you can have in abundance but justice, simple justice, nobody thinks of rendering you this for would it not be just that after a long day's labor when you have received your little wages you should be permitted to exchange them for the largest possible sum of comforts that you can obtain voluntarily from any man whatsoever upon the face of the earth let us examine if injustice is not done to you by the legislative limitation of the persons from whom you are allowed to buy those things which you need as bread, meat, cotton and woolen claws etc thus fixing so to express myself the artificial price which these articles must bear is it true that protection which avowedly raises prices and thus enters you raises proportionably the rate of wages on what does the rate of wages depend one of your own class has energenically said when two workmen run after a master wages fall when two masters run after a workman wages rise allow me in more laconic phrase to employ a more scientific though perhaps a less striking expression the rate of wages depends upon the proportion which the supply of labor bears to the demand on what depends the demand for labor on the quantity of disposable national capital and the law which says such or such an article shall be limited to home production and no longer imported from foreign countries can it in any degree increase this capital not in the least this law may withdraw it from one course and transfer it to another but cannot increase it one penny then it cannot increase the demand for labor while we point with pride to some prosperous manufacturer can we answer from whence comes the capital with which it is founded and maintained has it fallen from the moon or rather is it not drawn either from agriculture or navigation or other industry we here see why since the reign of protective tariffs if we see more workmen in our minds and our manufacturing towns we find also fewer sailors in our ports and fewer laborers and vine growers in our fields and upon our hillsides I could speak at great length upon this subject but prefer illustrating my thoughts by an example a countryman had twenty acres of land with a capital of ten thousand francs he divided his land into four parts and adopted for it the following changes of crops first maize, second wheat third clover and fourth rye as he needed for himself and family but a small portion of the grain meat and dairy produce of the farm he sold the surplus and bought oil, flags wine, etc. the whole of his capital was yearly distributed in wages and payments of accounts to the workmen of the neighborhood this capital was from his sales again returned to him and even increased from year to year our countrymen being fully convinced that idle capital produces nothing caused to circulate among the working classes this annual increase which he devoted to the enclosing and clearing of lands or to improvements in his farming utensils and his buildings he deposited some sums in reserve in the hands of a neighboring banker who on his part did not leave these idle in his strongbox but lent them to the various tradesmen so that the whole came to be usefully employed in the payment of wages the countrymen died and his son became master of the inheritance said to himself it must be confessed that my father has all his life allowed himself to be duped he bought oil and thus paid tribute to province while our own land could by an effort be made to produce aloes he bought wine flax and oranges thus paying tribute to Brittany Medoc and the Hyra islands very unnecessarily for wine flax and oranges may be forced to grow upon our own lands he paid tribute to the miller and the weaver our own servants could very well weave our linen and crush our wheat between two stones he did all he could to ruin himself and gave to strangers what ought to have been kept for the benefit of his own household full of this reasoning our headstrong fellow determined to change the routine of his crops he divided his farm into twenty parts on one he cultivated the olive on another the mulberry on a third flax he devoted the fourth to vines the fifth to wheat etc etc thus he succeeded in rendering himself independence and furnished all his family supplies from his own farm he no longer received anything from the general circulation neither it is true did he cast anything into it was he the richer for this course no for his land did not suit the cultivation of the vine nor was the climate favourable to the olive in short the family supply of all these articles was very inferior to what it had been during the time when the father had obtained them all by exchange of produce with regard to the demand for labour it certainly was no greater than formerly there were to be sure five times as many fields to cultivate but they were five times smaller if oil was raised there was less wheat and because there was no more flaxbots neither was there any more rye sold besides the farmer could not spend in wages more than his capital and his capital instead of increasing was now constantly diminishing a great part of it was necessarily devoted to numerous buildings and utensils indispensable to a person who determines to undertake everything in short the supply of labour continued the same but the means of paying becoming less there was necessarily a reduction of wages the result is precisely similar when a nation isolates itself by the prohibitive system its number of industrial pursuits is certainly multiplied but their importance is diminished in proportion to their number they become less