Essays on Political Economy | Page 4

condition of borrowers, to make it
impossible for them to borrow at any price! What would become of
labour itself? for there will be no money advanced, and not one single
kind of labour can be mentioned, not even the chase, which can be
pursued without money in hand. And, as for ourselves, what would
become of us? What! we are not to be allowed to borrow, in order to
work in the prime of life, nor to lend, that we may enjoy repose in its
decline? The law will rob us of the prospect of laying by a little
property, because it will prevent us from gaining any advantage from it.
It will deprive us of all stimulus to save at the present time, and of all
hope of repose for the future. It is useless to exhaust ourselves with
fatigue: we must abandon the idea of leaving our sons and daughters a
little property, since modern science renders it useless, for we should
become traffickers in men if we were to lend it on interest. Alas! the
world which these persons would open before us, as an imaginary good,
is still more dreary and desolate than that which they condemn, for
hope, at any rate, is not banished from the latter." Thus, in all respects,
and in every point of view, the question is a serious one. Let us hasten
to arrive at a solution.
Our civil code has a chapter entitled, "On the manner of transmitting
property." I do not think it gives a very complete nomenclature on this
point. When a man by his labour has made some useful thing--in other

words, when he has created a _value_--it can only pass into the hands
of another by one of the following modes--as a gift, by the right of
inheritance, by exchange, loan, or theft. One word upon each of these,
except the last, although it plays a greater part in the world than we
may think. A gift needs no definition. It is essentially voluntary and
spontaneous. It depends exclusively upon the giver, and the receiver
cannot be said to have any right to it. Without a doubt, morality and
religion make it a duty for men, especially the rich, to deprive
themselves voluntarily of that which they possess, in favour of their
less fortunate brethren. But this is an entirely moral obligation. If it
were to be asserted on principle, admitted in practice, or sanctioned by
law, that every man has a right to the property of another, the gift
would have no merit--charity and gratitude would be no longer virtues.
Besides, such a doctrine would suddenly and universally arrest labour
and production, as severe cold congeals water and suspends animation;
for who would work if there was no longer to be any connection
between labour and the satisfying of our wants? Political economy has
not treated of gifts. It has hence been concluded that it disowns them,
and that it is therefore a science devoid of heart. This is a ridiculous
accusation. That science which treats of the laws resulting from the
reciprocity of services, had no business to inquire into the
consequences of generosity with respect to him who receives, nor into
its effects, perhaps still more precious, on him who gives: such
considerations belong evidently to the science of morals. We must
allow the sciences to have limits; above all, we must not accuse them of
denying or undervaluing what they look upon as foreign to their
department.
The right of inheritance, against which so much has been objected of
late, is one of the forms of gift, and assuredly the most natural of all.
That which a man has produced, he may consume, exchange, or give.
What can be more natural than that he should give it to his children? It
is this power, more than any other, which inspires him with courage to
labour and to save. Do you know why the principle of right of
inheritance is thus called in question? Because it is imagined that the
property thus transmitted is plundered from the masses. This is a fatal
error. Political economy demonstrates, in the most peremptory manner,
that all value produced is a creation which does no harm to any person

whatever. For that reason it may be consumed, and, still more,
transmitted, without hurting any one; but I shall not pursue these
reflections, which do not belong to the subject.
Exchange is the principal department of political economy, because it
is by far the most frequent method of transmitting property, according
to the free and voluntary agreements of the laws and effects of which
this science treats.
Properly speaking, exchange is the reciprocity of services. The parties
say between themselves, "Give me this, and I will give you that;"