234 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



classes in England have been and are much higher under free 

 trade than they ever were under " protection." Facts are unques- 

 tionably worthy of attention, but no general law can possibly be 

 established by any such collection of isolated cases as that com- 

 monly made by the " protectionist." The same fallacious reason- 

 ing is accountable for most of the sophisms that at present be- 

 cloud the minds of the disciples of this school.* 



Another cause of very much of the difference of opinion that 

 exists among economic writers and reformers lies in the indefi- 

 niteness of the terms employed. If we compare the definitions of 

 the writers of different schools, we shall see what a hopeless con- 

 fusion reigns. Land, wealth, capital, labor, wages, interest, rent, 

 and profit all mean something different to different schools. And 

 yet we are told by each school that it is founded upon science, 

 that it has a scientific basis. I know of nothing more unscientific 

 than a confusion of terms. " Land is wealth," says one. " Land 

 is capital," says another. " Land has no value," says a third ; and 

 so on, until you begin to wonder what sort of a thing land really 

 is. Until an agreement on terms is reached, there can be little 

 hope of harmony in teaching, or a discovery of truth. This dis- 

 cord, however, shows us how difficult a problem these gentlemen 

 are attempting to solve, they " who rush in where angels fear to 

 tread." To my mind, it will be a long time before political econo- 

 my arrives at that point where it can be dignified by the name of 

 science — to that " great and final object of all science, predicting 

 events," as Buckle calls it. At present we have much a priori 

 speculation and little else. Every reformer thinks he knoivs ex- 

 actly what his scheme will bring forth — how it will operate — 

 " how sorrow and sighing will flee away, and tears be wiped away 

 from all eyes." But one can not help inquiring how these gentle- 

 men know that such and such results must follow the adoption of 

 their plans. History is strewn with the wrecks of numerous 

 enterprises founded on similar reforms, conceived, planned, and 

 superintended by exceedingly intelligent men, such as Fourier 

 and Robert Owen, John Ruskin, and others. 



The fact is, that what we call society is such a marvelously 

 complex machine, or animal, that its scientific treatment — analy- 

 sis, synthesis, etc. — is at present utterly impossible. In fact, our 

 treatment of society as a whole, as a huge machine, is both mis- 

 leading and irrational. Society is not so much one machine as a 

 multitude of small machines, each acted on by various forces, the 

 resultant of which is an unknown and indeterminate quantity. 

 These forces propel the machines in various directions — some an- 



* I have already dealt at length with this fallacious mode of reasoning in The Popular 

 Science Monthly for November, 1890, entitled Logic of Free Trade and Protection. 



