Tell me, is there commutability between the qualities that distinguish men from each other?
Between the man of genius and the humble rag-picker?
Between the philosopher who elevates the human mind and the porter who does not even know how to read?
Between the brain that discovers a great natural law and the one that reflects on nothing?
To answer affirmatively is impossible: for we only compare things of the same nature.
Now, if there can be no commutability between individuals so different, is there not, according to your system, subject for social contract between them?
Why then do you claim that these men should be equal socially?
Why then do you admit that they may associate things in a private contract which cannot be subjected to a common measure?
There is no need to be learned in philosophy or economy to know that any contract whatsoever is an admission of personal insufficiency; that we would not enter into partnership with others if we could dispense with them; and that in general the design of the contracting parties is to establish commutability where it has not been established by the nature of things.
To a common work, one brings his idea, another his hands, a third, his money, a fourth, custom: if each of the parties had had all these combined, no one would have thought of forming a partnership: a happy insufficiency brought them together, and caused them to establish equivalence between the shares of capital which could not be subjected to a common measure.