Chapter XVII: Private and Public Services

[94] “The moment this value is handed over by the taxpayer, it is lost to him; the moment it is consumed by the Government, it is lost to everybody, and does not return to society.”—«J. B. Say», ‹Traité d’Économie Politique›, liv. iii. chap 9.

Unquestionably; but society gains in return the service which is rendered to it—security, for example. Moreover, Say returns to the correct doctrine almost immediately afterwards, when he says,—“To levy a tax is to do a wrong to society—a wrong which is compensated by no advantage, ‹when no service is rendered to society in exchange›.”—‹Ibid.›

[95] “Public contributions, even when they are consented to by the nation, are a violation of property, seeing they can be levied only on values which have been produced by the land, capital, and industry of individuals. Thus, ‹whenever they exceed the amount indispensable for the preservation of society›, we must regard them as spoliation.”—«J. B. Say.» ‹Traité d’Économie Politique›, liv. iii. chap. 9.

Here, again, the subsequent qualification corrects the too absolute judgment previously pronounced. The doctrine that ‹services are exchanged for services›, simplifies much both the problem and its solution.

[96] Civil law terms. See ‹ante›, p. 172.

[97] The effects of such a transformation are strikingly exemplified in an instance given by M. d’Hautpoul, the Minister of War:—“Each soldier,” he says, “receives 16 centimes a day for his maintenance. The Government takes these 16 centimes, and undertakes to support him. The consequence is that all have the same rations, and of the same kind, whether it suit them or not. One has too much bread, and throws it away. Another has not enough of butcher’s meat, and so on. We have, therefore, made an experiment. We leave to the soldiers the free disposal of these 16 centimes, and we are happy to find that this has been attended with a great improvement in their condition. Each now consults his own tastes and likings, and studies the market prices of what they want to purchase. Generally they have, of their own accord, substituted a portion of butcher’s meat for bread. In some instances they buy more bread, in others more meat, in others more vegetables, in others more fish. Their health is improved; they are better pleased; and the State is relieved from a great responsibility.”

The reader will understand that it is not as bearing on military affairs that I cite this experiment. I refer to it as calculated to illustrate a radical difference between public and private service, between official regulations and liberty. Would it be better for the State to take from us our means of support, and undertake to feed us, or to leave us both our means of support and the care of feeding ourselves? The same question may be asked with reference to all our wants.

[98] See the author’s pamphlet, entitled ‹Baccalauréat et Socialisme›.—«Editor.»

[99] The author, in a previous work, had sought the solution of the same question. The subject of his inquiry was the legitimate province of law. All the developments in the pamphlet, entitled ‹La Loi›, are applicable to the subject he is now discussing. We refer the reader to that ‹brochure›.—«Editor.»

[100] Here ends the MS. We refer the reader to the author’s pamphlet entitled ‹Spoliation et Loi›, in the second part of which he has exposed the sophisms which were given utterance to at this meeting of the ‹Conseil général›.

On the subjects of the six chapters intended to follow this, under the titles of Taxation, Machinery, Free Trade, Intermediaries, Raw Materials, and Luxury, we refer the reader, ‹1st›, to the ‹Discours sur l’Impôt des Boissons›, inserted in the second edition of the pamphlet, ‹Incompatibilités Parlementaires›; ‹2dly›, to the pamphlet entitled ‹Ce qu’on voit et Ce qu’on ne voit pas›; ‹3dly›, to the ‹Sophismes Économiques›.