repeat　the　question　as　long　as　it　sees　before　it　human　actions。
  But　only　to　this　extent　and　always　to　this　extent；　and
  furthermore　the　uncertain　results　of　fortune　and　the　course　of
  natural　processes　also　will　appear　just　or　unjust　to　him　who
  believes　that　they　are　governed　by　a　just　Providence　ruling
  analogously　to　human　actions；　may　the　compensation　only　occur　in
  another　world；　it　is　expected　and　demanded　by　the　soul。
  When　on　the　other　hand　the　intellect　sees　but　blind　forces；
  it　consoles　itself　with　the　argument　that　it　is　not　the　task　of
  humanity　to　master　them；　then　he　will　no　longer　demand　justice
  from　the　flashing　lightning；　from　the　hostile　bullet　from　the
  demon　of　cholera　and　the　sunny　zephyrs；　but　always　from　all
  conscious　actions　of　human　beings。
  The　distinction　is　therefore　not；　as　has　been　claimed；
  between　State　and　chance；　State　and　free　intercourse；
  governmental　distribution　and　distribution　by　demand　and　supply；
  but　the　antithesis　is　this：　As　far　as　human　action　governs　and
  influences　the　distribution　of　incomes；　so　far　this　action　will
  create　the　psychological　processes　whose　final　result　is　the
  judgment　which　finds　the　distribution　just　or　unjust；　so　far　as
  blind　extra…human　causes　interfere；　reasonable　reflection　will
  demand　that　men　should　submit　to　them　with　resignation。
  If　it　is　objected　that　demand　and　supply　distribute　incomes；
  we　reply　in　the　first　instance：　Are　demand　and　supply　blind
  powers　independent　of　human　influence？　This　year's　crops　depend
  on　rain　and　sunshine；　but　the　average　results　of　our　crops　are　a
  product　of　our　cultivation。　Demand　and　supply　are　summary　terms
  for　the　magnitudes　of　opposing　groups　of　human　wills。　The　causes
  and　conditions　of　these　magnitudes　are　partly　natural；　mostly
  however；　human　relations　and　powers；　human　deliberations　and
  actions。
  If　it　is　objected　that　nature　conditions　the　wealth　of　a
  nation；　we　answer：　She　certainly　does　in　part；　and　as　far　as　she
  does；　no　one　thinks　it　unjust　that　one　nation　is　rich　and　the
  other　poor。　But　when　one　nation　enslaves；　plunders　and　keeps　in
  subjection　another；　we　immediately　find　the　wealth　of　the　former
  and　the　poverty　of　the　latter　unjust。
  If　it　is　objected　that　the　one　man　is　wealthier　than　the
  other　because　he　was　not　compelled　to　divide　his　inheritance　with
  brother　and　sister；　that　the　one　has　the　good　fortune　to　possess
  a　healthy　wife；　the　other　not；　we　answer：　No　normal　feeling　of
  right　wishes　to　do　away　with　such　chance　of　fortune。　But　the
  question　is；　if　such　effects　of　nature；　not　subject　to　our
  influence；　which　we　call　fortune　or　chance；　are　indeed　the
  essential　causes　of　the　distribution　of　incomes　and　wealth。　In
  such　a　case　there　could　be　no　science　of　political　economy　or
  social　policy；　for　the　irregular　game　of　chance　cannot　be　brought
  under　general　points　of　view。
  If　it　is　objected　that　labor　and　not　the　State　distributes
  incomes；　we　answer　that　this　is　a　surprising　objection　in　the
  mouth　of　one　who　declares　strength　and　fortune　both　at　the　same
  time　to　be　the　causes　of　distribution。　For　the　objection　has
  meaning　only　when　it　signifies　that　different　labor　and　different
  accomplishments　produce　correspondingly　different　compensation。
  In　our　eyes；　labor　produces　goods；　builds　houses；　bakes　bread；
  but　it　does　not　directly　distribute　incomes。　The　different　kinds
  of　labor　will　affect　distribution　only　by　their　different
  valuations　in　society。　The　demand　for　this　or　that　labor　will
  influence　its　market　price；　but　the　moral　valuation　of　this　or
  that　labor　will　influence　the　judgment　whether　this　price　is
  just。　Thus　labor　influences；　indirectly　it　is　true；　the
  distribution　of　incomes；　but　in　such　a　case；　and　so　far　as　it
  does　so；　it　excludes　the　notion　of　luck　or　chance。
  Both　assertions；　however；　confine　themselves　too　closely　to
  the　individual　distribution　of　incomes；　whereas　for　the　economist
  the　essential　point　is　the　distribution　among　the　classes　of
  society。　For　every　more　general　scientific　or　practical　inquiry
  it　is　not　the　important　point　whether　Tom；　the　day　laborer；　has
  more　than　Dick　or　Harry；　whether　the　grocer；　Jones；　earns　more
  than　Brown；　whether　the　banker；　Bleichroder；　has　better　luck　in
  his　speculations　than　the　banker；　Hanseman；　about　this　general
  judgments　will　only　occasionally　be　formed。　The　average　wages　of
  the　day　laborer；　the　average　condition　of　domestic　workers；　the
  average　profits　of　the　class　of　promoters；　the　average　profits　of
  grocers；　of　landed　proprietors；　of　farmers　on　the　other　hand　are
  considered　by　public　opinion　and　judged　to　be　justified　or　not。
