Thoughts on the mechanism of societies

by marquis de Charles Casaux

Q. Will you add further: And provided also that the service done, falls not on the land-owner, or on the proprietor of some money within your nation?—Yet thus far would you finally be led by that system of prohibitions and restrictions, almost equally extravagant, to which you are so devoutly attached.—But such a plan can succeed only to a certain degree: be pleased to observe, that hitherto you can boast of no other advantage but that of the first attack.—Sole and absolute arbiters as you are of your own prices by the monopoly you have obtained, if agriculture had not advanced those of her products in the same proportion, would not your land-owners be compelled to seek abroad for a country where monopoly should not be so obligingly countenanced? For you do not, I presume, flatter yourselves that you shall be able to induce your Parliament, in the age we live in, doubly to tax the property of those who might look abroad for a remedy against your extortions:—the many laws of that kind consigned to your annals, (and which you would not fail to quote as a precedent,) must seek in the ignorance and barbarity of the age that gave them birth, an apology for their establishment; but at this present time!—Such shades in the picture of the Land of Liberty, instead of setting off the beauties of its other parts, would annihilate the very idea of that liberty. It is by justice and freedom that we are attracted and retained; it is by injustice and restraint that we are expelled, and kept at a distance. Be pleased then, in fine, to observe that nothing can result from those plans, the iniquity of which you have no more searched into than you have thoroughly examined their consequences,—from those prohibitions and restrictions, the effects of which must be counterbalanced by contradictory regulations,—except the pitiful advantage of having perverted the nature of the prices on every article. What is necessary to counteract the effect of an injury done to the generality, will always mechanically be brought about by that very generality. Would it not be more advantageous for men, to agree amongst themselves, like intelligent beings, on some plans accounted equitable by all,—on plans the analysis of which the projector might bear without a blush?—Were a few points agreed upon, it would not perhaps be difficult to settle all the others.

Let the dead bodies be wrapped up in woollen instead of linen cloth; linen coming from abroad, wool being a staple commodity, and the dead caring little whether their winding-sheet be made of woollen or linen: it is a point of economy which it would be rather too severe to condemn, although it is probable enough that in the North they would exchange with pleasure, for your buried woollen, linen cloth in sufficient quantity to wrap up your dead; a circumstance which might prove very beneficial to some of the living, both in England and Silesia. But will you attempt to persuade, that it is advantageous to the State, under any aspect, to compel a man who calls himself free, to wear manufactured buttons, when his inclination would lead him to have them made of remnants of stuff? Will you attempt to persuade, that it is advantageous to the State, to make him pay a penalty of 3 or 4 pounds, besides cost, if he is surprised flagrante delicto? Will you attempt to persuade, that it is advantageous to the State, to encourage the infamous trade of informing, by a reward in favour of an informer, against a man guilty of such a crime? Will you attempt to persuade, that it is advantageous to the State, to withdraw from their useful occupations a swarm of fellows, become capable of any dirty work, by having turned informers on account of the stipulated recompense, and who, waiting for an opportunity of doing worse, leave their work-shops as soon as such a law is passed, in search of a prey the seisure of which will enable them to live in riot and intoxication for a whole week together, without being obliged to return to their work? This is not all; for, in fine, if all the branches of industry have the same right to the protection of Government, does not a law, the immediate effect of which is to enhance the price of buttons by occasioning a greater demand for that article, destroy all idea of that protection equally due to the other branches of industry, by infallibly depriving some of them, both of the amount of the cash they might have received from those who will now be forced, against their inclination, to purchase manufactured buttons, and of the amount of cash which the advanced price of manufactured buttons, will unjustly wrest from those who, by the effect of the law, are obliged to pay dearer for what they might have procured at a cheaper rate? Would not the least facility granted for the importation of some foreign merchandise, have occasioned abroad a greater consumption, either of buttons, or of some other English goods, than such a law can procure at home in the manufactory unjustly favoured? But, above all, will you attempt to persuade, that it is advantageous for the State, to acquire a thousand more button-makers, when that acquisition is obtained by the loss of a thousand artificers employed in manufacturing some other articles, the consumption of which would have been free, that is, analogous to the situation of those who boast of their being so?

Let us seek for such points, as it may be possible to agree upon.

The State is composed of three orders of men, all equally precious, and whose rights are equally sacred; viz. the landed capitalist, the capitalist of industry, and the proprietor of money, whether he be considered as a capitalist in this last respect, or only as a dependent on either of the two former capitalists. Each of these three orders has its interest.

First, It is the highest interest of the landed capitalist, that there be the greatest plenty and variety of the best products of industry, and the greatest consumption of the productions of the earth.

Secondly, It is the highest interest of the capitalist of industry, that there be the greatest plenty and variety of the best productions of the earth, and the greatest consumption of the products of industry.

Thirdly, It is the highest interest of the money proprietor, that there be the largest quantity and variety of the best products both of industry and agriculture, in order that he may be able to support the value of his capital by the quantity of objects on which he will have it in his power to lay it out, and the value of his interest by the greatest possible consumption, not at the lowest price, which, supposed lasting, is as chimerical as the pretended balance, constantly favourable, but at the most equitable rate, that is to say, the highest the seller can hope for, and the lowest to which the purchaser can pretend.

But if it be true, that the combined interest of the three orders be centered within the three points I have stated, namely, the greatest possible quantity and variety of the best productions of the earth, the greatest quantity and variety of the best products of industry, and the greatest as well as most unconfined consumption of both at an equitable price; it is equally true, that it must be a matter of perfect indifference to agriculture, in what part of the world, and by whom her productions are consumed, provided they be paid to her in any products whatever, at her option equivalent to those she has parted with. It is no less true, that it is a matter of perfect indifference to industry, in what part of the world, and by whom, her products are consumed, provided she be paid for them in any products whatever, at her option, equivalent to those she gives. It is equally true, that the money-proprietor must view, with the same indifference, his property giving life to this or that branch of industry or agriculture, provided, that in the hour of need or fancy, he finds at hand, on the most equitable terms, the greatest quantity and variety of the best products of agriculture and industry, which the interest of his money, or the amount of the salaries he enjoys, gives him a right to expect.

There remains, it is true, a fourth interest, that of the Fisc, or public revenue; but if this revenue be nothing more than the produce of the taxes, this fourth interest consists of course, as the three former, in the largest quantity of products, and the greatest consumption. Now are there any other means to obtain those two objects, besides the freest and most extensive exchange, not of goods for money, but of goods for goods? Is it not perceivable, that all the four interests united, as well as each of them separately, require that no more be imported in bullion or money than the quantity necessary to facilitate those exchanges? Is not a surplus of money not only useless, but even detrimental, in diminishing our enjoyments, our possible profits, and that consumption which produces the public revenue?