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. Let us look at him in the second character, and the conclusion
will be different. We may say:

The consumer is rich in proportion as he _buys_ at a low price. He
buys at a low price in proportion to the abundance of the articles in
demand; _abundance_, then, enriches him. This reasoning, extended to
all consumers, must lead to the _theory of abundance_.

Which theory is right?

Can we hesitate to say? Suppose that by following out the _scarcity
theory_, suppose that through prohibitions and restrictions we were
compelled not only to make our own iron, but to grow our own coffee;
in short, to obtain everything with difficulty and great outlay of