productive for the same capital and the same skill are obliged to meet a greater number of difficulties the fixed capital absorbs a greater part of the circulating capital that is to say a greater part of the funds destined to the payment of wages what remains ramifies itself in vain cannot be documented it is like the water of a pond which distributed in a multitude of reservoirs appears to be more abundant because it covers a greater quantity of soil and presents a larger surface to the sun while we hardly perceive that precisely on this account it absorbs evaporates and loses itself the quicker capital and labour being given the result is a sum of production always the less great and proportion as obstacles are numerous there can be no doubt that protective tariffs by forcing capital and labour to struggle against greater difficulties of soil and climate must cause the general production to be less or in other words diminish the portion of comforts which would then result to mankind if then there be a general diminution of comforts how workmen can it be possible that your portion should be increased under such a supposition it would be necessary to believe that the rich, those who made the law have so arranged matters that not only they subject themselves to their own proportion of the general loss but taking the whole of it upon themselves that they submit also to a further loss in order to increase your gains is this possible it is indeed a most suspicious act of generosity and if you act wisely you will reject it 13 theory, practice partisans of free trade we are accused of being theorists and not relying sufficiently upon practice what a powerful argument against Mr. Say says Mr. Farrier is the long succession of distinguished ministers the imposing league of writers who have all differed from him and Mr. Say is himself conscious of this, for he says it has been said in support of old errors that there must necessarily be some foundation for ideas so generally adopted by all nations ought we not it is asked to distrust observations and reasoning which run counter to everything which has been looked upon as certain up to this day and which has been regarded as undoubted by so many who were to be confided in like on account of their learning and of their philanthropic intentions this argument is I confess calculated to make a profound impression and might cast a doubt upon the most incontestable facts if the world had not seen so many opinions now universally recognized as false as universally maintained during a long series of ages their dominion over the human mind the day is not long past since all nations from the most ignorant to the most enlightened the wisest as well as the most uninformed admitted only four elements nobody dreamed of disputing this doctrine which is nevertheless false and today he cried upon this passage Mr. Farrier makes the following remarks Mr. Say is strangely mistaken if he believes that he has thus answered the very strong objections which he has himself advanced it is natural enough that for ages men otherwise well informed might mistake upon a question of natural history this proves nothing water, air, earth and fire or not were not the less useful to man such errors as this are of no importance they do not lead to revolutions nor do they cause mental uneasiness above all they clash with no interests and might therefore without inconvenience last for millions of years the physical world progresses as though they did not exist but can it be thus with errors which affect the moral world? he conceived that a system of government absolutely false consequently injurious could be allowed for many centuries and among many nations with the general consent of well informed men can it be explained how such a system could be connected with the constantly increasing prosperity of these nations Mr. Say confesses that the argument which he combats is calculated to make a profound impression most certainly it is and this impression remains for Mr. Say has rather increased than diminished it it has been only towards the middle of the last, the 18th century when every subject and every principle have without exception been given up to the discussion of bookmakers that these furnishers of speculative ideas applied to everything and applicable to nothing have begun to write upon the subject of political economy there existed previously a system of political economy not written but practiced by governments Colbert was, it is said the inventor of it and Colbert gave the law to every state of Europe strange to say he does so still in spite of contempt and anathemas in spite too of the discoveries of the modern school this system which has been called by our writers the mercantile system consisted in checking by prohibition or import duties such foreign productions as were calculated to ruin our manufacturers by competition this system has been declared by all writers on political economy of every school to be weak, absurd and calculated to impoverish the countries where it prevails banished from books it has taken refuge in the practice of all nations greatly to the surprise of those who cannot conceive that in what concerns the wealth of nations governments should rather than be guided by the wisdom of authors prefer the long experience of a system etc it is above all inconceivable to them that the French government should obstinately resist the new lights of political economy and maintain in its practice the old errors pointed out by all our writers but I am devoting too much time to