That what is paid for in most cases of human dealings is effort no one can dispute.But it is surely a reductio ad absurdum ofhis theory of value,regarded as a doctrine of universal application,to represent the price of a diamond which has beenaccidentally found as remuneration for the effort of the finder in appropriating and transmitting it.And,with respect to land,whilst a large part of rent,in the popular sense,must be explained as interest on capital,it is plain that the native powers ofthe soil are capable of appropriation,and that then a price can be demanded and will be paid for their use.
Bastiat is weak on the philosophical side;he is filled with the ideas of theological teleology,and is led by these ideas to forma priori opinions of what existing facts and laws must necessarily be.And the jus nature,which,like metaphysical ideasgenerally,has its root in theology,is as much a postulate with him as with the physiocrats.Thus,in his essay on Free Trade,he says:"Exchange is a natural right like property.Every citizen who has created or acquired a product ought to have theoption of either applying it immediately to his own use or ceding it to whosoever on the surface of the globe consents togive him in exchange the object of his desires."Something of the same sort had been said by Turgot;and in his time this wayof regarding things was excusable,and even provisionally useful;but in the middle of the 19th century it was time that itshould be seen through and abandoned Bastiat had a real enthusiasm for a science which he thought destined to render great services to mankind,and he seems tohave believed intensely the doctrines which gave a special colour to his teaching.If his optimistic exaggerations favoured thepropertied classes,they certainly were not prompted by self-interest or servility.But they are exaggerations;and,amidst themodern conflicts of capital and labour,his perpetual assertion of social harmonies is the cry of "peace,peace,"where there isno peace.The ******* of industry,which he treated as a panacea,has undoubtedly brought with it great benefits;but asufficient experience has shown that it is inadequate to solve the social problem.How can the advocates of economicrevolution be met by assuring them that everything in the natural economy is harmoniousthat,in fact,all they seek foralready exists?A certain degree of spontaneous harmony does indeed exist,for society could not continue without it,but itis imperfect and precarious;the question is,How can we give to it the maximum of completeness and stability?
