spection; while even if in the hands of the consumer an article
turns out unfit, the system enables the fault to be traced back to the
original workman. The production of the commodities for actual public
consumption does not, of course, require by any means all the national
force of workers. After the necessary contingents have been detailed
for the various industries, the amount of labor left for other
employment is expended in creating fixed capital, such as buildings,
machinery, engineering works, and so forth."

"One point occurs to me," I said, "on which I should think there might
be dissatisfaction. Where there is no opportunity for private
enterprise, how is there any assurance that the claims of small
minorities of the people to have articles produced, for which there is
no wide demand, will be respected? An official decree at any moment
may deprive them of the means of gratifying some special taste, merely
because the majority does not share it."

"That would be tyranny indeed," replied Dr. Leete, "and you may be
very sure that it does not happen with us, to whom liberty is as dear
as equality or fraternity. As you come to know our system better, you
will see that our officials are in fact, and not merely in name, the
agents and servants of the people. The administration has no power to
stop the production of any commodity for which there continues to be a
demand. Suppose the demand for any article declines to such a point
that its production becomes very costly. The price has to be raised in
proportion, of course, but as long as the consumer cares to pay it,
the production goes on. Again, suppose an article not before produced
is demanded. If the administration doubts the reality of the demand, a
popular petition guaranteeing a certain basis of consumption compels
it to produce the desired article. A government, or a majority, which
should undertake to tell the people, or a minority, what they were to
eat, drink, or wear, as I believe governments in America did in your
day, would be regarded as a curious anachronism indeed. Possibly you
had reasons for tolerating these infringements of personal
independence, but we should not think them endurable. I am glad you
raised this point, for it has given me a chance to show you how much
more direct and efficient is the control over production exercised by
the individual citizen now than it was in your day, when what you
called private initiative prevailed, though it