The Project Gutenberg EBook of Protection and Communism, by Frederic Bastiat
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
Title: Protection and Communism
With a Preface, by The Translator
Author: Frederic Bastiat
Translator: Unknown
Release Date: November 18, 2013 [EBook #44144]
Language: English
Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PROTECTION AND COMMUNISM ***
Produced by David Widger
PROTECTION and COMMUNISM
From The French
By Frederic Bastiat.
With a Preface, by The Translator
London:
John W. Parker And Son, West Strand
MDCCCLII.
CONTENTS
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
PROTECTION AND COMMUNISM.
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
This translation will not, it is hoped, be unacceptable to the English
reader, particularly at the present moment, when it is not improbable
that, under certain circumstances, a great effort may be made in this
country to restore Protection—or, should that wild attempt be
considered impossible, to shift the public burdens in such a manner as to
effect, as far as possible, the same purpose in favour of what is called
the 'agricultural interest.' M. Bastiat's spirited little work is in the
form of a letter, addressed to M. Thiers—the archenemy of
free-trade, as he was of most propositions which had for their object the
true happiness of France. The present was only one of a series of efforts
made by M. Bastiat in favour of the cause of freedom of commerce; and the
English reader has already had an opportunity of admiring the force of his
arguments and the clearness of his style, in Mr. Porter's* admirable
translation of Popular Fallacies, which is, indeed, a perfect
armory of arguments for those 'who, although they may have a general
impression favourable to Free-trade, have yet some fears as to the
consequences that may follow its adoption.' What impression M. Bastiat may
have produced on the public mind of France it is not easy to conjecture,
or how far the recent violent changes in that country, presuming them to
be at all permanent, may prove favourable to Free-trade or otherwise. But
it is to be feared that there is an amount of prejudice and ignorance in
France, among the mass of her people, more inveterate and more difficult
to remove and enlighten than was the case in this country. However, seed
thus sown cannot remain altogether without fruit, and the rapidity with
which correct principles spread through a great community, under
apparently most unfavourable circumstances, is such as frequently to
astonish even those most convinced of the vast power of truth.
* Secretary of the Board of Trade, and author of the
Progress of the Nation.
The real object of M. Bastiat is to expose the unsoundness and injustice
of the system of Protection. He does this partly by a dexterous reference
to the theory of Communism, and shows, with logical force and neat
application, that the principles of the two are in truth the same. The
parallel thus drawn, so far from being fanciful or strained, is capable of
easy demonstration. But, in drawing it, M. Bastiat rather assumes than
proves that Communism is itself wholly indefensible—that its
establishment would be destructive of security and property, and,
consequently, of society—in a word, that it is another term for
robbery.
This is true, and obviously so, of Communism, in its more extravagant
form; and it is to this, of course, that M. Bastiat refers. But it cannot
be denied that there are many modifications of the principle which embrace
more or less truth, and which appear to offer a corrective to that
excessive competition or pressure of numbers, the evils of which are
patent, admitted, and deplored. That the specific remedy proposed is
vicious, that it would quickly make matters much worse than they are, that
it is, in fact, a fraud and a mockery, does not prevent it from being, and
naturally, captivating to many who at present see no other way out of the
difficulties and the struggles by which they are surrounded: and who are
tempted to embrace it, not only as a relief to their present wants and
anxieties, but because it would, in their opinion, entail other
consequences, as connected with their social condition, particularly
grateful to their feelings. We further admit that such sentiments—not
in themselves irrational—founded on a legitimate desire for
improvement, and entertained by large and important classes—are
entitled to the most respectful consideration.
Whether some considerable melioration in the condition of our labourers
and artisans may not by degrees be effected by means of combined labour,
or co-operation, and the principle of partnership, is no doubt one of the
great questions to be solved by modern society, but it is much too wide a
one to be entered upon, however cursorily, in this place. It is
understood, however, that one of the most original and powerful thinkers
within the domain of statistics is at the present moment engaged on this
subject; and, if this be so, we shall no doubt, before long, be in the
possession of views of extreme importance and interest.
We have, with deep regret, to add that M. Bastiat died during the autumn
of last year, after a long illness, in the south of Italy. By his death,
not only France, but the world also, has sustained a loss.
PROTECTION AND COMMUNISM.
TO M. THIERS.
Sir,
Do not be ungrateful to the revolution of February. It may have surprised,
perhaps disturbed you, but it has also afforded you, whether as an author,
an orator, or a practised statesman, some unexpected triumphs. Amidst
these successes, there is one certainly of no usual character. We not long
ago read in La Presse, 'The Association for the Protection of
National Labour (the ancient Mimerel Club)* is about to address a circular
to all its correspondents, to announce that a subscription is opened for
the purpose of promoting in manufactories the circulation of M. Thiers's
book upon Property. The association itself subscribes for 5000 copies.'
Would that I had been present when this flattering announcement met your
eyes. It should have made them sparkle with joy. We have good reason to
say that the ways of Providence are as infallible as they are
impenetrable. For if you will bear with me for a moment I will endeavour
to prove that Protection, when fully developed, and pushed to its
legitimate consequences, becomes Communism. It is sufficiently singular
that a champion of Protection should discover that he is a promoter of
Communism; but what is more extraordinary and more consoling still, is the
fact that we find a powerful association, that was formed for the purpose
of propagating theoretically and practically the principles of Communism
(in the manner deemed most profitable to its members) now devoting the
half of its resources to destroy the evil which it has done with the other
half.
* An association, Mr. Porter informs us, composed like that
assembling (or that did assemble, for we are not quite sure
whether it still exists,) at No. 17, New Bond Street,
exclusively of producers, at least of the article sought to
be protected, and therefore of persons who believe
themselves to be interested in excluding from the home
market the productions of others.
I repeat it,—this is consoling. It assures us of the inevitable
triumph of truth, since it shows us the real and first propagators of
subversive doctrines, startled at their success, industriously correcting
with the proper antidote the poison they had spread.
This supposes, it is true, the identity of the principles of Communism and
of Protection, and perhaps you do not admit this identity, though, to
speak the truth, it seems to me impossible that you could have written
four hundred pages upon Property without being struck by it. Perhaps you
imagine that some efforts made in favour of commercial freedom, or rather
of free trade, the impatience of a discussion without results, the ardour
of the contest, and the keenness of the struggle, have made me view (what
happens too often to all of us) the errors of my adversaries in
exaggerated colours. But, beyond question, according to my idea, it
requires but little effort to develop the principles you have been
advocating into those of Communism. How can it be that our great
manufacturers, landed proprietors, rich bankers, able statesmen, have
become, without knowing or wishing it, the introducers, the very apostles
of Communism in France? And why not, I would ask? There are numerous
workmen fully convinced of the right of labour, and consequently
Communists also without knowing or wishing it, and who would not
acknowledge the title. The reason of this is, that amongst all classes
interest biases the will, and the will, as Pascal says, is the chief
element of our faith. Under another name, many of our working classes,
very honest people be it observed, use Communism as they have always used
it, namely, on the condition that the wealth of others should alone be
liable to the law. But as soon as the principle, extending itself, would
apply the same rule to their own property—oh! then Communism is held
in detestation, and their former principles are rejected with loathing. To
express surprise at this, is simply to confess ignorance of the human
heart, its secret workings, and how strong its inclination is to practise
self-deception.*
* The truth of this is found on all occasions where the
interests or the passions of men are concerned, and was
rather amusingly shown in many ways when the free-trade
measures of Sir R. Peel were being carried through. Then
every interest desired free-trade, except with reference to
the articles produced by itself.