this mercantile system which unsustained by writers has only facts in its favor would it not be supposed from this language that political economists in claiming for each individual the free disposition of his own property have like the forerists stumbled upon some new, strange and chimerical system of social government some wild theory without precedent in the annals of human nature it does appear to me that if in all this there is anything doubtful ends up fanciful or theoretic origin it is not free trade but protection not the operating of exchanges but the custom house the duties imposed to overturn artificially the natural order of things the question however is not here to compare and judge of the merits of the two systems but simply to know which of the two is sanctioned by experience you Messers monopolists maintain that facts are for you and that we on our side have only theory you flatter yourselves that this long series of public acts this old experience of Europe which you invoke appeared imposing to Mr. Say and I confess that he has not refuted you with his habitual sagacity I for my part cannot consent to give up to you the domain of facts for while on your side you can advance only limited and special facts we can oppose to them universal facts the free and voluntary acts of all men what do we maintain and what do you maintain we maintain that it is best to buy from others what we ourselves can produce only at a higher price you maintain that it is best to make for ourselves even though it should cost us more than to buy from others now gentlemen putting aside theory demonstration reasoning things which seem to nauseate you which of these assertions is sanctioned by universal practice visit our fields workshops forges stores look above below and around you examine what is passing in your own household observe your own actions at every moment and say which principle it is that directs these laborers workmen contractors and merchants say what is your own personal practice does the agriculturalist make his own clothes does the tailor produce the grain which he consumes does not your housekeeper sees to make her bread at home as soon as she finds it more economical to buy it from the baker do you lay down your pen to take up the blacking brush in order to avoid paying tribute to the shoe black does not the whole economy of society depend upon a separation of occupations a division of labor in a word upon mutual exchange of production by which we one and all make a calculation which causes us to discontinue direct production when indirect acquisition offers us a saving of time and labor you are not then sustained by practice since it would be impossible to show us a single man who acts according to your principle you may answer that you never intended to make your principle the rule of individual relations you confess that it would thus destroy all social ties and force men to the isolated life of snails you only contend that it governs the fact the relations which are established between the agglomerations of the human family we say that this assertion too is erroneous a family, a town, county department, province all are so many agglomerations which without any exception all practically reject your principle never indeed even think of it each of these procures by barter what would be more expensively procured by production nations would do the same did you not by force prevent them we then are the men who are guided by practice and experience for to combat the interdict which you have specially put upon some international exchanges we bring forward the practice and experience of all individuals and of all agglomerations of individuals whose acts being voluntary render them proper to be given as proof in the question but you on your part begin by forcing by hindering and then adducing force or forbidden acts you exclaim look we can prove ourselves justified by example you exclaim against our theory and even against all theory but are you certain in laying down your principles so antagonistic to ours that you too are not building up theories truly you too have your theory but between yours and ours there is this difference our theory is formed upon the observation of universal facts universal sentiments universal calculations and acts we do nothing more than classify and arrange these in order to better understand them it is so little opposed to practice that it is in fact only practice explains we look upon the actions of men as prompted by the instincts of self-preservation and of progress what they do freely willingly this is what we call political economy or economy of society we must repeat constantly that each man is practically an excellent political economist producing or exchanging as his advantage dictates each by experience raises himself to the science or rather the science is nothing more than experience scrupulously observed and methodically expounded but your theory is theory in the worst sense of the word you imagine procedures which are sanctioned by the experience of no living man to your aid constraint and prohibition you cannot avoid having recourse to force because wishing to make men produce what they can more advantageously buy you require them to give up an advantage and to be led by a doctrine which implies contradiction even in its terms I defy you too to take this doctrine which by your own avowal would be absurd in individual relations and apply it even in speculation to transactions between families towns, departments or provinces you yourselves confess that it is