Thus, it appears that _sisyphism_ has been the doctrine of all the men who have been intrusted with our industrial destinies. It would be unfair to reproach them with it. This principle guides Ministers only because it is predominant in the Chambers; and it predominates in the Chambers only because it is sent there by the electoral body, and the electoral body is imbued with it only because public opinion is saturated with it. I think it right to repeat here that I do not accuse men such as MM. Bugeaud, Dupin, Saint-Cricq, and d'Argout of being absolutely and under all circumstances _sisyphists_. They are certainly not so in their private transactions; for in these they always desire to obtain _by way of exchange_ what would cost them dearer to procure _by direct production_; but I affirm they are _sisyphists_ when they hinder the country from doing the same thing.* * See on the same subject, _Sophismes Économiques_, second series, ch. xvi., post, and _Harmonies Économiques_, ch. vi. IV. TO EQUALIZE THE CONDITIONS OF PRODUCTION. It has been said.....but in case I should be accused of putting sophisms into the mouths of the protectionists, I shall allow one of their most vigorous athletes to speak for them. "It has been thought that protection in our case should simply represent the difference which exists between the cost price of a commodity which we produce and the cost price of the same commodity produced by our neighbours.... A protective duty calculated on this basis would only ensure free competition....; free competition exists only when there is equality in the conditions and in the charges. In the case of a horse race, we ascertain the weight which each horse has to carry, and so equalize the conditions; without that there could be no fair competition. In the case of trade, if one of the sellers can bring his commodity to market at less cost, he ceases to be a competitor, and becomes a monopolist.... Do away with this protection which represents the difference of cost price, and the foreigner invades our markets and acquires a monopoly."* "Every one must wish, for his own sake, as well as for the sake of others, that the production of the country should be protected against foreign competition, _whenever the latter can furnish products at a lower price._"** * M. le Vicomte de Romanet. ** Matthieu le Dombasle. This argument recurs continually in works of the protectionist school. I propose to examine it carefully, and I solicit earnestly the reader's patience and attention. I shall consider, first of all, the inequalities which are attributable to nature, and afterwards those which are attributable to diversity of taxation.