No, Sir; it is not the heat of controversy, which has betrayed me in
seeing the doctrine of Protection in this light, for, on the contrary, it
was because I saw it in this point of view before the struggle commenced
that I am thus engaged. Believe me that to extend somewhat our foreign
commerce—a consequential result which, however, is far from
despicable—was never my governing motive; I believed, and I still
believe, that property itself was concerned in the question; I believed,
and I still believe, that our tariff of customs, owing to the principle
which has given it birth, and the arguments by which it is defended, has
made a breach in the very principle of property itself, through which all
the rest of our legislation threatens to force itself. In considering this
state of things, it seems to me that a Communism, the true effect and
range of which, (I must say this to be just,) was not contemplated by its
supporters, was on the point of overwhelming us. It seems to me that this
particular species of Communism (for there are several kinds of it) flows
logically from the arguments of the protectionists, and is involved when
those arguments are pressed to their legitimate conclusion. It is upon
this ground, therefore, that it seems to me of the utmost importance to
meet the evil, for, fortified as it is by sophistical statements, and
sanctioned by high authority, there is no hope of eradicating the error
while such statements are permitted to take possession of and to distract
the mind of the public. It is thus that we view the matter at Bordeaux,
Paris, Marseilles, Lyons, and elsewhere, where we have organized the
free-trade association. Commercial freedom, considered by itself, is
without doubt a great blessing to the people; but if we had only this
object in view, our body should have been named the Association for
Commercial Freedom, or, more accurately, for the Gradual Reform of
the Tariffs. But the word 'free-trade' implies the free disposal of
the produce of labour, in other terms 'property' and it is for
this reason that we have preferred it. We knew, indeed, that the term
would give rise to many difficulties. It affirmed a principle, and from
that moment all the supporters of the opposite one ranged themselves
against us. More than this, it was extremely objectionable, even to some
of those who were the most disposed to second us, that is to say, to
merchants and traders more engaged in reforming the Customs than in
overthrowing Communism. Havre, while sympathizing with our views, refused
to enlist under our banner. On all sides I was told, 'Let us obtain
without loss of time some modification of our tariff, without publishing
to the world our extreme pretensions.' I replied, 'If you have only that
in view, exert your influence through your chambers of commerce.' To this
they answered, 'The word free-trade frightens people, and retards our
success.' Nothing is more true; but I would derive even from the terror
inspired by this word my strongest arguments for its adoption. The more
disliked it is, say I, the more it proves that the true notion of property
is obscured. The doctrine of Protection has clouded ideas, and confused
and false ideas have in their turn supported Protection. To obtain by
surprise, or with the consent of the Government, an accidental
amelioration of the tariff may modify an effect, but cannot destroy a
cause. I retain, then, the word Free-trade, not in the mere spirit
of opposition, but still, I admit, because of the obstacles it creates or
encounters—obstacles which, while they betray the mischief at work,
bear along with them the certain proof, that the very foundation of social
order was threatened.
It is not sufficient to indicate our views by a word; they should be
defined. This has been done, and I here transcribe, as a programme, the
first announcement or manifesto of this association.
'When uniting for the defence of a great cause, the undersigned feel the
necessity of declaring their creed: of proclaiming the design, the
province, the means and the principles of their association.
'Exchange is a natural right, like property. Every one who has made or
acquired any article should have the option either to apply it immediately
to his own use, or to transfer it to any one, whomsoever he may be, who
may consent to give him something he may prefer to it in exchange. To
deprive him of this power when he makes no use of it contrary to public
order or morality, and solely to gratify the convenience of another, is to
legalise a robbery—to violate the principle of justice.
'Again, it is to violate the conditions of social order—for what
true social order can exist in the midst of a community, in which each
individual interest, aided in this by law and public opinion, aims at
success by the depression of all the others?
'It is to disown that providential superintendence which presides over
human affairs, and made manifest by the infinite variety of climates,
seasons, natural advantages and resources, benefits which God has so
unequally distributed among men to unite them by commercial intercourse in
the ties of a common brotherhood.
'It is to retard or counteract the development of public prosperity, since
he who is not free to barter as he pleases, is not free to select his
occupation, and is compelled to give an unnatural direction to his
efforts, to his faculties, to his capital, and to those agents which
nature has placed at his disposal.
'In short, it is to imperil the peace of nations, for it disturbs the
relations which unite them, and which render wars improbable in proportion
as they would be burdensome.
'The association has, then, for its object Free-trade.
'The undersigned do not contest that society has the right to impose on
merchandise, which crosses the frontier, custom dues to meet national
expenses, provided they are determined by the consideration of the wants
of the Treasury alone.
'But as soon as a tax, losing its fiscal character, aims at the exclusion
of foreign produce, to the detriment of the Treasury itself, in order to
raise artificially the price of similar national products, and thus to
levy contributions on the community for the advantage of a class, from
that instant Protection, or rather robbery, displays itself, and this
is the principle which the association proposes to eradicate from the
public mind, and to expunge from our laws, independently of all
reciprocity, and of the systems which prevail elsewhere.
'Though this association has for its object the complete destruction of
the system of protection, it does not follow that it requires or expects
such a reformation to be accomplished in a day, as by the stroke of a
wand. To return even from evil to good, from an artificial state of things
to one more natural, calls for the exercise of much prudence and
precaution. To carry out the details belongs to the supreme power—the
province of the association is to propagate the principle, and to make it
popular.
'As to the means which the association may employ to accomplish its ends,
it will never seek for any but what are legal and constitutional.
'Finally, the association has nothing to do with party politics. It does
not advocate any particular interest, class or section of the country. It
embraces the cause of eternal justice, of peace, of union, of free
intercourse, of brotherhood among all men—the cause of public weal,
which is identical in every respect with that of the public consumer.'
Is there a word in this programme which does not show an ardent wish to
confirm and strengthen, or rather perhaps to re-establish, in the minds of
men the idea of property, perverted, as it is, by the system of
Protection? Is it not evident that the interest of commerce is made
secondary to the interest of society generally? Remark that the tariff, in
itself good or evil in the financial point of view, engages little of our
attention. But, as soon as it acts intentionally with a view to
Protection, that is to say, as soon as it develops the principle of
spoliation, and ignores, in fact, the right of property, we combat it, not
as a tariff, but as a system. It is there, we say, that we must
eradicate the principle from the public mind, in order to blot it from our
laws.*
* As Mr. Porter says, in one of his excellent notes on M.
Bastiat's work on Popular Fallacies, 'The true history of
all progress in regard to great questions, involving change
in social policy, is here indicated by M. Bastiat. It is in
vain that we look for such change through the enlightenment
of what should be the governing bodies. In this respect, all
legislative assemblies, whether called a Chamber of Deputies
or a House of Commons, are truly representatives of the
public mind, never placing themselves in advance, nor
lagging much behind the general conviction. This is not,
indeed, a new discovery, but we are much indebted to Mr.
Cobden and the leading members of the Anti-Corn-Law League
for having placed it in a point of view so prominent that it
can no longer be mistaken. Hereafter, the course of action
is perfectly clear upon all questions that require
legislative sanction. This can only be obtained through the
enlightenment of the constituency; but when such
enlightenment has been accomplished—when those mainly
interested in bringing about the change have once formed
their opinion in its favour, the task is achieved.'
It will be asked, no doubt, why, having in view a general principle of
this importance, we have confined the struggle to the merits of a
particular question.
The reason of this, is simple. It is necessary to oppose association to
association, to engage the interests of men, and thus draw volunteers into
our ranks. We know well that the contest between the Protectionists and
Free-traders cannot be prolonged without raising and finally settling all
questions, moral, political, philosophical, and economical, connected with
property. And since the Mimerel Club, in directing its efforts to one end,
had weakened the principle of property, so we aimed at inspiring it with
renewed vigour, in pursuing a course diametrically opposite.
But what matters it what I may have said or thought at other times? What
matters it that I have perceived, or thought that I have perceived, a
certain connexion between Protection and Communism? The essential thing is
to prove that this connexion exists, and I proceed to ascertain whether
this be so.
You no doubt remember the time when, with your usual ability, you drew
from the lips of Monsieur Proudhon this celebrated declaration, 'Give me
the right of labour, and I will abandon the right of property.' M.
Proudhon does not conceal that, in his eyes, these two rights are
incompatible.
If property is incompatible with the right of labour, and if the right of
labour is founded upon the same principle as Protection, what conclusion
can we draw, but that Protection is itself incompatible with property? In
geometry, we regard as an incontestable truth, that two things equal to a
third are equal to each other.
Now it happens that an eminent orator, M. Billault, has thought it right
to support at the tribune the right of labour. This was not easy, in the
face of the declaration which escaped from M. Proudhon. M. Billault
understood very well, that to make the state interfere to weigh in the
balance the fortunes, and equalize the conditions, of men, tends towards
Communism; and what did he say to induce the National Assembly to violate
property and the principles thereof? He told you with all simplicity that
he asked you to do what, in effect, you already do by your tariff. His aim
does not go beyond a somewhat more extended application of the doctrines
now admitted by you, and applied in practice. Here are his words:—
'Look at our custom-house tariff? By their prohibitions, their
differential taxes, their premiums, their combinations of all kinds, it is
society which aids, which supports, which retards or advances all the
combinations of national labour; it not only holds the balance between
French labour, which it protects, and foreign labour, but on the soil of
France itself it is perpetually interfering between the different
interests of the country. Listen to the perpetual complaints made by one
class against another: see, for example, those who employ iron in their
processes, complaining of the protection given to French iron over foreign
iron; those who employ flax or cotton thread, protesting against the
protection granted to French thread, in opposition to the introduction of
foreign thread; and it is thus with all the others. Society (it ought to
be said, the government) finds itself then forcibly mixed up with all
these struggles, with all the perplexities connected with the regulation
of labour; it is always actively interfering between them, directly and
indirectly, and from the moment that the question of custom duties is
broached, you will see that you will be, in spite of yourselves, forced to
acknowledge the fact and its cause, and to take on yourself the protection
of every interest.
'The necessity which is thus imposed on the government to interfere in the
question of labour, should not, then, be considered an objection to the
debt which society owes to the poor workmen.'