only applicable to internal relations thus it is that you are daily forced to repeat principles can never be universal what is well in an individual a family, commune or province is ill in a nation what is good in detail for instance purchase rather than production or purchase is more advantageous is bad in society the political economy of individuals is not that of nations and other such stuff adjudzdom farinae and all this for what to prove to us that we consumers are your property that we belong to you soul and body that you have an exclusive right on our stomachs and our limbs that it is your right to feed and dress us at your own price however great your ignorance your rapacity or the inferiority of your work truly then your system is one not founded upon practice it is one of abstraction of extortion end of section 6 recording by Katie Riley April 2010 section 7 of Sophisms of the Protectionists this is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org Sophisms of the Protectionists by Frédéric Bastia translated by Horace White section 7 14 conflicting principles there is one thing which embarrasses me not a little and it is this sincere men taking upon the subject of political economy the point of view of producers have arrived at this double formula a government should dispose of consumers subject to its laws in favor of home industry it should subject to its laws foreign consumers in order to dispose of them in favor of home industry the first of the formulas is that of protection the second that of outlets both rest upon this proposition called the balance of trade that a people is impoverished by importations and enriched by exportations for if every foreign purchase is a tribute paid a loss nothing can be more natural than to restrain even to prohibit importations and if every foreign sale is a tribute received again nothing more natural than to create outlets even by force protective system colonial system these are only two aspects of the same theory to prevent our citizens from buying from foreigners and to force foreigners to buy from our citizens two consequences of one identical principle it is impossible not to perceive that according to this doctrine if it be true the welfare of a country depends upon monopoly or domestic spoilation and upon conquest or foreign spoilation let us take a glance into one of these huts perched upon the side of our Pyrenean range the father of a family has received the little wages of his labor but his half-naked children are shivering before abiding northern blast beside a fireless hearth and an empty table there is wool and wood and corn on the other side of the mountain but these are forbidden to them for the other side of the mountain is not France foreign wood must not warm the hearth of the poor shepherd his children must not taste the bread of Biscay nor cover their numbed limbs with the wool of Nevere it is thus that the general good requires the disposing by law of consumers forcing them to the support of home industry is an encroachment upon their liberty the forbidding of an action mutual exchange which is in no way opposed to morality in a word it is an act of injustice but this it is said is necessary or else home labor will be arrested and a severe blow will be given to public prosperity but then we must come to the melancholy conclusion that there is a radical incompatibility between the just and the useful again if each people is interested in selling and not in buying a violent action and reaction must form the natural state of their mutual relations for each will seek to force its productions upon all and all will seek to repulse the productions of each a sale in fact implies a purchase and since according to this doctrine to sell is beneficial and to buy injurious every international transaction must imply the benefiting of one people by the injuring of another but men are invincibly inclined to what they feel to be advantageous to themselves while they also instinctively resist that which is injurious from hence then we must infer that each nation bears within itself a natural force of expansion and not a less natural force of resistance which are equally injurious to all others in other words antagonism and war are the natural state of human society thus when the theory in discussion resolves itself into the two following axioms in the affairs of a nation utility is incompatible with the internal administration of justice utility is incompatible with the maintenance of external peace well what embarrasses and confounds me is to explain how any writer upon public rights any statesman who has sincerely adopted a doctrine of which the leading principle is so antagonistic to the other incontestable principles can enjoy one moments repose or peace of mind for myself if such were my entrance upon the threshold of science if I did not clearly perceive that liberty utility justice and peace are not only compatible but closely connected even identical I would endeavor to forget all I have learned I would say can it be possible that God can allow men to attain prosperity only through injustice and war can he so direct the affairs of mortals that they can only renounce war and injustice by at the same time renouncing their own welfare am I not deceived by the false lights of a science which can lead me to the horrible blasphemy implied in this alternative and shall I dare to take it upon myself to propose this as a basis for the legislation of a great people when I find a long succession of illustrious and learned men whose researches