Part 14 (1/2)

Such is the use made, for instance, of the word _invasion_

A master of French iron-works, exclailish landholder cries; Let us oppose the _invasion_ of French corn And forthwith all their efforts are bent upon raising barriers between these two nations Thence follows isolation; isolation leads to hatred; hatred to war; and war to _invasion_ What matters it?

say the two _Sophists_; is it not better to expose ourselves to a possible _invasion_, than to meet a certain one? And the people believe; and the barriers are kept up

And yet what analogy can exist between an exchange and an invasion? What resemblance can possibly be discovered between afire, death, and desolation over our cities--and a merchant vessel, which coe, produce for produce?

Much in the saenerally taken in a bad sense; and it is certainly of frequent occurrence for inundations to ruin fields and sweep away harvests But if, as is the case in the inundations of the Nile, they were to leave upon the soil a superior value to that which they carried ae ought, like the Egyptians, to bless and deify theainst the _inundations_ of foreign produce, and checking the obstacles, to certify ourselves whether these inundations are of the number which desolate, or of those which fertilize a country? What would we think of Mehereat expense, dams across the Nile to increase the extent of its inundations, he were to scatter his piasters in atteypt fron_ mud which is swept down upon it froree of wisdom do we exhibit, when at the expense of millions, we strive to preserve our country

Froifted other cli the _metaphors_ which sometimes conceal, each in itself, a whole theory of evil, there is none more common than that which is presented under the words _tribute_ and _tributary_

These words are so frequently employed as synonyms of _purchase_ and _purchaser_, that the terms are now used almost indifferently And yet there is as distinct a difference between a _tribute_, and a _purchase_, as between a _robbery_ and an _exchange_ It appears to me that it would be quite as correct to say, Cartouche has broken open ht_ a thousand crowns from me, as to state, as I have heard done to our honorable deputies, We have paid in _tribute_ to Germany the value of a thousand horses which she has sold us

The action of Cartouche was not a _purchase_, because he did not put, and withbox an equivalent value to that which he took out Neither could the purchase-money paid to Germany be _tribute_, because it was not on our part a forced pay compensation froed to be worth 500,000 francs

Is it necessary then seriously to criticise such abuses of language?

Yes, for very seriously are they put forth in our books and journals

Nor can we flatter ourselves that they are the careless expressions of uneducated writers, ignorant even of the tere

They are current with a vast uished of our writers We find theouts, Dupins, Villeles; of peers, deputies and ministers; ht establish theSophisms, as the basis of the administration of their country

A celebrated ories of Aristotle the Sophis in one word a _petitio principii_ He cites several exaht have added the word _tributary_ to his nomenclature For instance, the question is to detern purchases are useful or hurtful You answer, hurtful And why? Because they render us _tributary_ to foreigners

Truly here is a word, which begs the question at once

How has this delusive figure of speech introduced itself into the rhetoric of monopolists?

Money is _withdrawn from the country_ to satisfy the rapacity of a victorious enemy: money is also _withdrawn froy is established between the two cases, calculating only the point of rese that by which they differ

And yet it is certainly true, that the non-reimbursereed upon in the second, establishes between them so decided a difference, as to render it ied, with a dagger at your throat, to give a hundred francs, or to give thely in order to obtain a desired object,--truly these are cases in which we can perceive little siht just as correctly be said, that it is a matter of indifference whether we eat our bread, or have it thrown into the water, because in both cases it is destroyed We here draw a false conclusion, as in the case of the word _tribute_, by a vicious , which supposes an entire si noticed and their difference suppressed

CONCLUSION

All the Sophisms which I have so far combated, relate to the restrictive policy; and some even on this subject, and those of the most remarkable, I have, in pity to the reader, passed over: _acquired rights_; _unsuitableness_; _exhaustion of money_, _etc_, _etc_

But Social economy is not confined within this narrow circle

Fourierisrarianism, anti-rentism, mysticism, sentimentalism, false philanthropy, affected aspirations for a chimerical equality and fraternity; questions relative to luxury, wages, machinery; to the pretended tyranny of capital; to colonies, outlets, population; to eration, association, imposts, and loans, have encuurowth calls for the spade and the weeding-hoe

I am perfectly sensible of the defect ofas I do, one by one, so ain often le with each other, I am conscious that I condele, and am exposed to perpetual repetitions

I should certainly s _are_, without troubling norance _supposes_ them to be To lay down at once the laws under which society prospers or perishes, would be _virtually_ to destroy at once all Sophisms When Laplace described what, up to his time, was known of the move theyptians, Greeks, and Hindoos,to refute theh innumerable volumes Truth is one, and the hich expounds it is an i and durable edifice Error is multiple, and of ephemereal nature The hich coreatness or of durability

But if power, and perhaps opportunity, have been wanting to me, to enable me to proceed in the manner of Laplace and of Say, I still cannot but believe that the mode adopted by me has also its modest usefulness