"Frederick Bastiat - That Which Is Seen-That Which Is Not" - читать интересную книгу автора (Bastiat Frederick)

Have you ever chanced to hear it said "There is no better
investment than taxes. Only see what a number of families it
maintains, and consider how it reacts on industry; it is an
inexhaustible stream, it is life itself."

In order-to combat this doctrine, I must refer to my
preceding refutation. Political economy knew well enough that its
arguments were not so amusing that it could be said of them,
repetitions please. It has, therefore, turned the proverb to its own
use, well convinced that, in its mouth. repetitions teach.

The advantages which officials advocate are those which are
seen. The benefit which accrues to the providers is still that which
is seen. This blinds all eyes.

But the disadvantages which the tax-payers have to get rid of
are those which are not seen. And the injury which results from it
to the providers, is still that which is not seen, although this ought
to be self-evident.

When an official spends for his own profit an extra hundred
sous, it implies that a tax-payer spends for his profit a hundred sous
less. But the expense of the official is seen, because the act is
performed, while that of the tax-payer is not seen, because, alas!
he is prevented from performing it.

You compare the nation, perhaps, to a parched tract of land,
and the tax to a fertilizing rain. Be it so. But you ought also to ask
yourself where are the sources of this rain and whether it is not
the tax itself which draws away the moisture from the ground and dries
it up?

Again, you ought to ask yourself whether it is possible that
the soil can receive as much of this precious water by rain as it
loses by evaporation?

There is one thing very certain, that when James B. counts
out a hundred sous for the tax-gatherer, he receives nothing in
return. Afterwards, when an official spends these hundred sous and
returns them to James B., it is for an equal value of corn or
labour. The final result is a loss to James B. of five francs.

It is very true that often, perhaps very often, the official
performs for James B. an equivalent service. In this case there is
no loss on either side; there is merely in exchange. Therefore, my
arguments do not at all apply to useful functionaries. All I say is,
-if you wish to create an office, prove its utility. Show that its
value to James B., by the services which it performs for him, is equal
to what it costs him. But, apart from this intrinsic utility, do not
bring forward as an argument the benefit which it confers upon the