in the same science have led to more consoling results who after having devoted their lives to its study affirm that through it they see liberty and utility indissolubly linked with justice and peace and find these great principles destined to continue on through eternity in infinite parallels have they not in their favor the presumption which results from all that we know of the goodness and wisdom of God as manifested in the sublime harmony of material creation can I lately believe in opposition to such a presumption and such imposing authorities that this same God has been pleased to put disagreement and antagonism in the laws of the moral world no before I can believe that all social principles oppose, shock and neutralize each other before I can think them in constant anarchical and eternal conflict above all before I can seek to impose upon my fellow citizens the impious system to which my reasonings have led me I must retrace my steps hoping perchance to find some point where I have wondered from my road and if after a sincere investigation twenty times repeated I should still arrive at the frightful conclusion that I am driven to choose between the desirable and the good I would reject the science plunge into a voluntary ignorance above all avoid participation in the affairs of my country and leave to others the weight and responsibility of so fearful a choice fifteen reciprocity again Mr. Desaint Crick has asked are we sure that our foreign customers will buy from us as much as they sell us Mr. D. D. Ambal says what reason have we for believing that English producers will come to seek their supplies from us rather than from any other nation or that they will take from us a value equivalent to their exportations into France I cannot but wonder to see men who boast above all things of being practical thus reasoning wide of all practice in practice there is perhaps no traffic is a direct exchange of produce for produce since the use of money no man says I will seek shoes hats, advice, lessons only from the shoemaker the hatter, the lawyer or teacher who will buy from me the exact equivalent of these in corn why should nations impose upon themselves so troublesome a restraint suppose a nation without any exterior relations one of its citizens makes a crop of corn he casts it into the national circulation and receives in exchange what money, bank bills, securities divisible to any extent by means of which it will be lawful for him to withdraw when he pleases and unless prevented by just competition from the national circulation such articles as he may wish at the end of the operation will have withdrawn from the mass the exact equivalent of what he first cast into it and in value his consumption will exactly equal his production if the exchanges of this nation with foreign nations are free it is no longer into the national circulation but into the general circulation that each individual casts his produce and from thence his consumption is drawn he is not obliged to calculate whether what he casts into the general circulation is purchased by a countryman or by a foreigner whether the notes he receives are given to him by a Frenchman or an Englishman or whether the articles which he procures through means of this money are manufactured on this side or the other side of the Rhine or the Pyrenees one thing is certain balance between what he casts in and what he withdraws from the great common reservoir and if this be true of each individual it is not less true of the entire nation the only difference between these two cases is that in the last case each individual has open to him a larger market both for his sales and his purchases and has consequently a more favorable opportunity of making both to advantage the objection advanced against us here is that if all were to combine in not withdrawing from circulation the produce from any one individual he in his turn could withdraw nothing from the mass the same too would be the case with regard to a nation our answer is if a nation can no longer withdraw anything from the mass of circulation neither will it any longer cast anything into it it will work for itself it will be obliged to submit to what in advance you wish to force upon it this isolation and here you have the ideal of the prohibitive system truly then is it not ridiculous enough that you should inflict upon it now and unnecessarily this system merely through fear that someday or other it might chance to be subjected to it without your assistance 16 obstructed rivers pleading for the prohibitionists some years since being at Madrid I went to the meeting of the Cortes the subject in discussion was a proposed treaty with Portugal for improving the channel of the duro a member rose and said if the duro is made navigable transportation must become cheaper and Portuguese grain will come into formidable competition with our national labor I vote against the project unless the ministers will agree to increase our tariff so as to re-establish the equilibrium three months after I was in Lisbon and the same question came before the senate a noble Hidalgo said Mr. President the project is absurd you guard at great expense the banks of the duro to prevent the influx into Portugal of Spanish grain and at the same time you now propose at great expense to facilitate such an event there is in this a want of consistency in which I can have no part let the duro descend to our sons as we have received it from our fathers 17 a negative railroad I have already remarked that when the observer has unfortunately