And you will remark well that in his arguments, M. Billault has not the
least intention of being sarcastic. He is no Free-trader, intentionally
disguised for the purpose of exposing the inconsistency of the
Protectionists. No; M. Billault is himself a Protectionist, bonâ fide.
He aims at equalizing our fortunes by law. With this view, he considers
the action of the tariffs useful; and being met by an obstacle—the
right of property—he leaps over it, as you do. The right of labour
is then pointed out to him, which is a second step in the same direction.
He again encounters the right of property, and again he leaps over it; but
turning round, he is surprised to see you do not follow him. He asks the
reason. If you reply—I admit in principle that the law may violate
property, but I find it inopportune that this should be done under
the particular form of the right of labour, M. Billault would understand
you, and discuss with you the secondary question of expediency. But you
raise up, in opposition to his views, the principle of property itself.
This astonishes him; and he conceives that he is entitled to say to you—Do
not act with inconsistency, and deny the right of labour on the ground of
its infringement of the right of property, since you violate this latter
right by your tariffs, whenever you find it convenient to do so. He might
add, with some reason, by the protective tariffs you often violate the
property of the poor for the advantage of the rich. By the right of
labour, you would violate the property of the rich to the advantage of the
poor. By what chance does it happen that your scruples stop short at the
point they do?
Between you and M. Billault there is only one point of difference. Both of
you proceed in the same direction—that of Communism: only you have
taken but one step, and he has taken two. On this account the advantage,
in my eyes at least, is on your side; but you lose it on the ground of
logic.
For since you go along with him, though more slowly than he does, he is
sufficiently well pleased to have you as his follower. This is an
inconsistency which M. Bitlault has managed to avoid, but, alas! to fall
himself also into a sad dilemma! M. Billault is too enlightened not to
feel, indistinctly perhaps, the danger of each step that he takes in the
path which ends in Communism. He does not assume the ridiculous position
of the champion of property, at the very moment of violating it; but how
does he justify himself? He calls to his aid the favourite axiom of all
who can reconcile two irreconcilable things—There are no fixed
principles. Property, Communism—let us take a little from both,
according to circumstances.
'To my mind, the pendulum of civilization which oscillates from the one
principle to the other, according to the wants of the moment, but which
always makes the greater progress if, after strongly inclining towards the
absolute freedom of individual action, it fells back on the necessity of
government interference.'
There is, then, no such thing as truth in the world. No principles exist,
since the pendulum ought to oscillate from one principle to the other,
according to the wants of the moment. Oh! metaphor, to what a point
thou wouldst bring us, if allowed!
But as you have well said, in your place in the Assembly, one cannot
discuss all parts of this subject at once, I will not at the present
moment examine the system of Protection in the purely economic point of
view. I do not inquire then whether, with regard to national wealth, it
does more good than harm, or the reverse. The only point that I wish to
prove is, that it is nothing else than a species of Communism. MM.
Billault and Proudhon have commenced the proof, and I will try and
complete it.
And first, What is to be understood by Communism? There are several modes,
if not of realizing community of goods, at least of trying to do so. M. de
Lamartine has reckoned four. You think that there are a thousand, and I am
of your opinion. However, I believe that all these could be reduced under
three general heads, of which one only, according to me, is truly
dangerous.
First, it might occur to two or more men to combine their labour and their
time. While they do not threaten the security, infringe the liberty, or
usurp the property of others, neither directly nor indirectly, if they do
any mischief, they do it to themselves. The tendency of such men will be
always to attempt in remote places the realization of their dream. Whoever
has reflected upon these matters knows these enthusiasts will probably
perish from want, victims to their illusions. In our times, Communists of
this description have given to their imaginary elysium the name of
Icaria,* as if they had had a melancholy presentiment of the frightful end
towards which they were hastening. We may lament over their blindness; we
should try to rescue them if they were in a state to hear us, but society
has nothing to fear from their chimeras.
* This, as most of our readers are aware, is an imaginary
country at the other side of the world, where a state of
circumstances is supposed to exist productive of general
happiness—moral and physical—to all. The chief creator of
this modern Utopia, from which indeed the idea is
confessedly taken, is M. Cabet, whose book was published
during the year of the late revolution in France. It is
meant to be a grave essay on possible things, but could only
be considered so, we venture to think, in Paris, and only
there in times of unusual excitement. The means by which M.
Cabet and his followers suppose their peculiar society could
be established and maintained, are beyond conception false,
ludicrous, and puerile.
M. Cabet was obliged to leave France for a grave offence,
but found a refuge and no inconsiderable number of followers
in America, where, by the side of much that is excellent and
hopeful, flourishes, perhaps, under present circumstances,
as a necessary parallel, many of the wild and exploded
theories of the world.
Another form of Communism, and decidedly the coarsest, is this: throw into
a mass all the existing property, and then share it equally. It is
spoliation becoming the dominant and universal law. It is the destruction,
not only of property, but also of labour and of the springs of action
which induce men to work. This same Communism is so violent, so absurd, so
monstrous, that in truth I cannot believe it to be dangerous. I said this
some time ago before a considerable assembly of electors, the great
majority of whom belonged to the suffering classes. My words were received
with loud murmurs.
I expressed my surprise at it. 'What,' said they, 'dares M. Bastiat say
that Communism is not dangerous? He is then a Communist! Well, we
suspected as much, for Communists, Socialists, Economists, are all of the
same order, as it is proved by the termination of the words.' I had some
difficulty in recovering myself; but even this interruption proved the
truth of my proposition. No, Communism is not dangerous, when it shows
itself in its most naked form, that of pure and simple spoliation; it is
not dangerous, because it excites horror.
I hasten to say, that if Protection can be and ought to be likened to
Communism, it is not that which I am about to attack.
But Communism assumes a third form:—
To make the state interfere to, let it take upon itself to adjust profits
and to equalize men's possessions by taking from some, without their
consent, to give to others without any return, to assume the task of
putting things on an equality by robbery, assuredly is Communism to the
fullest extent. It matters not what may be the means employed by the state
with this object, no more than the sounding names with which they dignify
this thought. Whether they pursue its realization by direct or indirect
means, by restriction or by impost, by tariffs or by the right of labour;
whether they call it by the watchword of equality, of mutual
responsibility, of fraternity, that does not change the nature of things;
the violation of property is not less robbery because it is accomplished
with regularity, order, and system, and under the forms of law.
I repeat that it is here, at this juncture, that Communism is really
dangerous. Why? Because under this form we see it incessantly ready to
taint everything. Behold the proof! One demands that the state should
supply gratuitously to artisans, to labourers, the instruments of
labour,* that is, to encourage them to take them from other artisans
and labourers. Another wishes that the state should lend without interest;
this could not be done without violating property. A third calls for
gratuitous education to all degrees; gratuitous! that is to say, at the
expense of the tax-payers.**
* By this phrase we believe is meant much more than the
English words might indicate—the supplying all the capital
necessary to start the artisan in the world.
** We think, with Adam Smith and most others, that education
and religious instruction may fairly and properly, if the
occasion requires, be excepted from this rule, on the ground
that as they are most beneficial to the whole of society—
their effects not stopping short with the persons receiving
the immediate benefits—'they may, without injustice, be
defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society.'
We by no means say, however, that this public support should
supersede voluntary contribution.
A fourth requires that the state should support the associations of
workmen, the theatres, the artists, See. But the means necessary for such
support is so much money taken from those who have legitimately made it. A
fifth is dissatisfied unless the state artificially raises the price of a
particular product for the benefit of those who sell it; but it is to the
detriment of those who buy. Yes, under this form, there are very few
people who at one time or an other would not be Communists. You are so
yourself; M. Billault is; and I fear that in France we are all so in some
degree. It seems that the intervention of the state reconciles us to
robbery, in throwing the responsibility of it on all the world; that is to
say, on no one; and it is thus that we sport with the wealth of others in
perfect tranquillity of conscience. That honest M. Tourret, one of the
most upright of men who ever sat upon the ministerial bench, did he not
thus commence his statement in favour of the scheme for the advancement of
public money for agricultural purposes? 'It is not sufficient to give
instruction for the cultivation of the arts. We must also supply the
instruments of labour.' After this preamble, he submits to the National
Assembly a proposition, the first heading of which runs thus:—
'First—There is opened, in the budget of 1849, in favour of the
Minister of Agriculture and Commerce, a credit of ten millions, to meet
advances to the proprietors and associations of proprietors of rural
districts.' Confess that if this legislative language was rendered with
exactness, it should have been:—
'The Minister of Agriculture and Commerce is authorized, during the year
1849, to take the sum of ten millions from the pocket of the labourers who
are in great want of it, and to whom it belongs, to put it in the
pocket of other labourers who are equally in want of it, and to whom it
does not belong.'
Is not this an act of Communism, and if made general, would it not
constitute the system of Communism?
