To put this theory into practice, and in order to favor each class of labor, an artificial scarcity is produced in every kind of produce by prohibitory tariffs, by restrictive laws, by monopolies, and by other analogous measures.
In the same manner it is observed that when an article is abundant, it brings a small price.

The gains of the producer are, of course, less.
If this is the case with all produce, all producers are then poor.
Abundance, then, ruins society; and as any strong conviction will always seek to force itself into practice, we see the laws of the country struggling to prevent abundance.
Now, what is the defect in this argument?
Something tells us that it must be wrong; but _where_ is it wrong?
Is it false?
No.

And yet it is wrong?
Yes.

But how?
_It is incomplete._ Man produces in order to consume.

He is at once producer and consumer.
The argument given above, considers him only under the first point of view.