  And　these　earnings　are　surely　not　dependent　on　fortune　or　chance；
  they　are　the　result　of　the　average　qualities　of　the　respective
  classes　in　connection　with　their　relations　to　the　other　classes
  of　society；　they　are　in　the　main　the　result　of　human
  institutions。
  The　prevailing　rights　of　property；　inheritance　and　contract
  form　the　centre　of　the　institutions　which　govern　the　distribution
  of　incomes。　Their　forms　for　the　time　being　determine　a　democratic
  or　aristocratic　distribution　of　wealth。　Who；　for　instance；　has
  made　the　division　of　landed　property；　which　generally　determines
  the　distribution　of　both　wealth　and　income？　Is　it　nature；　luck　or
  chance；　or　demand　and　supply？　No；　in　the　first　place　the　social
  and　agrarian　institutions　of　the　past　and　present。　Wherever　small
  peasant　proprietorship　prevails　to…day；　it　is　derived　from　the
  mediaeval　village　community　system　and　the　law　of　peasant
  succession。　Wherever　we　meet　with　a　system　of　large　estates　we
  see　a　result　of　the　baronial　and　feudal　system；　of　the　later
  manorial　regime　and　of　the　system　of　estates；　at　present　the
  institutions　of　mortgages　and　leases　play　a　part；　the　legislation
  touching　the　commutation　of　tenures　and　system　of　cultivation
  were　of　the　same　importance　to　Germany　as　the　colonial　system　of
  other　governments　to　their　colonies。　In　the　distribution　of
  personal　property　individual　qualities　are　more　prevalent　than　in
  that　of　real　estate。　But　nevertheless　the　institutions　of　ancient
  and　modern　times　seem　to　us　the　most　important。　The　forms　of
  undertakings　and　the　legal　status　of　the　laboring　classes　are　the
  essential　points　：　wherever　slavery　prevailed　it　governed　at　all
  times　the　whole　economic　life；　the　whole　social　classification
  and　the　distribution　of　incomes；　guilds　were；　at　the　time　of
  their　consistent　　maintenance；　as　much　an　institution　of
  distribution　of　incomes　as　an　organization　of　labor；　and　the　same
  is　true　of　the　domestic　system　of　industry　of　the　seventeenth　and
  eighteenth　century　with　its　governmental　regulation；　the　ruling
  considerations　were　the　needs　of　commerce　and　technical　practice
  on　the　one　hand；　the　situation　of　the　laborers　in　a　domestic
  system　of　industries　on　the　other。　And　are　not　to…day　the
  institutions　of　unrestricted　trade　and　interest　on　loans；　of　the
  exchanges　and　the　system　of　public　debts；　the　forms　of
  undertakings；　the　system　of　joint　stock　companies；　of
  co…operative　associations；　the　unions　and　corporations　of
  employers　and　laborers；　all　labor　law；　the　institutions　of
  friendly　and　similar　societies　the　material　foundation　and　cause
  of　our　present　distribution　of　incomes？　The　individual　causes　and
  the　chance　of　luck　effect　within　the　bounds　of　these　institutions
  the　little　aberrations　of　personal　destiny；　the　position　of
  social　classes　in　general　is　determined　by　the　institutions。
  What　are　economic　institutions　but　a　product　of　human
  feelings　and　thought；　of　human　actions；　human　customs　and　human
  laws？　And　just　this　causes　us　to　apply　the　standard　of　justice　to
  their　results；　just　this　makes　us　inquire　whether　they　and　their
  effects　are　just　or　unjust。　We　do　not　require　the　distribution　of
  incomes　or　wealth　to　be　just　absolutely；　we　do　not　require　it　of
  technical　economic　acts　which　do　not　concern　others；　but　we　do
  require　the　numerous　economic　acts　which　on　the　basis　of　barter
  and　division　of　labor　concern　others　and　entire　communities　to　be
  just。
  Where　such　acts　come　into　consideration　our　observations
  discern　moral　communities；　their　common　aims　and　the　human
  qualities；　which　are　connected　with　these　aims。
  The　most　primitive　barter　is　impossible；　unless。　between　the
  parties　practising　it　regularly；　a　certain　moral　understanding
  exists。　There　must　have　been　an　express　or　silent　mutual
  agreement　to　preserve　peace。　The　barterers　must　have　common
  conceptions　of　value；　must　recognize　a　common　law。　Every　seller
  forms　with　the　purchaser；　who　stands　before　him　at　the　moment　of
  the　transaction；　a　moral　union　of　confidence。
  In　epochs　of　primitive　culture；　in　the　social　communities　of
  families；　of　kinship；　of　tribes；　of　leagues；　there　exists　an
  uncommonly　strong　feeling　of　solidarity　which　therefore　leads　to
  very　far…reaching　demands　of　justice　within　these　circles；　as
  well　as　to　a　complete　obtuseness　of　the　same　feeling　beyond　them。
  With　a　higher　degree　of　culture　these　small　communities　lose；　the
  individual　and　the　greater　communities　gain　in　importance。　Now
  the　individual　and　now　the　community　appears　more　in　the
  foreground；　and　accordingly　the　consciousness　of　the