bread. It is then for
your own good that your liberty be restricted."
This objection recurs in all forms. They say, for instance, "If we
clothe ourselves with English cloth, if we make our plowshares with
English iron, if we cut our bread with English knives, if we wipe our
hands with English napkins, what will become of the French workmen--what
will become of the _national labor_?"
Tell me, workmen, if a man stood on the pier at Boulogne, and said to
every Englishman who landed: If you will give me those English boots, I
will give you this French hat; or, if you will let me have this English
horse, I will let you have this French carriage; or, Are you willing to
exchange this Birmingham machine for this Paris clock? or, again, Does
it suit you to barter your Newcastle coal for this Champagne wine? I ask
you whether, supposing this man makes his proposals with average
judgment, it can be said that our _national labor_, taken as a whole,
would be harmed by it?
Would it be more so if there were twenty of these people offering to
exchange services at Boulogne instead of one; if a million barters were
made instead of four; and if the intervention of merchants and money was
called on to facilitate them and multiply them indefinitely?
Now, let one country buy of another at wholesale to sell again at
retail, or at retail to sell again at wholesale, it will always be
found, if the matter is followed out to the end, that _commerce consists
of mutual barter of products for products, of services for services_.
If, then, _one barter_ does not injure the _national labor_, since it
implies as much _national labor given_ as _foreign labor received_, a
hundred million of them cannot hurt the country.
But, you will say, where is the advantage? The advantage consists in
making a better use of the resources of each country, so that the same
amount of labor gives more satisfaction and well-being everywhere.
There are some who employ singular tactics against you. They begin by
admitting the superiority of freedom over the prohibitive system,
doubtless in order that they may not have to defend themselves on that
ground.
Next they remark that in going from one system to another there will be
some _displacement_ of labor.
Then they dilate upon the sufferings which, according to themselves,
this _displacement_ must cause. They exaggerate and amplify them; they
make of them the principal subject of discussion; they present them
|