The manufacturer, who would die sooner than steal a farthing, does not in
the least scruple to make this request of the legislature—'Pass me a
law which raises the price of my cloth, my iron, my coal, and enable me to
overcharge my purchasers.' As the motive upon which he founds this demand
is that he is not content with the profit, at which trade unfettered or
free-trade would fix it, (which I affirm to be the same thing, whatever
they may say,) so, on the other hand, as we are all dissatisfied with our
profits, and disposed to call in the aid of the law, it is clear, at least
to me, that if the legislature does not hasten to reply, 'That does not
signify to us; we are not charged to violate property, but to protect it,'
it is clear, I say, that we are in downright Communism. The machinery put
in motion by the state to effect the object may differ from what we have
indicated, but it has the same aim, and involves the same principle.
Suppose I present myself at the bar of the National Assembly, and say, 'I
exercise a trade, and I do not find that my profits are sufficient:
consequently I pray you to pass a law authorizing the tax-collectors to
levy, for my benefit, only one centime upon each French family,' If the
legislature grants my request, this could only be taken as a single act of
legal robbery, which does not at this point merit the name of Communism.
But if all Frenchmen, one after the other, made the same request, and if
the legislature examined them with the avowed object of realizing the
equality of goods, it is in this principle, followed by its effects, that
I see, and that you cannot help seeing, Communism.
Whether, in order to realize its theory, the legislature employs
custom-house officers or excise collectors, imposes direct or indirect
taxes, encourages by protection or premiums, matters but little. Does it
believe itself authorized to take and to give without
compensation? Does it believe that its province is to regulate profits?
Does it act in consequence of this belief? Do the mass of the public
approve of it?—do they compel this species of action? If so, I say
we are upon the descent which leads to Communism, whether we are conscious
of it or not.
And if they say to me, the state never acts thus in favour of any one, but
only in favour of some classes, I would reply—Then it has found the
means of making Communism even worse than it naturally is.
I know, Sir, that some doubt is thrown on these conclusions by the aid of
a ready confusion of ideas. Some administrative acts are quoted, very
legitimate cases in their way, where the intervention of the state is as
equitable as it is useful; then, establishing an apparent analogy between
these cases, and those against which I protest, they will attempt to place
me in the wrong, and will say to me—'As you can only see Communism
in Protection, so you ought to see it in every case where government
interferes.'
This is a trap into which I will not fall.
This is why I am compelled to inquire what is the precise circumstance
which impresses on state intervention the communistic character.
What is the province of the state? What are the things which individuals
ought to entrust to the Supreme Power? Which are those which they ought to
reserve for private enterprise? To reply to these questions would require
a dissertation on political economy. Fortunately I need not do this for
the purpose of solving the problem before us.
When men, in place of labouring for themselves individually, combine with
others, that is to say, when they club together to execute any work, or to
produce a result by an united exertion, I do not call that Communism,
because I see nothing in this of its peculiar characteristic, equalizing
conditions by violent means. The state takes, it is true, by
taxes, but it renders service for them in return. It is a
particular but legitimate form of that foundation of all society, exchange.
I go still further. In intrusting a special service to be done by the
state, it may be made beneficial, or otherwise, according to its nature
and the mode in which it is effected. Beneficial, if by this means the
service is made with superior perfection and economy, and the reverse on
the opposite hypothesis: but in either case I do not perceive the
principle of Communism. The proceeding in the first was attended with
success; in the second, with failure, that is all; and if Communism is a
mistake, it does not follow that every mistake is Communism.
Political economists are in general very distrustful on the question of
the intervention of government. They see in it inconveniences of all
sorts, a discouragement of individual liberty, energy, foresight, and
experience, which are the surest foundations of society. It often happens,
then, that they have to resist this intervention. But it is not at all on
the same ground and from the same motive which makes them repudiate
Protection. Our opponents cannot, therefore, fairly turn any argument
against us in consequence of our predilections, expressed, perhaps,
without sufficient caution for the freedom of private enterprise, nor say,
'It is not surprising that these people reject the system of Protection,
for they reject the intervention of the state in everything.'
First, it is not true that we reject it in everything: we admit that it is
the province of the state to maintain order and security, to enforce
regard for person and property, to repress fraud and violence. As to the
services which partake, so to speak, of an industrial character, we have
no other rule than this: that the state may take charge of these, if the
result is a saving of labour to the mass of the people. But pray, in the
calculation, take into account all the innumerable inconveniences of
labour monopolized by the state.
Secondly, I am obliged to repeat it, it is one thing to protest against
any new interference on the part of the state on the ground that, when the
calculation was made, it was found that it would be disadvantageous to do
so, and that it would result in a national loss; and it is another thing
to resist it because it is illegitimate, violent, unprincipled, and
because it assigns to the government to do precisely what it is its proper
duty to prevent and to punish. Now against the system called Protection
these two species of objections may be urged, but it is against the
principle last mentioned, fenced round as it is by legal forms, that
incessant war should be waged.
Thus, for example, men would submit to a municipal council the question of
knowing whether it would be better that each family in a town should go
and seek the water it requires at the distance of some quarter of a
league, or whether it is more advantageous that the local authority should
levy an assessment to bring the water to the marketplace. I should not
have any objection in principle to enter into the examination of
this question. The calculation of the advantages and inconveniences for
all would be the sole element in the decision. One might be mistaken in
the calculation, but the error, which in this instance may involve the
loss of property, would not be a systematic violation of it.
But when the mayor proposes to discourage one trade for the advantage of
another, to prohibit boots for the advantage of the shoemaker, or
something like it, then would I say to him, that in this instance he acts
no longer on a calculation of advantages and inconveniences; he acts by
means of an abuse of power, and a violent perversion of the public
authority; I would say to him, 'You who are the depositary of power and of
the public authority to chastise robbery, dare you apply that power and
authority to protect it and render it systematic?'
Should the idea of the mayor prevail, if I see, in consequence of this
precedent all the trading classes of the village bestirring themselves, to
ask for favours at the expense of each other—if in the midst of this
tumult of unscrupulous attempts I see them confound even the notion of
property, I must be allowed to assume that, to save it from destruction,
the first thing to do is to point out what has been iniquitous in the
measure, which formed the first link of the chain of these deplorable
events.
It would not be difficult, Sir, to find in your work passages which
support my position and corroborate my views. To speak the truth, I might
consult it almost by chance for this purpose. Thus, opening the book at
hap-hazard, I would probably find a passage condemning, either expressly
or by implication, the system of Protection—proof of the identity of
this system in principle with Communism. Let me make the trial. At page
283, I read:—
'It is, then, a grave mistake to lay the blame upon competition, and not
to have perceived that if the people are the producers, they are also the
consumers, and that receiving less on one side,' (which I deny, and which
you deny yourself some lines lower down,) 'paying less on the other, there
remains then, for the advantage of all, the difference between a system
which restrains human activity, and a system which places it in its proper
course, and inspires it with ceaseless energy.'
I defy you to say that this argument does not apply with equal force to
foreign as to domestic competition. Let us try again. At page 325, we
find:
'Men either possess certain rights, or they do not. If they do—if
these rights exist, they entail certain inevitable consequences....
But more than this, they must be the same at all times; they are entire
and absolute—past, present, and to come—in all seasons; and
not only when it may please you to declare them to be, but when it may
please the workmen to appeal to them.'
Will you maintain that an iron-master has an undefined right to hinder me
for ever from producing indirectly two hundredweight of iron in my
manufactory, for the sake of producing one hundred-weight in a direct
manner in his own? This right, also, I repeat, either exists, or it does
not. If it does exist, it must be absolute at all times and in all
seasons; not only when it may please you to declare it to be so, but when
it may please the iron-masters to claim its protection.
Let us again try our luck. At page 63, I read,—
'Property does not exist, if I cannot give as well as consume
it.'
We say so likewise. 'Property does not exist, if I cannot exchange
as well as consume it;' and permit me to add, that the right of
exchange is at least as valuable, as important in a social point of
view, as characteristic of property, as the right of gift. It is to
be regretted, that in a work written for the purpose of examining property
under all its aspects, you have thought it right to devote two chapters to
an investigation of the latter right, which is in but little danger, and
not a line to that of exchange, which is so boldly attacked, even under
the shelter of the laws.
Again, at page 47:—
'Man has an absolute property in his person and in his faculties. He has a
derivative one, less inherent in his nature, but not less sacred, in what
these faculties may produce, which embraces all that can be called the
wealth of this world, and which society is in the highest degree
interested in protecting; for without this protection there would be no
labour; without labour, no civilization, not even the necessaries of life—nothing
but misery, robbery, and barbarism.'*
* This is a happy exposure of the inconsistency of M.
