the tax cannot be reduced, nor can its assessment be more equitable, under the monopoly system.On the contrary, the lower the condition of the citizen becomes, the heavier becomes his tax; that is inevitable, irresistible, in spite of the avowed design of the legislator and the repeated efforts of the treasury.Whoever cannot become or remain rich, whoever has entered the cavern of misfortune, must make up his mind to pay in proportion to his poverty: Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch' entrate.
Taxation, then, police, -- henceforth we shall not separate these two ideas, -- is a new source of pauperism; taxation aggravates the subversive effects of the preceding antinomies, -- division of labor, machinery, competition, monopoly.It attacks the laborer in his liberty and in his conscience, in his body and in his soul, by parasitism, vexations, the frauds which it prompts, and the punishments which follow them.
Under Louis XIV.the smuggling of salt alone caused annually thirty-seven hundred domiciliary seizures, two thousand arrests of men, eighteen hundred of women, sixty-six hundred of children, eleven hundred seizures of horses, fifty confiscations of carriages, and three hundred condemnations to the galleys.And this, observes the historian, was the result of one tax alone, -- the salt-tax.What, then, was the total number of unfortunates imprisoned, tortured, expropriated, on account of the tax?
In England, out of every four families, one is unproductive, and that is the family which enjoys an abundance.What an advantage it would be for the working-class, you think, if this leprosy of parasitism should be removed! Undoubtedly, in theory, you are right; in practice, the suppression of parasitism would be a calamity.Though one-fourth of the population of England is unproductive, another fourth of the same population is at work for it: now, what would these laborers do, if they should suddenly lose the market for their products? An absurd supposition, you say.Yes, an absurd supposition, but a very real supposition, and one which you must admit precisely because it is absurd.In France a standing army of five hundred thousand men, forty thousand priests, twenty thousand doctors, eighty thousand lawyers, and I know not how many hundred thousand other nonproducers of every sort, constitute an immense market for our agriculture and our manufactures.Let this market suddenly close, and manufactures will stop, commerce will go into bankruptcy, and agriculture will be smothered beneath its products.
But how is it conceivable that a nation should find its market clogged because of having got rid of its useless mouths? Ask rather why an engine, whose consumption has been figured at six hundred pounds of coal an hour, loses its power if it is given only three hundred.But again, might not these non-producers be made producers, since we cannot get rid of them?
Eh! child: tell me, then, how you will do without police, and monopoly, and competition, and all the contradictions, in short, of which your order of things is made up.Listen.
In 1844, at the time of the troubles in Rive-de-Gier, M.Anselme Petetin published in the "Revue Independante" two articles, full of reason and sincerity, concerning the anarchy prevailing in the conduct of the coal mines in the basin of the Loire.M.Petetin pointed out the necessity of uniting the mines and centralizing their administration.The facts which he laid before the public were not unknown to power; has power troubled itself about the union of the mines and the organization of that industry?
Not at all.Power has followed the principle of free competition; it has let alone and looked on.
Since that time the mining companies have combined, not without causing some anxiety to consumers, who have seen in this combination a plot to raise the price of fuel.Will power, which has received numerous complaints upon this subject, intervene to restore competition and prevent monopoly?
It cannot do it; the right of combination is identical in law with the right of association; monopoly is the basis of our society, as competition is its conquest; and, provided there is no riot, power will let alone and look on.What other course could it pursue? Can it prohibit a legally established commercial association? Can it oblige neighbors to destroy each other?
Can it forbid them to reduce their expenses? Can it establish a maximum?
If power should do any one of these things, it would overturn the established order.Power, therefore, can take no initiative: it is instituted to defend and protect monopoly and competition at once, within the limitations of patents, licenses, land taxes, and other bonds which it has placed upon property.Apart from these limitations power has no sort of right to act in the name of society.The social right is not defined; moreover, it would be a denial of monopoly and competition.How, then, could power take up the defence of that which the law did not foresee or define, of that which is the opposite of the rights recognized by the legislator?
