To return to the question of method. Rossi made use of an ingenious example to explain his thought:44 “Are,” he inquires, “these deductions [of pure science] perfectly legitimate; are these consequences always true? It is incontestably true that a projectile, discharged at a certain angle, will describe a certain curve; this is a mathematical truth. It is equally true, that the resistance offered to the projectile by the medium through which it moves modifies the speculative result in practice, to some extent; this is a truth of observation. Is the mathematical deduction false? By no means; but it supposes a vacuum. I hasten to acknowledge it. Speculative economy also neglects certain facts and leaves certain resistances out of account.” Now, from the moment that we have to deal with human interests, it is not possible to suppose a vacuum, to neglect the most vulgar facts, and the most common instances of resistance, nor to lose one's self in abstraction. The correctives of applied Political Economy either may not wipe out this original sin, or else they run great danger of covering up the principles themselves. In ballistics, again, we may measure the resistance which the medium in which we are obliged to operate, makes the force of impulsion and the target both obey the same law, and yield to the same process of calculation. But is it thus when you touch upon man's innermost and most sensitive part? Is there not danger that the hypotheses may be deceitful, and that you may be accused of toiling in a vacuum? We well know the solid reason that may be opposed to sarcasm of this nature; but is it expedient to lay one's self open to it?

Moreover, the consequences are not great enough to warrant us to expose ourselves to the danger. The principles of pure science are very small in number. They might even, be easily reduced to one, of which M. Cousin has been the eloquent [pg 040] interpreter—human liberty. This liberty has no need of Political Economy to shine with the luster of evidence; nothing can prevail against it. We can prove that it is as fecund as it is respectable; but if the science of wealth should endeavor to demonstrate the contrary, the primordial bases of society, liberty, property and the family would not be less sacred nor less necessary, for they are the right of humanity. They could not be put aside, even under pretext of any mechanism which would claim to produce more.45 These sovereign principles of economy flow from the moral law, and they have no reason to dread the power of facts, for the prosperity of nations depends on the respect with which they are surrounded and the guarantees by which they are protected.

We have spoken of the moral law; and, indeed, in our opinion, it is impossible to banish it from the domain of public economy. Any other point of view seems to us too narrow. And when we see eminent men go astray in the pursuit of an ideal which fails to take the human soul into account, and which finds nothing but equations where there are feelings and ideas, we cannot help thinking that they are unfaithful to the thought of the founder of the science, Adam Smith. Man is not simply a piece of machinery. He does not blindly submit to external impulse. Rather is he himself, the greatest of impulses. But to govern things, he must first learn to conquer himself. Personal interest is the powerful motive which he obeys. Man does not live alone, in a state of isolation, in the world. VÆ soli! He lives in society and profits by the relations which he forms with other beings, intelligent like himself, and for whom he has a natural feeling of sympathy.

The good that comes to them yields satisfaction to him, and the evil that befalls them falls on him likewise. He cannot turn back entirely upon his own personality. Besides his own interest, he feels and shares another interest—the interest of all. Personal interest is perfectly legitimate. The love of self cannot [pg 041] be condemned. The Savior himself has enjoined us to love our neighbor as ourselves. To love him more than ourselves is a very high and beautiful virtue. It is the self-abnegation which inspired Christian heroes. But heroism is rare, and cannot be imposed, nor taken, as a rule. Personal interest is a powerful stimulant, and the superior harmony of social relations makes it contribute to the general good.

What must be condemned is a fatal deviation of this sentiment which destroys its effect and narrows its actions. What we need to prevent is the degeneration of personal interest into an egotism which parches, instead of fertilizing, and which compromises the future by the exclusive search after present advantage; for egotism is short-sighted. On the other hand, the broader and more generous feeling which inclines us to sympathize with our fellow beings in their sorrows, and to unite our destiny to theirs; that is, the feeling of the general interest, has a limit too.

It would be falsified if it absorbed the individual; if it destroyed the most powerful motive-force by drying up the abundant source of activity; if it attacked moral energy by enervating responsibility; if it extended the circle of results obtained to such an extent that scarcely any one should feel the rebound.

The evil produced by egotism, that sad travesty of personal interest, appears under a form quite as formidable when the general interest takes the form of communism. The coÖperation of personal interest and of the general interest is always necessary, both for individual profit and social advantage. There is as much danger in annihilating the individual as in exalting him. History furnishes us with memorable examples of this. It does not allow us to go astray in the narrow ways of a peevish and jealous personality, nor to lose ourselves in the vague labyrinth of a chimerical and false communism. The latter would destroy what constitutes the power and dignity of man. It would wipe out the most prominent features of his noble nature, by destroying the support of energy and activity and the food of moral force.