Thiers. But we have had recently, and in the sitting of the
late National Assembly, a curious example of the perversion
of his extraordinary powers, in the speeches, full of false
brilliancy, to the legislature of France, in condemnation of
the principles of Free-trade. His statements were coloured,
or altogether without foundation; the examples which he
adduced, when looked into, told against him, and his logic
was puerile. Yet he found an attentive and a willing
auditory. Indeed, the prejudices of the French on this
subject, mixed up as they are with so many influences
operating on their vanity, are still inveterate; and it was,
as it always has been, M. Thiers's object to reflect
faithfully the national mind. His aim never was the noble
one of raising and enlightening the views of his countrymen,
but simply to gain an influence over their minds, by
encouraging and echoing their prejudices and keeping alive
their passions.
Well, Sir, let us make a comment, if you do not object, on this text.
Like you, I see property at first in the free disposal of the person; then
of the faculties; finally, of the produce of those faculties, which
proves, I may say as a passing remark, that, from a certain point of view,
Liberty and Property are identical.
I dare hardly say, like you, that property in the produce of our faculties
is less inherent in our nature than property in these faculties
themselves. Strictly speaking, that may be true; but whether a man is
debarred from exercising his faculties, or deprived of what they may
produce, the result is the same, and that result is called Slavery.
This is another proof of the identity of the nature of liberty and
property. If I force a man to labour for my profit, that man is my slave.
He is so still, if, leaving him personal liberty, I find means, by force
or by fraud, to appropriate to myself the fruits of his labour. The first
kind of oppression is the more brutal, the second the more subtle. As it
has been remarked that free labour is more intelligent and productive, it
may be surmised that the masters have said to themselves, 'Do not let us
claim directly the powers of our slaves, but let us take possession of
much richer booty—the produce of their faculties freely exercised,
and let us give to this new form of servitude the engaging name of Protection.'
You say, again, that society is interested in rendering property secure.
We are agreed; only I go further than you; and if by society you
mean government, I say that its only province as regards property
is to guarantee it in the most ample manner; that if it tries to measure
and distribute it by that very act, government, instead of guaranteeing,
infringes it. This deserves examination.
When a certain number of men, who cannot live without labour and without
property, unite to support a common authority, they evidently
desire to be able to labour, and to enjoy the fruits of their labour in
all security, and not to place their faculties and their properties at the
mercy of that authority. Even antecedent to all form of regular
government, I do not believe that individuals could be properly deprived
of the right of defence—the right of defending their persons,
their faculties, and their possessions.
Without pretending, in this place, to philosophise upon the origin and the
extent of the rights of governments—a vast subject, well calculated
to deter me—permit me to submit the following idea to you. It seems
to me that the rights of the state can only be the reduction into method
of personal rights previously existing. I cannot, for myself,
conceive collective right which has not its root in individual
right, and does not presume it. Then, in order to know if the state is
legitimately invested with a right, it is incumbent on us to ask whether
this right dwells in the individual in virtue of his being and
independently of all government.
It is upon this principle that I denied some time ago the right of labour.
I said, since Peter has no right to take directly from Paul what Paul has
acquired by his labour, there is no better foundation for this pretended
right through the intervention of the state: for the state is but the public
authority created by Peter and by Paul, at their expense, with a
defined and clear object in view, but which never can render that just
which is in itself not so. It is with the aid of this touchstone that I
test the distinction between property secured and property controlled by
the state. Why has the state the right to secure, even by force, every
man's property? Because this right exists previously in the individual. No
one can deny to individuals the right of lawful defence—the
right of employing force, if necessary, to repel the injuries directed
against their persons, their faculties, and their effects. It is conceived
that this individual right, since it resides in all men, can assume the
collective form, and justify the employment of public authority. And why
has the state no right to equalize or apportion worldly wealth? Because,
in order to do so, it is necessary to rob some in order to gratify others.
Now, as none of the thirty-five millions of Frenchmen have the right to
take by force, under the pretence of rendering fortunes more equal, it
does not appear how they could invest public authority with this right.
And remark, that the right of distributing* the wealth of individuals is
destructive of the right which secures it. There are the savages. They
have not yet formed a government; but each of them possesses the right
of lawful defence. And it is easy to perceive that it is this right
which will become the basis of legitimate public authority. If one of
these savages has devoted his time, his strength, his intelligence to make
a bow and arrows, and another wishes to take these from him, all the
sympathies of the tribe will be on the side of the victim; and if the
cause is submitted to the judgment of the elders, the robber will
infallibly be condemned. From that there is but one step to the
organization of public power. But I ask you—Is the province of this
public power, at least its lawful province, to repress the act of him who
defends his property in virtue of his abstract right, or the act of him
who violates, contrary to that right, the property of another? It would be
singular enough if public authority was based, not upon the rights of
individuals, but upon their permanent and systematic violation! No; the
author of the book before me could not support such a position. But it is
scarcely enough that he could not support it; he ought perhaps to condemn
it. It is scarcely enough to attack this gross and absurd Communism
disseminated in low newspapers. It would perhaps have been better to have
unveiled and rebuked that other and more audacious and subtle Communism,
which, by the simple perversion of the just idea of the rights of
government, insinuates itself into some branches of our legislation, and
threatens to invade all.
* It is not easy here, and in some other places, to convey
the exact meaning without using circuitous language.
For, Sir, it is quite incontestable that by the action of the tariffs—by
means of Protection—governments realize this monstrous thing of
which I have spoken so much. They abandon the right of lawful defence,
previously existing in all men, the source and foundation of their own
existence, to arrogate to themselves a pretended right of equalizing
the fortunes of all by means of robbery, a right which, not existing
before in any one, cannot therefore exist in the community.
But to what purpose is it to insist upon these general ideas? Why should I
show the absurdity of Communism, since you have done so yourself (except
as to one of its aspects, and, as I think, practically the most
threatening) much better than it was in my power to effect?
Perhaps you will say to me that the principle of the system of Protection
is not opposed to the principle of property. See, then, the means by which
this system operates.
These are two: by the aid of premiums or bounties, or by restriction.
As to the first, that is evident. I defy any one to maintain that the end
of the system of premiums, pushed to its legitimate conclusion, is not
absolute Communism. Men work under protection of the public authority, as
you say, charged to secure to each one his own—suum cuique.
But in this instance the state, with the most philanthropic intentions in
the world, undertakes a task altogether new and different, and, according
to me, not only exclusive, but destructive of the first. It constitutes
itself the judge of profits; it decides that this interest is not
sufficiently remunerated, and that that is too much so; it stands as the
distributor of fortunes, and makes, as M. Billault phrases it, the
pendulum of civilization oscillate from the liberty of individual action
to its opposite. Consequently it imposes upon the community at large a
contribution for the purpose of making a present, under the name of
premiums, to the exporters of a particular kind of produce. The pretext is
to favour industry; it ought to say, one particular interest at the
expense of all the others. I shall not stop to show that it
stimulates the off-shoot at the expense of that branch which bears the
fruit; but I ask you, on entering on this course, does it not justify
every interest to come and claim a premium, if it can prove that the
profits gained by it are not as much as those obtained by other interests?
Is it not the duty of the state to listen, to entertain, to give ear to
every demand, and to do justice between the applicants. I do not believe
it; but those who do so, should have the courage to put their thoughts in
this form, and to say—Government is not charged to render property
secure, but to distribute it equally. In other words, there is no such
thing as property.
I only discuss here a question of principle. If I wished to investigate
the subject of premiums for exportation, as shown in their economical
effects, I could place them in the most ridiculous light, for they are
nothing more than a gratuitous gift made by France to foreigners. It is
not the seller who receives it, but the purchaser, in virtue of that law
which you yourself have stated with regard to taxes; the consumer in the
end supports all the charges, as he reaps all the advantages of
production. Thus we are brought to the subject of premiums, one of the
most mortifying and mystifying things possible. Some foreign governments
have reasoned thus: 'If we raise our import duties to a figure equal to
the premium paid by the tax-payers in France, it is clear that nothing
will be changed as regards our consumers, for the net price will remain
the same. The goods reduced by five francs on the French frontier, will
pay five francs more at the German frontier; it is an infallible means of
paying our public expenses out of the French Treasury.' But other
governments, they assure me, have been more ingenious still. They have
said to themselves, 'The premium given by France is properly a present she
makes us; but if we raise the duty, no reason would exist why more of
those particular goods should be imported than in past times; we ourselves
place a limit on the generosity of these excellent French people; let us
abolish, on the contrary, provisionally, these duties; let us encourage,
for instance, an unusual introduction of cloths, since every yard brings
with it an absolute gift.' In the first case, our premiums have gone to
the foreign exchequer; in the second they have profited, but upon a larger
scale, private individuals.
Let us pass on to restriction.
I am a workman—a joiner, for example—I have a little workshop,
tools, some materials. All these things incontestably belong to me, for I
have made them, or, which comes to the same thing, I have bought and paid
for them. Still more, I have strong arms, some intelligence, and plenty of
good will. On this foundation I endeavour to provide for my own wants and
for those of my family. Remark, that I cannot directly produce anything
which is useful to me, neither iron, nor wood, nor bread, nor wine, nor
meat, nor stuffs, &c., but I can produce the value of them.
