；　without　impairing　in　the　least　the　hierarchy　of　functions；　I　will　deduce　the　equality　of　fortunes。
  This　is　my　second　point。
  II。　RELATIONS。　　In　considering　the　element　of　labor；　I　have　shown　that　in　the　same　class　of　productive　services；　the　capacity　to　perform　a　social　task　being　possessed　by　all；　no　inequality　of　reward　can　be　based　upon　an　inequality　of　individual　powers。　　However；　it　is　but　fair　to　say　that　certain　capacities　seem　quite　incapable　of　certain　services；　so　that；　if　human　industry　were　entirely　confined　to　one　class　of　products；　numerous　incapacities　would　arise；　and；　consequently；　the　greatest　social　inequality。　　But　every　body　sees；　without　any　hint　from　me；　that　the　variety　of　industries　avoids　this　difficulty；　so　clear　is　this　that　I　shall　not　stop　to　discuss　it。　　We　have　only　to　prove；　then；　that　functions　are　equal　to　each　other；　just　as　laborers；　who　perform　the　same　function；　are　equal　to　each　other。
  Property　makes　man　a　eunuch；　and　then　reproaches　him　for　being　nothing　but　dry　wood；　a　decaying　tree。
  Are　you　astonished　that　I　refuse　to　genius；　to　knowledge；　to　courage；in　a　word；　to　all　the　excellences　admired　by　the　world；the　homage　of　dignities；　the　distinctions　of　power　and　wealth？　　It　is　not　I　who　refuse　it：　it　is　economy；　it　is　justice；　it　is　liberty。　　Liberty！　for　the　first　time　in　this　discussion　I　appeal　to　her。　　Let　her　rise　in　her　own　defence；　and　achieve　her　victory。
  Every　transaction　ending　in　an　exchange　of　products　or　services　may　be　designated　as　a　COMMERCIAL　OPERATION。
  Whoever　says　commerce；　says　exchange　of　equal　values；　for；　if　the　values　are　not　equal；　and　the　injured　party　perceives　it；　he　will　not　consent　to　the　exchange；　and　there　will　be　no　commerce。
  Commerce　exists　only　among　free　men。　　Transactions　may　be　effected　between　other　people　by　violence　or　fraud；　but　there　is　no　commerce。
  A　free　man　is　one　who　enjoys　the　use　of　his　reason　and　his　faculties；　who　is　neither　blinded　by　passion；　nor　hindered　or　driven　by　oppression；　nor　deceived　by　erroneous　opinions。
  So；　in　every　exchange；　there　is　a　moral　obligation　that　neither　of　the　contracting　parties　shall　gain　at　the　expense　of　the　other；　that　is；　that；　to　be　legitimate　and　true；　commerce　must　be　exempt　from　all　inequality。　　This　is　the　first　condition　of　commerce。　　Its　second　condition　is；　that　it　be　voluntary；　that　is；　that　the　parties　act　freely　and　openly。
  I　define；　then；　commerce　or　exchange　as　an　act　of　society。
  The　negro　who　sells　his　wife　for　a　knife；　his　children　for　some　bits　of　glass；　and　finally　himself　for　a　bottle　of　brandy；　is　not　free。　　The　dealer　in　human　flesh；　with　whom　he　negotiates；　is　not　his　associate；　he　is　his　enemy。
  The　civilized　laborer　who　bakes　a　loaf　that　he　may　eat　a　slice　of　bread；　who　builds　a　palace　that　he　may　sleep　in　a　stable；　who　weaves　rich　fabrics　that　he　may　dress　in　rags；　who　produces　every　thing　that　he　may　dispense　with　every　thing；is　not　free。　　His　employer；　not　becoming　his　associate　in　the　exchange　of　salaries　or　services　which　takes　place　between　them；　is　his　enemy。
  The　soldier　who　serves　his　country　through　fear　instead　of　through　love　is　not　free；　his　comrades　and　his　officers；　the　ministers　or　organs　of　military　justice；　are　all　his　enemies。
  The　peasant　who　hires　land；　the　manufacturer　who　borrows　capital；　the　tax…payer　who　pays　tolls；　duties；　patent　and　license　fees；　personal　and　property　taxes；　&c。；　and　the　deputy　who　votes　for　them；all　act　neither　intelligently　nor　freely。　　Their　enemies　are　the　proprietors；　the　capitalists；　the　government。
  Give　men　liberty；　enlighten　their　minds　that　they　may　know　the　meaning　of　their　contracts；　and　you　will　see　the　most　perfect　equality　in　exchanges　without　regard　to　superiority　of　talent　and　knowledge；　and　you　will　admit　that　in　commercial　affairs；　that　is；　in　the　sphere　of　society；　the　word　superiority　is　void　of　sense。
  Let　Homer　sing　his　verse。　　I　listen　to　this　sublime　genius　in　comparison　with　whom　I；　a　simple　herdsman；　an　humble　farmer；　am　as　nothing。　　What；　indeed；if　product　is　to　be　compared　with　product；are　my　cheeses　and　my　beans　in　the　presence　of　his　〃Iliad〃？　　But；　if　Homer　wishes　to　take　from　me　all　that　I　possess；　and　make　me　his　slave　in　return　for　his　inimitable　poem；　I　will　give　up　the　pleasure　of　his　lays；　and　dismiss　him。　　I　can　do　without　his　〃Iliad；〃　and　wait；　if　necessary；　for　the　〃AEneid。〃
  Homer　cannot　live　twenty…four　hours　without　my　products。　　Let　him　accept；　then；　the　little　that　I　have　to　offer；　and　then　his　muse　may　instruct；　encourage；　and　console　me。
