The gambler is said to be idle and non-productive: that a _quid pro quo_ is not given for what he receives. What is meant here by idleness and non-production? Does it signify that _labor_ is the proper basis of exchangeable value: the _only_ just source of what is called wealth? If so, the condemnation includes all who obtain wealth without working for it. Suppose it be admitted that _service_ is the one equitable title to property. What, then, of _assumed_ rights, in the form of profits, dividends, rent and interest? If _true_ wealth is the outcome of physical labor, are not banker, broker, middleman, landlord, capitalist, gentleman of leisure and gambler on the same footing. Bishop Jewel once said: “If I lend £100, and for it covenant to receive £105, or any other sum greater than was the sum I did lend, this is that we call usury: such a kind of bargaining as no good man, or godly man, ever used.” Many contend that interest contributes nothing to the support of society, but is a tax on labor. Those who receive it are said to be extortioners who live on the gains of other people. Christ, Buddha, Zoroaster, and Mahomet all put usury in the category of forbidden sins. It is discountenanced by Ezekiel, Moses, David, Aristotle, Cato, St. Basil, Masse, Bacon, Buxton, Dr. Wilson and Fenton. Ricardo, the great economist, was of the opinion that rent is not a creation of wealth, and adds nothing to the necessaries, conveniences and enjoyments of society. Adam Smith, the father of political economy, considered rent as a monopoly price paid for the use of land. Were this true, the owner of a house, when it had paid for itself, could rightfully charge for its use, the cost of his labor in transferring it to you, and the amount of wear and tear.