taken his point of view from the position of producer he cannot fail in his conclusions to clash with the general interest because the producer as such must desire the existence of efforts once and obstacles I find a singular exemplification of this remark in a journal of Bordeaux Mr. Sumiel puts this question ought the railroad from Paris into Spain to present a break or terminus at Bordeaux this question he answers affirmatively I will only consider one among the numerous reasons which he adduces in support of his opinion the railroad from Paris to Bayonne ought, he says to present a break or terminus at Bordeaux in order that goods and travelers stopping in this city should be forced to contribute to the profits of the boatmen, porters commission merchants, hotel keepers etc it is very evident that we have here again the interest of the agents of labour put before that of the consumer but if Bordeaux would profit by a break in the road and if such profit be conformable to the public interest then Angoulayman Portierre, Tour, Orleans and still more all the intermediate points as Rafak, Châtel Rue etc etc would also petition for breaks and this too would be for the general good and for the interest of national labour for it is certain that in proportion to the number of these breaks or termini will be the increase in consignments commissions, lading, unlading etc this system furnishes us the idea of a railroad made up of successive breaks a negative railroad whether or not the protectionists will allow it most certain it is that the restrictive principle is identical with that which would maintain this system of breaks it is the sacrifice of the consumer to the producer of the end to the means 18 there are no absolute principles the facility with which men resign themselves to ignorance in cases where knowledge is all important to them is often astonishing and we may be sure that a man has determined to rest in his ignorance when he once brings himself to proclaim as a maxim that there are no absolute principles we enter into the legislative halls and find that the question is to determine whether the law will or will not allow of international exchanges a deputy writes and says if we tolerate these exchanges foreign nations will overwhelm us with their produce we will have cotton goods from England coal from Belgium woolens from Spain cattle from Switzerland iron from Sweden corn from Prussia will any longer be possible to us another answers prohibit these exchanges and the diverse advantages with which nature has endowed these different countries will be for us as though they did not exist we will have no share in the benefits resulting from English skill or Belgian minds from the fertility of the Polish soil or the Swiss pastures neither will we profit by the cheapness of Spanish labor or the heat of the Italian climate we will be obliged to seek by a forced and laborious production what by means of exchanges would be much more easily obtained assuredly one or other of these deputies is mistaken but which it is worth the trouble of examining there lie before us two roads one of which leads inevitably to wretchedness we must choose to throw off the feeling of responsibility the answer is easy there are no absolute principles this maxim at present so fashionable not only pleases idleness but also suits ambition if either the theory of prohibition or that of free trade should finally triumph one little law would form our whole economical code in the first case this would be foreign trade is forbidden in the second foreign trade is free and thus many great personages would lose their importance but if trade has no distinctive character if it is capriciously useful or injurious and is governed by no natural law if it finds no spur in its usefulness no check in its in utility if its effects cannot be appreciated by those who exercise it in a word if it has no absolute principles oh then it is necessary to deliberate way and regulate transactions the conditions of labor must be equalized the level of profit sought this is an important charge well calculated to give to those who execute it large salaries and extensive influence contemplating this great city of Paris I have thought to myself here are a million of human beings who would die in a few days if provisions of every kind did not flow in towards this vast metropolis the imagination is unable to calculate the multiplicity of objects which tomorrow must enter its gates to prevent the life of its inhabitants from terminating famine, riots or pillage and yet at this moment all are asleep without feeling one moment's uneasiness from the contemplation of this frightful possibility on the other side we see eighty departments who have this day labored without concert without mutual understanding for the vitalizing of Paris how can each day bring just what is necessary nothing more to this gigantic market what is the ingenious and secret power which presides over the astonishing regularity of such complicated movements a regularity in which we all have so implicit though thoughtless a faith on which our comfort our very existence depends this power is an absolute principle the principle of freedom in exchanges we have faith in that inner light which providence has placed in the heart of all men confiding to it the preservation and amelioration of our species interest since we must give it its name so vigilant, so active having so much forecast when allowed its reaction what would be your condition inhabitants of Paris if a minister, however superior his