  〃What！　do　you　say　that　such　should　be　the　condition　of　one　who　sings　of　gods　and　men？　　Alms；　with　the　humiliation　and　suffering　which　they　bring　with　them！what　barbarous　generosity！〃　。　。　。　　Do　not　get　excited；　I　beg　of　you。　　Property　makes　of　a　poet　either　a　Croesus　or　a　beggar；　only　equality　knows　how　to　honor　and　to　praise　him。　　What　is　its　duty？　　To　regulate　the　right　of　the　singer　and　the　duty　of　the　listener。　　Now；　notice　this　point；　which　is　a　very　important　one　in　the　solution　of　this　question：　both　are　free；　the　one　to　sell；　the　other　to　buy。　　Henceforth　their　respective　pretensions　go　for　nothing；　and　the　estimate；　whether　fair　or　unfair；　that　they　place；　the　one　upon　his　verse；　the　other　upon　his　liberality；　can　have　no　influence　upon　the　conditions　of　the　contract。　　We　must　no　longer；　in　making　our　bargains；　weigh　talent；　we　must　consider　products　only。
  In　order　that　the　bard　of　Achilles　may　get　his　due　reward；　he　must　first　make　himself　wanted：　that　done；　the　exchange　of　his　verse　for　a　fee　of　any　kind；　being　a　free　act；　must　be　at　the　same　time　a　just　act；　that　is；　the　poet's　fee　must　be　equal　to　his　product。　　Now；　what　is　the　value　of　this　product？
  Let　us　suppose；　in　the　first　place；　that　this　〃Iliad〃this　chef…d'　oeuvre　that　is　to　be　equitably　rewardedis　really　above　price；　that　we　do　not　know　how　to　appraise　it。　　If　the　public；　who　are　free　to　purchase　it；　refuse　to　do　so；　it　is　clear　that；　the　poem　being　unexchangeable；　its　intrinsic　value　will　not　be　diminished；　but　that　its　exchangeable　value；　or　its　productive　utility；　will　be　reduced　to　zero；　will　be　nothing　at　all。　　Then　we　must　seek　the　amount　of　wages　to　be　paid　between　infinity　on　the　one　hand　and　nothing　on　the　other；　at　an　equal　distance　from　each；　since　all　rights　and　liberties　are　entitled　to　equal　respect；　in　other　words；　it　is　not　the　intrinsic　value；　but　the　relative　value；　of　the　thing　sold　that　needs　to　be　fixed。　　The　question　grows　simpler：　what　is　this　relative　value？　　To　what　reward　does　a　poem　like　the　〃Iliad〃　entitle　its　author？
  The　first　business　of　political　economy；　after　fixing　its　definitions；　was　the　solution　of　this　problem；　now；　not　only　has　it　not　been　solved；　but　it　has　been　declared　insoluble。　　According　to　the　economists；　the　relative　or　exchangeable　value　of　things　cannot　be　absolutely　determined；　it　necessarily　varies。
  〃The　value　of　a　thing；〃　says　Say；　〃is　a　positive　quantity；　but　only　for　a　given　moment。　　It　is　its　nature　to　perpetually　vary；　to　change　from　one　point　to　another。　　Nothing　can　fix　it　absolutely；　because　it　is　based　on　needs　and　means　of　production　which　vary　with　every　moment。　　These　variations　complicate　economical　phenomena；　and　often　render　them　very　difficult　of　observation　and　solution。　　I　know　no　remedy　for　this；　it　is　not　in　our　power　to　change　the　nature　of　things。〃
  Elsewhere　Say　says；　and　repeats；　that　value　being　based　on　utility；　and　utility　depending　entirely　on　our　needs；　whims；　customs；　&c。；　value　is　as　variable　as　opinion。　　Now；　political　economy　being　the　science　of　values；　of　their　production；　distribution；　exchange；　and　consumption；if　exchangeable　value　cannot　be　absolutely　determined；　how　is　political　economy　possible？　　How　can　it　be　a　science？　　How　can　two　economists　look　each　other　in　the　face　without　laughing？　　How　dare　they　insult　metaphysicians　and　psychologists？　　What！　that　fool　of　a　Descartes　imagined　that　philosophy　needed　an　immovable　basean　_aliquid　inconcussum_on　which　the　edifice　of　science　might　be　built；　and　he　was　simple　enough　to　search　for　it！　　And　the　Hermes　of　economy；　Trismegistus　Say；　devoting　half　a　volume　to　the　amplification　of　that　solemn　text；　_political　economy　is　a　science_；　has　the　courage　to　affirm　immediately　afterwards　that　this　science　cannot　determine　its　object；which　is　equivalent　to　saying　that　it　is　without　a　principle　or　foundation！　　He　does　not　know；　then；　the　illustrious　Say；　the　nature　of　a　science；　or　rather；　he　knows　nothing　of　the　subject　which　he　discusses。
  Say's　example　has　borne　its　fruits。　　Political　economy；　as　it　exists　at　present；　resembles　ontology：　discussing　effects　and　causes；　it　knows　nothing；　explains　nothing；　decides　nothing。　　The　ideas　honored　with　the　name　of　economic　laws　are　nothing　more　than　a　few　trifling　generalities；　to　which　the　economists　thought　to　give　an　appearance　of　depth　by　clothing　them　in　high…sounding　words。　　As　for　the　attempts　that　have　been　made　by　the　economists　to　solve　social　problems；　all　that　can　be　said　of　them　is；　that；　if　a　glimmer　of　sense　occasionally　appears　in　their　lucubrations；　they　immediately　fall　back　into　absurdity。　　For　twenty…five　years　political　economy；　like　a　heavy