In the more succinct terms of Political Economy, the supply should be small, the demand large; or yet in other words: limited competition, unlimited consumption.
What on the other side is the immediate interest of the consumer?
That the supply should be large, the demand small.
As these two interests are immediately opposed to each other, it follows that if one coincides with the general interest of society the other must be adverse to it.
Which then, if either, should legislation favor as contributing most to the good of the community?
To determine this question, it suffices to inquire in which the secret desires of the majority of men would be accomplished.
Inasmuch as we are producers, it must be confessed that we have each of us anti-social desires.

Are we vine-growers?
It would not distress _us_ were the frost to nip all the vines in the world except our own: _this is the scarcity theory_.

Are we iron-workers?
We would desire (whatever might be the public need) that the market should offer no iron but our own; and precisely for the reason that this need, painfully felt and imperfectly supplied, causes us to receive a high price for _our_ iron: _again here is the theory of scarcity_.

Are we agriculturists?
We say with Mr.Bugeaud, let bread be dear, that is to say scarce, and our business goes well: _again the theory of scarcity_.
Are we physicians?
We cannot but see that certain physical ameliorations, such as the improved climate of the country, the development of certain moral virtues, the progress of knowledge pushed to the extent of enabling each individual to take care of his own health, the discovery of certain simple remedies easily applied, would be so many fatal blows to our profession.

As physicians, then, our secret desires are anti-social.