industrious and clever as other people. A protection of this nature, sufficiently effective to attain its end, would not fail to arrest the efforts of those who had accomplished something, and even to turn them backward. That freedom of competition is a species of declaration of war,(581) among men considered as producers, is certain; but, at the same time, it makes all men considered as consumers members of one society, in which all the members are equally interested, a fact too much overlooked by socialists.(582) It is the means especially by which the greatest and ever increasing portion of the forces of nature are raised to the character of the free and common property of the human race.(583) “Man is not the favorite of nature in the sense that nature has done everything for him, but in the sense that it has endowed him with the ability to do everything for himself. The right of freedom of competition may, therefore, be considered both the protection and the image of this provision of nature.” (_Zachariä._)(584) The person, therefore, who claims or asserts an exception from the rule of free competition, has to prove his position in every individual case, since the burthen of proof is on him. But the duty of interference on the part of the state is positively pointed out where any interest common to the whole people is not in a condition to assert itself; and negatively, when the custom which hitherto had prevented an undoubted abuse has grown too weak to continue to perform that service. In _both_ regards I would call attention to the protection of factory children against the concurrent selfishness of their parents and masters.(585)(586) _Supra_, § 39. Section XCVIII. How Goods Are Paid For.—The Rent For Goods.