Manifestly, in allowing or forbidding divorce, in extending or restricting what a man may dispose of by testament, in favoring or interdicting substitutions, it is chiefly in view of some political, economical or social advantage, either to refine or consolidate the union of the sexes, to implant in the family habits of discipline or sentiments of affection, to excite in children an initiatory spirit, or one of concord, to prepare for the nation a staff of natural chieftains, or an army of small proprietors, and always authorized by the universal assent.

Moreover, and always with this universal assent, it does other things outside the task originally assigned to it, and nobody finds that it usurps when, * it coins money, * it regulates weights and measures, * it establishes quarantines, * on condition of an indemnity, it expropriates private property for public utility, * it builds lighthouses, harbors, dikes, canals, roads, * it defrays the cost of scientific expeditions, * it founds museums and public libraries; * at times, toleration is shown for its support of universities, schools, churches, and theaters, and, to justify fresh drafts on private purses for such objects, no reason is assigned for it but the common interest.

(l'interet commun)--Why should it not, in like manner, take upon itself every enterprise for the benefit of all?
Why should it hesitate in commanding the execution of every work advantageous to the community, and why abstain from forbidding every harmful work?
Now please note that in human society every act or omission, even the most concealed or private, is either a loss or a gain to society.

So if I neglect to take care of my property or of my health, of my intellect or of my soul, I undermine or weaken in my person a member of the community which can only be rich, healthy and strong through the wealth, health and strength of his fellow members, so that, from this point of view, my private actions are all public benefits or public injuries.

Why then, from this point of view, should the State scruple about prescribing some of these to me and forbidding others?
Why, in order to better exercise this right, and better fulfill this obligation, should it not constitute itself the universal contractor for labor, and the universal distributor of productions?
Why should it not become the sole agriculturist, manufacturer and merchant, the unique proprietor and administrator of all France ?--Precisely because this would be opposed to the common weal (l'interet de tous, the interest of everyone)[2215].