FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67  
68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   >>   >|  
, it is only because they have been diverted from another. This being the case, it is clear that the tax-payer, who has contributed one franc, will no longer have this franc at his own disposal. It is clear that he will be deprived of some gratification to the amount of one franc; and that the workman, whoever he may be, who would have received it from him, will be deprived of a benefit to that amount. Let us not, therefore, be led by a childish illusion into believing that the vote of the 60,000 francs may add anything whatever to the well-being of the country, and to national labour. It displaces enjoyments, it transposes wages--that is all. Will it be said that for one kind of gratification, and one kind of labour, it substitutes more urgent, more moral, more reasonable gratifications and labour? I might dispute this; I might say, by taking 60,000 francs from the tax-payers, you diminish the wages of labourers, drainers, carpenters, blacksmiths, and increase in proportion those of the singers. There is nothing to prove that this latter class calls for more sympathy than the former. M. Lamartine does not say that it is so. He himself says that the labour of the theatres is _as_ fertile, _as_ productive as any other (not more so); and this may be doubted; for the best proof that the latter is not so fertile as the former lies in this, that the other is to be called upon to assist it. But this comparison between the value and the intrinsic merit of different kinds of labour forms no part of my present subject. All I have to do here is to show, that if M. Lamartine and those persons who commend his line of argument have seen on one side the salaries gained by the _providers_ of the comedians, they ought on the other to have seen the salaries lost by the _providers_ of the taxpayers: for want of this, they have exposed themselves to ridicule by mistaking a _displacement_ for a _gain_. If they were true to their doctrine, there would be no limits to their demands for government aid; for that which is true of one franc and of 60,000 is true, under parallel circumstances, of a hundred millions of francs. When taxes are the subject of discussion, you ought to prove their utility by reasons from the root of the matter, but not by this unlucky assertion--"The public expenses support the working classes." This assertion disguises the important fact, that _public expenses always_ supersede _private expenses_, and that t
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67  
68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

labour

 

francs

 

expenses

 

providers

 

Lamartine

 

salaries

 
deprived
 

assertion

 

public

 
gratification

amount

 

subject

 

fertile

 

comedians

 
gained
 

intrinsic

 
persons
 

taxpayers

 

present

 

argument


commend
 

matter

 

unlucky

 

reasons

 

utility

 
discussion
 

support

 

supersede

 

private

 

important


working

 

classes

 

disguises

 

millions

 

doctrine

 
displacement
 

mistaking

 
exposed
 

ridicule

 

limits


parallel

 
circumstances
 

hundred

 

comparison

 

demands

 

government

 
illusion
 

believing

 
childish
 
displaces