But why?
Because in this extreme supposition every imaginable need and desire would be completely satisfied.

Man, like the All-powerful, would create by the single act of his will.

How in such an hypothesis could laborious production be regretted?
Imagine a legislative assembly composed of producers, of whom each member should cause to pass into a law his secret desire as a _producer_; the code which would emanate from such an assembly could be nothing but systematized monopoly; the scarcity theory put into practice.
In the same manner, an assembly in which each member should consult only his immediate interest of _consumer_ would aim at the systematizing of free trade; the suppression of every restrictive measure; the destruction of artificial barriers; in a word, would realize the theory of abundance.
It follows then, That to consult exclusively the immediate interest of the producer, is to consult an anti-social interest.
To take exclusively for basis the interest of the consumer, is to take for basis the general interest.
* * * * * Let me be permitted to insist once more upon this point of view, though at the risk of repetition.
A radical antagonism exists between the seller and the buyer.
The former wishes the article offered to be _scarce_, supply small, and at a high price.
The latter wishes it _abundant_, supply large, and at a low price.
The laws, which should at least remain neutral, take part for the seller against the buyer; for the producer against the consumer; for high against low prices; for scarcity against abundance.

They act, if not intentionally at least logically, upon the principle that _a nation is rich in proportion as it is in want of every thing_.
For, say they, it is necessary to favor the producer by securing him a profitable disposal of his goods.

To effect this, their price must be raised; to raise the price the supply must be diminished; and to diminish the supply is to create scarcity.
Let us suppose that at this moment, with these laws in full action, a complete inventory should be made, not by value, but by weight, measure and quantity, of all articles now in France calculated to supply the necessities and pleasures of its inhabitants; as grain, meat, woollen and cotton goods, fuel, etc.
Let us suppose again that to-morrow every barrier to the introduction of foreign goods should be removed.
Then, to judge of the effect of such a reform, let a new inventory be made three months hence.
Is it not certain that at the time of the second inventory, the quantity of grain, cattle, goods, iron, coal, sugar, etc., will be greater than at the first?
So true is this, that the sole object of our protective tariffs is to prevent such articles from reaching us, to diminish the supply, to prevent low prices, or which is the same thing, the abundance of goods.
Now I ask, are the people under the action of these laws better fed because there is _less_ bread, _less_ meat, and _less_ sugar in the country?
Are they better dressed because there are _fewer_ goods?
Better warmed because there is _less_ coal?
Or do they prosper better in their labor because iron, copper, tools and machinery are scarce?
But, it is answered, if we are inundated with foreign goods and produce, our coin will leave the country.
Well, and what matters that?
Man is not fed with coin.