This bond, though restraining individual freedom of action, and preventing individuals from pursuing the course which they might find most conducive to their own private happiness has not, on the whole, been esteemed to have slightly promoted the great end for which it exists, the general well-being of mankind.We seek to rectify its errors, not to abolish it.The peculiarity of this system, relating to this particular part of the field of human action, is, that it maintains that men cannot in it, as elsewhere, unite, so as to attain a common good.That, on the contrary, when they so unite, instead of attaining a common good, they necessarily burden themselves with a common evil.It aims, not to remedy any errors committed in adjusting the bond, but, to cut it asunder and cast it away.It is called a system of complete freedom from restraint and perfect liberty.These terms, when looked at nearly, will be found to mean a dissolution of all bonds and total isolation of interests.Hence, in this particular case, where an end is to be gained, the attainment of which it is admitted would be beneficial to all, it is yet maintained that it is impossible for all to bring it to pass without hurting instead of benefitting themselves.
It is impossible to shut the eyes to the fact, that the introduction of an art into any country, enabling the labor of its inhabitants at once to transmute the products, which nature, in conjunction with their own industry, procures for them, into the commodities their wants demand, instead of sending them to a distance to other people to effect that change, is a great good to all, were it only for the mere saving of transport thus effected; but it is maintained, that it is impossible for all the members of the community advantageously to unite in bringing about this common benefit.It is clearly seen, that a new channel might be opened from the exhaustless river of human power, springing from the mingled sources of nature and art, and that, if so, a plenteous stream would flow in on the community from which individuals drawing might largely add to the general opulence.But some means must be employed to open it up.There is an obstruction in the way that must previously be overcome; a rock blocking it up that must be removed.No individual will open up the channel, because, were he so to do, he could derive no more benefit from the labor than others who had not labored.The whole society, or rather the legislator, the power acting for the whole society, might do so, and in similar cases has done so, and, to judge of the measure by the events consequent on it, with the happiest success.Why, then, should he not?
The arguments advanced by the author of the Wealth of Nations, to prove that the legislator never ought to lend his aid to effect such a purpose, are chiefly contained in the second chapter of the fourth book.They will be found to rest almost altogether on the assumption, that national and individual capital increase in precisely the same manner.This notion, I flatter myself I have shown, cannot, by any means, be taken as a self-evident principle, or one so firmly established as to serve to build an important practical doctrine on it.But, even admitting that the two processes are similar, the arguments of Adam Smith would not altogether bear out his conclusions.
It is, he says, and the sentiment serves for a motto, and forms, indeed, the substance of two volumes that have contributed greatly to spread his doctrines over Europe, "It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy.The tailor does not attempt to make his own shoes, but buys them of the shoemaker.The shoemaker does not attempt to make his own clothes, but employs a tailor.The farmer attempts to make neither the one nor the other, but employs those different artificers.All of them find it for their interest to employ their whole industry in a way in which they have some advantage over their neighbors, and to purchase with a part of its produce, or, what is the same thing, with the price of a part of it, whatever else they have occasion for.What is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom."To make the fanciful parallel here assumed as complete, in any sense just, it would be necessary to place the tailor at a hundred miles distance from the shoemaker.Were he at this distance, and did he find that the expense of getting a pair of shoes carried so far was considerable, perhaps exceeding their first cost, he might find it good economy even to make them himself.To be sure, the procuring the requisite tools and the learning their use, would render the making of the first few pairs much more expensive than the purchasing of them would have been.But this necessary dearness of the first articles produced might be compensated by the cheapness of those produced subsequently.In the same way, though a farmer, if the tailor and shoemaker were near at hand, would do wisely to employ them, yet, if they were at a great distance, he might possibly with advantage dispense with their services, and set some of his family to make clothes and shoes for the rest.A farmer, indeed, would have peculiar inducements to practise some trades, those, namely, for which he supplied the raw materials, as by doing so he would be saved the carriage, both of the articles made, and of the stuff for making them.It is thus, that, in fact, in most countries where the population is scattered and the internal communications are bad, many trades are practised in the farmers' houses and by their own families.
