[28] What follows is from a note found among the author’s papers. Had he lived, he would have incorporated the substance of it in the body of his dissertation on Exchange. All that we feel authorized to do is to place it at the end of the present chapter.—Editor.
[29] See, for the refutation of this error, chapter xi., post.—Also chapters ii. and iii. of Sophismes Économiques, English Edition.
V. OF VALUE
[30] I have ventured to state elsewhere some of the reasons which induce me to doubt the entire soundness of Bastiat’s conclusions on the subject of Rent and the Value of Land.—See note to chapter ix. post.—Translator.
[31] French Economists of the school of Quesnay.—Translator.
[32] Adds! The subject had then intrinsic value, anterior to the bestowal of labour upon it. That could only come from nature. The action of nature is not then gratuitous, according to this showing; but in that case, who can have the audacity to exact payment for this portion of superhuman value?
[33] The French Economists translate our word consumption by consommation.—Translator.
[34] It is because, in a state of freedom, efforts compete with each other that they obtain this remuneration nearly in proportion to their intensity. But, I repeat, this proportionality is not inherent in the notion of value.
It is a proof that where this competition does not exist the proportionality ceases. In that case we discover no relation between divers kinds of labour and their remuneration.
The absence of competition may result from the nature of things or from human perversity.