Finally, these things must, so to speak, circulate under another form,
from my saw and my plane. It is my interest to receive honestly the
largest possible quantity in exchange for the produce of my labour. I say
honestly, because it is not my desire to infringe on the property or the
liberty of any one. But I also demand that my own property and liberty be
held equally inviolable. The other workmen and I, agreed upon this point,
impose upon ourselves some sacrifices; we give up a portion of our labour
to some men called public functionaries, because theirs is the
special function to secure our labour and its produce from every
injury that might befal either from within or from without.
Matters being thus arranged, I prepare to put my intelligence, my arms, my
saw, and plane into activity. Naturally my eyes are always fixed on those
things necessary to my existence, and which it is my duty to produce
indirectly in creating what is equal to them in value. The problem
is, that I should produce them in the most advantageous manner possible.
Consequently I look at values generally, or what, in other words,
may be called the current or market price of articles. I am satisfied,
judging from these materials in my possession, that my means for obtaining
the largest quantity possible of fuel, for example, with the smallest
possible quantity of labour, is to make a piece of furniture, to send it
to a Belgian, who will give me in return some coal.
But there is in France a workman who extracts coal from the earth. Now, it
so happens that the officials, whom the miner and I contribute to
pay for preserving to each of us his freedom of labour, and the free
disposal of its produce (which is property), it so happens, I say, that
these officials have become newly enlightened and assumed other duties.
They have taken it into their heads to compare my labour with that of the
miner. Consequently, they have forbidden me to warm myself with Belgian
fuel: and when I go to the frontier with my piece of furniture to receive
the coal, I find it prohibited from entering France, which comes to the
same thing as if they prohibited my piece of furniture from going out. I
then reason with myself—if we had never paid the government in order
to save us the trouble of defending our own property, would the miner have
had the right to go to the frontier to prohibit me from making an
advantageous exchange, on the ground that it would be better for him that
this exchange should not be effected? Assuredly not. If he had made so
unjust an attempt, we would have joined issue on the spot, he, urged on by
his unjust pretensions, I, strong in my right of legitimate defence.
We have appointed and paid a public officer for the special purpose of
preventing such contests. How does it happen, then, that I find the miner
and him concurring in restraining my liberty and hampering my industry, in
limiting the field of my exertions? If the public officer had taken my
part, I might have conceived his right; he would have derived it from my
own; for lawful defence is, indeed, a right. But on what principle should
he aid the miner in his injustice? I learn, then, that the public officer
has changed his nature. He is no longer a simple mortal invested with
rights delegated to him by other men, who, consequently, possess them. No.
He is a being superior to humanity, drawing his right from himself, and,
amongst these rights, he arrogates to himself that of calculating our
profits, of holding the balance between our various circumstances and
conditions. It is very well, say I; in that case, I will overwhelm him
with claims and demands, while I see a richer man than myself in the
country. He will not listen to you, it may be said to me, for if he listen
to you, he will be a Communist, and he takes good care not to forget that
his duty is to secure properties, not to destroy them.
What disorder, what confusion in facts; but what can you expect when there
is such disorder and confusion in ideas? You may have resisted Communism
vigorously in the abstract; but while at the same time you humour, and
support, and foster it in that part of our legislation which it has
tainted, your labours will be in vain. It is a poison, which, with your
consent and approbation, has glided into all our laws and into our morals,
and now you are indignant that it is followed by its natural consequences.
Possibly, Sir, you will make me one concession; you will say to me,
perhaps, the system of Protection rests on the principle of Communism. It
is contrary to right, to property, to liberty; it throws the government
out of its proper road, and invests it with arbitrary powers, which have
no rational origin. All this is but too true; but the system of Protection
is useful; without it the country, yielding to foreign competition, would
be ruined.
This would lead us to the examination of Protection in the economical
point of view. Putting aside all consideration of justice, of right, of
equity, of property, of liberty, we should have to resolve the question
into one of pure utility, the money question, so to speak; but this, you
will admit, does not properly fall within my subject. Take care that,
availing yourself of expediency in order to justify your contempt of the
principle of right is as if you said, 'Communism or spoliation, condemned
by justice, can, nevertheless, be admitted as an expedient,' and you must
admit that such an avowal is replete with danger.
Without seeking to solve in this place the economical problem, allow me to
make one assertion. I affirm that I have submitted to arithmetical
calculation the advantages and the inconveniences of Protection, from the
point of view of mere wealth, and putting aside all higher considerations.
I affirm, moreover, that I have arrived at this result: that all
restrictive measures produce one advantage and two inconveniences, or, if
you will, one profit and two losses, each of these losses equal to the
profit, from which results one pure distinct loss, which circumstance
brings with it the encouraging conviction, that in this, as in many other
things, and I dare say in all, expediency and justice agree.
This is only an assertion, it is true, but it can be supported by proofs
of mathematical accuracy.*
* What M. Bastiat here asserts is unquestionably true. For
it has often been shown, and may readily be shown, that the
importation of foreign commodities, in the common course of
traffic, never takes place except when it is, economically
speaking, a national good, by causing the same amount of
commodities to be obtained at a smaller cost of labour and
capital to the country. To prohibit, therefore, this
importation, or impose duties which prevent it, is to render
the labour and capital of the country less efficient in
production than they would otherwise be; and compel a waste
of the difference between the labour and capital necessary
for the home production of the commodity, and that which is
required for producing the things with which it can be
purchased from abroad. The amount of national loss thus
occasioned is measured by the excess of the price at which
the commodity is produced over that at which it could be
imported. In the case of manufactured goods, the whole
difference between the two prices is absorbed in
indemnifying the producers for waste of labour, or of the
capital which supports that labour. Those who are supposed
to be benefited—namely, the makers of the protected
article, (unless they form an exclusive company, and have a
monopoly against their own countrymen, as well as against
foreigners,) do not obtain higher profits than other people.
All is sheer loss to the country as well as to the consumer.
When the protected article is a product of agriculture—the
waste of labour not being incurred on the whole produce, but
only on what may be called the last instalment of it—the
extra price is only in part an indemnity for waste, the
remainder being a tax paid to the landlords.—J. S. Mill
What causes public opinion to be led astray upon this point is this, that
the profit produced by Protection is palpable—visible, as it were,
to the naked eye, whilst of the two equal losses which it involves, one is
distributed over the mass of society, and the existence of the other is
only made apparent to the investigating and reflective mind.
Without pretending to bring forward any proof of the matter here, I may be
allowed, perhaps, to point out the basis on which it rests.
Two products, A and B, have an original value in France, which I may
denominate 50 and 40 respectively. Let us admit that A is not worth more
than 40 in Belgium. This being supposed, if France is subjected to the
protective system, she will have the enjoyment of A and B in the whole as
the result of her efforts, a quantity equal to 90, for she will, on the
above supposition, be compelled to produce A directly. If she is free, the
result of her efforts, equal to 90, will be equal: 1st, to the production
of B, which she will take to Belgium, in order to obtain A; 2ndly, to the
production of another B for herself; 3rdly, to the production of C.
It is that portion of disposable labour applied to the production of C in
the second case, that is to say, creating new wealth equal to 10, without
France being deprived either of A or of B, which makes all the difficulty.
In the place of A put iron; in the place of B, wine, silk, and Parisian
articles; in the place of C put some new product not now existing. You
will always find that restriction is injurious to national prosperity.
Do you wish to leave this dull algebra? So do I. To speak of facts,
therefore, you will not deny that if the prohibitory system has contrived
to do some good to the coal trade, it is only in raising the price of the
coal. You will not, moreover, deny that this excess of price from 1822 to
the present time has only occasioned a greater expense to all those who
use this fuel—in other words, that it represents a loss. Can it be
said that the producers of coal have received, besides the interest of
their capital and the ordinary profits of trade, in consequence of the
protection afforded them, an extra gain equivalent to that loss? It would
be necessary that Protection, without losing those unjust and Communistic
qualities which characterize it, should at least be neuter in the
purely economic point of view. It would be necessary that it should at
least have the merit of resembling simple robbery, which displaces wealth
without destroying it. But you yourself affirm, at page 236, 'that the
mines of Aveyron, Alais, Saint-Etienne, Creuzot, Anzin, the most
celebrated of all, have not produced a revenue of four per cent, on the
capital embarked in them.' It does not require Protection that capital in
France should yield four per cent. Where, then, in this instance, is the
profit to counterbalance the above-mentioned loss?
This is not all. There is another national loss. Since by the relative
rising of the price of fuel, all the consumers of coal have lost, they
have been obliged to limit their expenses in proportion, and the whole of
national labour has been necessarily discouraged to this extent. It is
this loss which they never take into their calculation, because it does
not strike their senses.
