按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
Then his companion might say； with perfect justice； 〃I will
do this additional work for you； but if I do it； you must promise
to do as much for me at another time。 I will count how many hours
I spend on your ground； and you shall give me a written promise
to work for the same number of hours on mine； whenever I need
your help； and you are able to give it。〃 Suppose the disabled
man's sickness to continue； and that under various circumstances；
for several years； requiring the help of the other； he on each
occasion gave a written pledge to work； as soon as he was able；
at his companion's orders； for the same number of hours which the
other had given up to him。 What will the positions of the two men
be when the invalid is able to resume work？
Considered as a 〃Polis；〃 or state； they will be poorer than
they would have been otherwise： poorer by the withdrawal of what
the sick man's labour would have produced in the interval。 His
friend may perhaps have toiled with an energy quickened by the
enlarged need； but in the end his own land and property must have
suffered by the withdrawal of so much of his time and thought
from them： and the united property of the two men will be
certainly less than it would have been if both had remained in
health and activity。
But the relations in which they stand to each other are also
widely altered。 The sick man has not only pledged his labour for
some years； but will probably have exhausted his own share of the
accumulated stores； and will be in consequence for some time
dependent on the other for food； which he can only 〃pay〃 or
reward him for by yet more deeply pledging his own labour。
Supposing the written promises to be held entirely valid
（among civilized nations their validity is secured by legal
measures（3*））； the person who had hitherto worked for both might
now； if he chose； rest altogether； and pass his time in idleness；
not only forcing his companion to redeem all the engagements he
had already entered into； but exacting from him pledges for
further labour； to an arbitrary amount； for what food he had to
advance to him。
There might not； from first to last； be the least illegality
（in the ordinary sense of the word） in the arrangement； but if a
stranger arrived on the coast at this advanced epoch of their
political economy； he would find one man commercially Rich； the
other commercially Poor。 He would see； perhaps； with no small
surprise； one passing his days in idleness； the other labouring
for both； and living sparely； in the hope of recovering his
independence at some distant period。
This is； of course； an example of one only out of many ways
in which inequality of possession may be established between
different persons； giving rise to the Mercantile forms of Riches
and Poverty。 In the instance before us； one of the men might from
the first have deliberately chosen to be idle； and to put his
life in pawn for present ease； or he might have mismanaged his
land； and been compelled to have recourse to his neighbour for
food and help； pledging his future labour for it。 But what I want
the reader to note especially is the fact； common to a large
number of typical cases of this kind； that the establishment of
the mercantile wealth which consists in a claim upon labour；
signifies a political diminution of the real wealth which
consists in substantial possessions。
Take another example； more consistent with the ordinary
course of affairs of trade。 Suppose that three men； instead of
two； formed the little isolated republic； and found themselves
obliged to separate； in order to farm different pieces of land at
some distance from each other along the coast： each estate
furnishing a distinct kind of produce； and each more or less in
need of the material raised on the other。 Suppose that the third
man； in order to save the time of all three； undertakes simply to
superintend the transference of commodities from one farm to the
other； on condition of receiving some sufficiently remunerative
share of every parcel of goods conveyed； or of some other parcel
received in exchange for it。
If this carrier or messenger always brings to each estate；
from the other； what is chiefly wanted； at the right time； the
operations of the two farmers will go on prosperously； and the
largest possible result in produce； or wealth； will be attained
by the little community。 But suppose no intercourse between the
landowners is possible； except through the travelling agent； and
that； after a time； this agent； watching the course of each man's
agriculture； keeps back the articles with which he has been
entrusted until there comes a period of extreme necessity for
them； on one side or other； and then exacts in exchange for them
all that the distressed farmer can spare of other kinds of
produce： it is easy to see that by ingeniously watching his
opportunities； he might possess himself regularly of the greater
part of the superfluous produce of the two estates； and at last；
in some year of severest trial or scarcity； purchase both for
himself and maintain the former proprietors thenceforward as his
labourers or servants。
This would be a case of commercial wealth acquired on the
exactest principles of modern political economy。 But more
distinctly even than in the former instance； it is manifest in
this that the wealth of the State； or of the three men considered
as a society； is collectively less than it would have been had
the merchant been content with juster profit。 The operations of
the two agriculturists have been cramped to the utmost； and the
continual limitations of the supply of things they wanted at
critical times； together with the failure of courage consequent
on the prolongation of a struggle for mere existence； without any
sense of permanent gain； must have seriously diminished the
effective results of their labour； and the stores finally
accumulated in the merchant's hands will not in any wise be of
equivalent value to those which； had his dealings been honest；
would have filled at once the granaries of the farmers and his
own。
The whole question； therefore； respecting not only the
advantage； but even the quantity； of national wealth； resolves
itself finally into one of abstract justice。 It is impossible to
conclude； of any given mass of acquired wealth； merely by the
fact of its existence； whether it signifies good or evil to the
nation in the midst of which it exists。 Its real value depends on
the moral sign attached to it； just as sternly a