[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›.