WHAT IS CIVIL LIBERTY? 297 



instance : We talk of buyers and sellers, as if they were independ- 

 ent of each other. We call those who have money buyers, and 

 those who have goods sellers. We find, however, that no trans- 

 action can be correctly understood until we regard it as an ex- 

 change, having two parts, an action and a reaction, equal and 

 opposite. In the language of the market, also, we speak of 

 being long or short of the market, but every one who has either 

 money or goods is in the market, and is both long and short 

 of it all the time. He is either long of goods and short of money, 

 or long of money and short of goods. The philosophy of the 

 market can not be understood unless we study it from this point 

 of view. 



The fallacy of a great many doctrines in social science, and the 

 philosophy of a great many errors in social policy, is that they 

 divorce the action from the reaction. If there is not a reaction 

 with equivalence and equilibrium, then there is an expenditure 

 from one side toward the other, a drain of force from one side and 

 an accumulation of it at another, until there come a crisis and a 

 redistribution. When the return and equivalence are suspended, 

 there is a necessary continuance of the movement, in the tendency 

 toward a stable equilibrium of another kind, which would come 

 about when all the force had been transferred. For instance : You 

 give good schools for less than their market value ; you must, then, 

 give free schools ; then you must give free books and stationery ; 

 then " hot breakfasts,"* and so on in succession. The fact that 

 one thing has been given is made an argument for more. You are 

 told : You have established free schools ; " why should not you " 

 do whatever else the proponent favors. The argument that, be- 

 cause you ha ve given a man one thing, you ought to give him an- 

 other, is not good in logic, but it is intensely strong in human 

 nature and in history. The saying is attributed to Danton, the 

 revolutionist : " The revolution came, and I and all those like me 

 plunged into it. The ancien regime had given us a good educa- 

 tion, without opening an outlet for our talents." The great fal- 

 lacy of socialistic schemes is that they break off the social reac- 

 tion. A man is to have something simply because he is a man — 

 that is, simply because he is here. He is not to be called upon to 

 render any return for it, except to stay. On the other hand, the 

 tax-payer, who has provided all there is, is not on that account to 

 be entitled to a recompense of any kind. He has only incurred a 

 new liability— viz., to do the next thing which is demanded of 

 him. The only stable equilibrium under this system would be 

 universal contentment. But bounty does not lead to content- 

 ment, and can not, until the recipient has everything for nothing. 

 The movement, therefore, runs to a crisis, a redistribution, a re- 



* " The Economist," 1389, p. 430 



