paralyze the agriculture of a neighboring and less favored one?
Because the phenomena of political economy have a suppleness, an
elasticity, and, so to speak, _a self-levelling power_, which seems to
escape the attention of the school of protectionists. They accuse us
of being theoretic, but it is themselves who are so to a supreme
degree, if the being theoretic consists in building up systems upon
the experience of a single fact, instead of profiting by the
experience of a series of facts. In the above example, it is the
difference in the value of lands which compensates for the difference
in their fertility. Your field produces three times as much as mine.
Yes. But it has cost you ten times as much, and therefore I can still
compete with you: this is the sole mystery. And observe how the
advantage on one point leads to disadvantage on the other. Precisely
because your soil is more fruitful it is more dear. It is not
_accidentally_ but _necessarily_ that the equilibrium is established,
or at least inclines to establish itself: and can it be denied that
perfect freedom in exchanges is of all systems the one which favors
this tendency?

I have cited an agricultural example; I might as easily have taken one
from any trade. There are tailors at Barnegat, but that does not
prevent tailors from being in New York also, although the latter have
to pay a much higher rent, as well as higher price for furniture,
workmen, and food. But their customers are sufficiently numerous not
only to reëstablish the balance, but also to make it lean on their
side.

When, therefore, the question is about equalizing the advantages of
labor, it would be well to consider whether the natural freedom of
exchange is not the best umpire.