Permit me to make another observation, which I am surprised has not struck
people more. It is that Protection applied to agricultural produce shows
itself in all its odious iniquity with regard to farmers, and injurious in
the end to the landed proprietors themselves.
Let us imagine an island in the South Seas where the soil has become the
private property of a certain number of inhabitants.
Let us imagine upon this appropriated and limited territory an
agricultural population always increasing or having a tendency to
increase.
This last class will not be able to produce anything directly of
what is indispensable to life. They will be compelled to give up their
labour to those who have it in their power to offer in exchange
maintenance, and also the materials for labour, corn, fruit, vegetables,
meat, wool, flax, leather, wood, &c.
The interest of this class evidently is, that the market where these
things are sold should be as extensive as possible. The more it finds
itself surrounded by the greatest quantity of agricultural produce, the
more of this it will receive for any given quantity of its own labour.
Under a free system, a multitude of vessels would be seen seeking food and
materials among the neighbouring islands and continents, in exchange for
manufactured articles. The cultivators of the land will enjoy all the
prosperity to which they have a right to pretend; a just balance will be
maintained between the value of manufacturing labour and that of
agricultural labour.
But, in this situation, the landed proprietors of the island make this
calculation—If we prevent the workmen labouring for the foreigners,
and receiving from them in exchange subsistence and raw materials, they
will be forced to turn to us. As their number continually increases, and
as the competition which exists between them is always active, they will
compete for that share of food and materials which we can dispose of,
after deducting what we require for ourselves, and we cannot fail to sell
our produce at a very high price. In other words, the balance in the
relative value of their labour and of ours will be disturbed. We shall be
able to command a greater share in the result of their labour. Let us,
then, impose restrictions on that commerce which inconveniences us; and to
enforce these restrictions, let us constitute a body of functionaries,
which the workmen shall aid in paying.
I ask you, would not this be the height of oppression, a flagrant
violation of all liberty, of the first and the most sacred principles of
property?
However, observe well, that it would not perhaps be difficult for the
landed proprietors to make this law received as a benefit by the labourer.
They would say to the latter:
'It is not for us, honest people, that we have made it, but for you. Our
own interests touch us little; we only think of yours. Thanks to this wise
measure, agriculture prospers; we proprietors shall become rich, which
will, at the same time, put it in our power to support a great deal of
labour, and to pay you good wages; without it, we shall be reduced to
misery—and what will become of you? The island will be inundated
with provisions and importations from abroad; your vessels will be always
afloat—what a national calamity! Abundance, it is true, will reign
all round you, but will you share in it? Do not imagine that your wages
will keep up and be raised, because the foreigner will only augment the
number of those who overwhelm you with their competition. Who can say that
they will not take it into their heads to give you their produce for
nothing? In this case, having neither labour nor wages, you will perish of
want in the midst of abundance. Believe us; accept our regulations with
gratitude. Increase and multiply. The produce which will remain in the
island, over and above what is necessary for our own consumption, will be
given to you in exchange for your labour, which by this means you will be
always secure of. Above all, do not believe that the question now in
debate is between you and us, or one in which your liberty and your
property are at stake. Never listen to those who tell you so. Consider it
as certain that the question is between you and the foreigner—this
barbarous foreigner—and who evidently wishes to speculate upon you;
making you perfidious proffers of intercourse, which you are free either
to accept or to refuse.'
It is not improbable that such a discourse, suitably seasoned with
sophisms upon cash, the balance of trade, national labour, agriculture
encouraged by the state, the prospect of a war, &c., &c., would
obtain the greatest success, and that the oppressive decree would' obtain
the sanction of the oppressed themselves, if they were consulted. This has
been, and will be so again.*
* The ease with which the body of the people—the consumers—
are deceived by statements and arguments such as are given
in the text is remarkable. The principal reason, perhaps,
is, that men are disposed at first to regard themselves as
producers rather than as consumers. They imagine that the
advantages of Protection, if applied to their own case,
would be incontestable; and, being unable consistently to
deny that their neighbours are equally entitled to the same
favour, a general clamour for Protection against foreign
competition arises. While they fail to perceive the
absurdity of universal Protection and its fallacy, or that
it would be more for their interests to be able to dispose
of a larger quantity of their productions, though perhaps at
a reduced cost, than a smaller quantity in a market
narrowed, as it must be, by the Protection which it
receives.
However, the true position of the case is now, we hope, firmly established
in England, and this is chiefly due to the recent able, full, and free
discussions which have resulted in our existing Free-trade system. And we
confidently anticipate the day when the people of the Continent, and of
America, will, through the same processes of reasoning and reflection, and
influenced by our example, arrive at the same result as ourselves.
But the prejudices of proprietors and labourers do not change the nature
of things. The result will be, a population miserable, destitute,
ignorant, ill-conditioned, thinned by want, illness, and vice. The result
will then be, the melancholy shipwreck, in the public mind, of all correct
notions of right, of property, of liberty, and of the true functions of
the state.
And what I should like much to be able to show here is, that the mischief
will soon ascend to the proprietors themselves, who will have led the way
to their own ruin by the ruin of the general consumer, for in that island
they will see the population, more and more debased, resort to the
inferior species of food. Here it will feed on chesnuts, there upon maize,
or again upon millet, buckwheat, oats, potatoes. It will no longer know
the taste of corn or of meat. The proprietors will be surprised to see
agriculture decline. They will in vain exert themselves and ring in the
ears of all,—'Let us raise produce; with produce, there will be
cattle; with cattle, manure; with manure, corn.' They will in vain create
new taxes, in order to distribute premiums to the producers of grass and
lucern; they will always encounter this obstacle—a miserable
population, without the power of paying for food, and, consequently, of
giving the first impulse to this succession of causes and effects. They
will end by learning, to their cost, that it is better to have competition
in a rich community, than to possess a monopoly in a poor one.
This is why I say, not only is Protection Communism, but it is Communism
of the worst kind. It commences by placing the faculties and the labour of
the poor, their only property, at the mercy of the rich; it inflicts a
pure loss on the mass, and ends by involving the rich themselves in the
common ruin. It invests the state with the extraordinary right of taking
from those who have little, to give to those who have much; and when,
under the sanction of this principle, the dispossessed call for the
intervention of the state to make an adjustment in the opposite direction,
I really do not see what answer can be given. In all cases, the first
reply and the best would be, to abandon the wrongful act.
But I hasten to come to an end with these calculations. After all, what is
the position of the question? What do we say, and what do you say? There
is one point, and it is the chief, upon which we are agreed: it is, that
the intervention of the legislature in order to equalize fortunes, by
taking from some for the benefit of others, is Communism—it
is the destruction of all labour, saving, and prosperity; of all justice;
of all social order.
You perceive that this fatal doctrine taints, under every variety of form,
both journals and books: in a word, that it influences the speculations
and the doctrines of men, and here you attack it with vigour.
For myself, I believe that it had previously affected, with your assent
and with your assistance, legislation and practical statesmanship, and it
is there that I endeavour to counteract it.
Afterwards, I made you remark the inconsistency into which you would fall,
if, while resisting Communism when speculated on, you spare, or much more
encourage, Communism when acted on.
If you reply to me, 'I act thus because Communism, as existing through
tariffs, although opposed to liberty, property, justice, promotes,
nevertheless, the public good, and this consideration makes me overlook
all others'—if this is your answer, do you not feel that you ruin
beforehand all the success of your book, that you defeat its object, that
you deprive it of its force, and give your sanction, at least upon the
philosophical and moral part of the question, to Communism of every shade?
And then, sir, can so clear a mind as yours admit the hypothesis of a
fundamental antagonism between what is useful and what is just? Shall I
speak frankly? Rather than hazard an assertion so improbable, so impious,
I would rather say, 'Here is a particular question in which, at the first
glance, it seems to me that utility and justice conflict. I rejoice that
all those who have passed their lives in investigating the subject think
otherwise. Doubtless I have not sufficiently studied it.' I have not
sufficiently studied it! Is it, then, so painful a confession, that, not
to make it, you would willingly run into the inconsistency even of denying
the wisdom of those providential laws which govern the development of
human societies? For what more formal denial of the Divine wisdom can
there be, than to pronounce that justice and utility are essentially
incompatible! It has always appeared to me, that the most painful dilemma
in which an intelligent and conscientious mind can be placed, is when it
conceives such a distinction to exist. In short, which side to espouse—what
part to take in such an alternative? To declare for utility—it is
that to which men incline who call themselves practical. But unless they
cannot connect two ideas, they will unquestionably be alarmed at the
consequences of robbery and iniquity reduced to a system. Shall we embrace
resolutely, come what may, the cause of justice, saying—Let us do
what is our duty, in spite of everything. It is to this that honest men
incline; but who would take the responsibility of plunging his country and
mankind into misery, desolation and destruction? I defy any one, if he is
convinced of this antagonism, to come to a decision.