abilities should undertake to substitute in the place of this power the combinations of his own genius if he should think of subjecting to his own supreme direction this prodigious mechanism taking all its springs into his own hand and deciding by whom how and on what conditions each article should be produced transported, exchanged, and consumed ah although there is much suffering although misery, despair, and perhaps starvation may call forth more tears than your warmest charity can wipe away it is probable it is certain that the arbitrary intervention of governments would infinitely multiply these sufferings and would extend among you the evils which now reach but a small number of your citizens if then we have such faith in this principle as applied to our private concerns why should we not extend it to international transactions which are assuredly less numerous less delicate and less complicated and if it be not necessary for the prefect of Paris to regulate our industrial pursuits to weigh our profits and our losses to occupy himself with the quantity of our cash and to equalize the conditions of our labor and internal commerce on what principle can it be necessary that the custom house going beyond its fiscal mission should pretend to exercise a protective power over our external commerce nineteen national independence among the arguments advanced in favor of a restrictive system we must not forget that which is drawn from the plea of national independence what will we do it is asked in case of war we are at the mercy of England for our iron and coal the English monopolists on their side do not fail to exclaim what will become of Great Britain in case of war if she depends upon France for provisions one thing appears to be quite lost sight of and this is that the dependence which results from commercial transactions is a reciprocal dependence we can only be dependent on foreign supplies insofar as foreign nations are dependent upon us this is the essence of society the breaking off of natural relations places a nation not in an independent position but in a state of isolation and remark that the reason given for this isolation is that it is a necessary provision for war while the act is itself a commencement of war renders war easier less burdensome and consequently less unpopular if nations were to one another permanent outlets for mutual produce if their respective relations were such that they could not be broken without inflicting the double suffering of privation and of oversupply there could then no longer be any need of those powerful fleets which ruin and these great armies the peace of the world could no more be compromised by the whim of a theer or a Palmerston and wars would cease from want of resources motives, pretexts and popular sympathy I know that I shall be reproached for it is the fashion of the day for placing interest vile and prosaic interest at the foundation of the fraternity of nations it would be preferred that this should be based upon charity, upon love that there should be in it some self-denial and that, clashing a little with the material welfare of men it should bear the merits of a generous sacrifice when will we have done with such pure-wild declamations we condemn, we revile interest that is to say the good and the useful for if all men are interested in an object how can this object be other than good in itself as though this interest were not the necessary, eternal and indestructible mover to the guidance of which providence has confided human perfectibility one would suppose that the utterance of such sentiments must be models of disinterestedness but does the public not begin to perceive with disgust that this affected language is the stain of those pages for which it oftenest pays the highest price once, because comfort and peace are correlative because it has pleased God to establish so beautiful a harmony in the moral world he would blame me when I admire and adore his decrees and for accepting with gratitude his laws which make justice a requisite for happiness you will consent to have peace only when it clashes with your welfare and liberty is irksome if it imposes no sacrifices what then prevents you if self-denial has so many charms from exercising it as much as you desire in your private actions society will be benefited by yours are doing, for someone must profit by your sacrifices but it is the height of absurdity to wish to impose such a principle upon mankind generally for the self-denial of all is the sacrifice of all this is evil systematized into theory but thanks be to heaven these declamations may be written and read and the world continues nevertheless to obey its great mover its great cause of action which, spite of all denials is interest it is singular enough too to hear sentiments of such sublime self-abnegation quoted in support even of spoilation and yet to this tends all this pompous show of disinterestedness these men so sensitively delicate that they are determined not to enjoy even peace if it must be propped up by the vile interest of men do not hesitate to pick the pockets of other men and above all of poor men for what tariff protects the poor gentlemen we pray you disposes you please of what belongs to yourselves but let us entreat you to allow us to use or to exchange according to our own fancy the fruit of our own labor the sweat of our own brows declaim as you will about self-sacrifice that is all pretty enough but we beg of you do not at the same time forget to be honest end of section 7 recording by Katie Riley April 2010