I deceive myself—they will come to a decision; and the human heart
is so formed, that it will place interest before conscience. Facts prove
this; since, wherever they have believed the system of Protection to be
favourable to the well-being of the people, they have adopted it, in spite
of all considerations of justice; but then the consequences have followed.
Faith in property has vanished. They have said, like M. Billault, since
property has been violated by Protection, why should it not be by the
right of labour? Some, following M. Billault, will take a further step;
and others, one still more extreme, until Communism is established.
Good and sound minds like yours are terrified by the rapidity of the
descent They feel compelled to draw back—they do, in fact, draw
back, as you have done in your book, as regards the protective system,
which is the first start, and the sole practical start, of society upon
the fatal declivity; but in the face of this strong denial of the right of
property, if, instead of this maxim of your book, 'Rights either exist, or
they do not; if they do, they involve some absolute consequences'—you
substitute this, 'Here is a particular case where the national good calls
for the sacrifice of right;' immediately, all that you believe you have
put with force and reason in this work, is nothing but weakness and
inconsistency.
This is why, Sir, if you wish to complete your work, it will be necessary
that you should declare yourself upon the protective system; and for that
purpose it is indispensable to commence by solving the economical problem;
it will be necessary to be clear upon the pretended utility of this
system. For, to suppose even that I extract from you its sentence of
condemnation, on the ground of justice, that will not suffice to put an
end to it. I repeat it—men are so formed, that when they believe
themselves placed between substantial good and abstract Justice,
the cause of justice runs a great risk. Do you wish for a palpable proof
of this? It is that which has befallen myself.
When I arrived in Paris, I found myself in the presence of schools called
Democratical and Socialist, where, as you know, they make great use of the
words, principle, devotion, sacrifice, fraternity, right, union.
Wealth is there treated de haut en bas, as a thing, if not
contemptible at least secondary, so far, that because we consider it to be
of much importance, they treat us as cold economists, egotists, selfish,
shopkeepers, men without compassion, ungrateful to God for anything save
vile pelf. Good! you say to me; these are noble hearts, with whom I have
no need to discuss the economical question, which is very subtle, and
requires more attention than the Parisian newspaper-writers and their
readers can in general bestow on a study of this description. But with
them the question of wealth will not be an obstacle; either they will take
it on trust, on the faith of Divine wisdom, as in harmony with justice, or
they will sacrifice it willingly without a thought, for they have a
passion for self-abandonment. If, then, they once acknowledge that
Free-trade is, in the abstract, right, they will resolutely enrol
themselves under its banner. Consequently, I address my appeal to them.
Can you guess their reply? Here it is:—
'Your Free-trade is a beautiful theory. It is founded on right and
justice; it realizes liberty; it consecrates property; it would be
followed by the union of nations—the reign of peace and of good-will
amongst men. You have reason and principle on your side; but we will
resist you to the utmost, and with all our strength, because foreign
competition would be fatal to our national industry.'
I take the liberty of addressing this reply to them:—
'I deny that foreign competition would be fatal to national industry. If
it was so, you would be placed in every instance between your interest—which,
according to you, is on the side of the restriction—and justice,
which, by your confession, is on the side of freedom of intercourse! Now
when I, the worshipper of the golden calf, warn you that the time has
arrived to make your own choice, whence comes it that you, the men of
self-denial, cling to self-interest, and trample principle under foot? Do
not, then, inveigh so much against a motive, which governs you as it
governs other men? Such is the experience which warns me that it is
incumbent on us, in the first place, to solve this alarming problem: Is
there harmony or antagonism between justice and utility? and, in
consequence, to investigate the economical side of the protective system;
for since they whose watchword is Fraternity, themselves yield before an
apprehended adversity, it is clear that this proceeds from no doubt in the
truth of the cause of universal justice, but that it is an acknowledgment
of the existence and of the necessity of self-interest, as an all-powerful
spring of action, however unworthy, abject, contemptible, and despised it
may be deemed.
It is this which has given rise to a work, in two small volumes, which I
take the liberty of sending you with the present one, well convinced, Sir,
that if, like other political economists, you judge severely of the system
of Protection on the ground of morality, and if we only differ as far as
concerns its utility, you will not refuse to inquire, with some care, if
these two great elements of substantial progress agree or disagree.
This harmony exists—or, at least, it is as clear to me as the light
of the sun that it does. May it reveal itself to you! It is, then, by
applying your talents, which have so remarkable an influence on others, to
counteract Communism in its most dangerous shape, that you will give it a
mortal blow.
See what passes in England. It would seem that if Communism could have
found a land favourable to it, it ought to have been the soil of Britain.
There, the feudal institutions, placing everywhere in juxtaposition
extreme misery and extreme opulence, should have prepared the minds of men
for the reception of false doctrines. But notwithstanding this, what do we
see? Whilst the Continent is agitated, not even the surface of English
society is disturbed. Chartism has been able to take no root there. Do you
know why? Because the league or association which, for ten years discussed
the system of Protection, only triumphed by placing the right of property
on its true principles, and by pointing out and defining the proper
functions of the state.*
* This is a well-earned tribute, both to the people of
England, and to the results of the exertions of the League
and of Sir R. Peel. There can be no doubt that the calmness
of this country, during the late agitations of Europe, was
very much due to the contentment which followed on the
abolition of the corn-laws, and on the reduction and
simplification of the tariff. To this must be added the
conviction (though the process is sometimes sufficiently
slow), that their wishes, when clearly indicated, find
expression and attention in the legislature, and that things
are working on to a great though gradual improvement. The
inhabitants of this kingdom had the practical good sense to
perceive the progress made, and the security they had that
the future would not be barren, and they refused to imperil
these substantial advantages in favour of mere theories and
of experiments, the effects of which no human wit could
foresee.
Assuredly, if to unmask Protectionism is to aim a blow at Communism in
consequence of their close connexion, one might also destroy both, by
adopting a course the converse of the above. Protection would not stand
for any length of time before a good definition of the right of property.
Also, if anything has surprised and rejoiced me, it is to see the
Association for the Defence of Monopolies devote their resources to the
propagation of your book. It is an encouraging sight, and consoles me for
the inutility of my past efforts. This resolution of the Mimerel Committee
will doubtless oblige you to add to the editions of your work. In this
case, permit me to observe to you that, such as it is, it presents a grave
deficiency. In the name of science, in the name of truth, in the name of
the public good, I adjure you to supply it; and I warn you that the time
has come when you must answer these two questions:
First, Is there an incompatibility in principle between the system of
Protection and the right of property?
Secondly, Is it the function of the government to guarantee to each the
free exercise of his faculties, and the free disposal of the fruits of his
labour—that is to say, property—or to take from one to give to
the other, so as to weigh in the balance profits, contingencies, and other
circumstances?
Ah! Sir, if you arrive at the same conclusions as myself—if, thanks
to your talents, to your fame, to your influence, you can imbue the public
mind with these conclusions, who can calculate the extent of the service
which you will render to French society? We would see the state confine
itself within its proper limits, which is, to secure to each the exercise
of his faculties, and the free disposition of his possessions. We would
see it free itself at once, both from its present vast but unlawful
functions, and from the frightful responsibility which attaches to them.
It would confine itself to restraining the abuses of liberty, which is to
realize liberty itself! It would secure justice to all, and would no
longer promise prosperity to any one. Men would learn to distinguish
between what is reasonable, and what is puerile to ask from the
government. They would no longer overwhelm it with claims and complaints;
no longer lay their misfortunes at its door, or make it responsible for
their chimerical hopes; and, in this keen pursuit of a prosperity, of
which it is not the dispenser, they would no longer be seen, at each
disappointment, to accuse the legislature and the law, to change their
rulers and the forms of government, heaping institution upon institution,
and ruin upon ruin. They would witness the extinction of that universal
fever for mutual robbery, by the costly and perilous intervention of the
state. The government, limited in its aim and responsibility, simple in
its action, economical, not imposing on the governed the expense of their
own chains, and sustained by sound public opinion, would have a solidity
which, in our country, has never been its portion; and we would at last
have solved this great problem—To close for ever the gulf of
revolution.
THE END.
End of Project Gutenberg's Protection and Communism, by Frederic Bastiat
*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PROTECTION AND COMMUNISM ***
***** This file should be named 44144-h.htm or 44144-h.zip *****
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
http://www.gutenberg.org/4/4/1/4/44144/
Produced by David Widger
Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
will be renamed.
Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you
do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
redistribution.
*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an
individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in
a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check
the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning
the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase『Project
Gutenberg』is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked
to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
that
- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is
owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments
must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg-tm works.
- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
of receipt of the work.
- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the
Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the『Right
of Replacement or Refund』described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with
the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy
is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists
because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809
North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email
contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation's web site and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
For additional contact information:
Dr. Gregory B. Newby
Chief Executive and Director
gbnewby@pglaf.org
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To
SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
www.gutenberg.org
This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.