Suppose I present myself at the bar of the National Assembly, and say, 'I exercise a trade, and I do not find that my profits are sufficient: consequently I pray you to pass a law authorizing the tax-collectors to levy, for my benefit, only one centime upon each French family,' If the legislature grants my request, this could only be taken as a single act of legal robbery, which does not at this point merit the name of Communism. But if all Frenchmen, one after the other, made the same request, and if the legislature examined them with the avowed object of realizing the equality of goods, it is in this principle, followed by its effects, that I see, and that you cannot help seeing, Communism. Whether, in order to realize its theory, the legislature employs custom-house officers or excise collectors, imposes direct or indirect taxes, encourages by protection or premiums, matters but little. Does it believe itself authorized to _take_ and to _give_ without compensation? Does it believe that its province is to regulate profits? Does it act in consequence of this belief? Do the mass of the public approve of it?--do they compel this species of action? If so, I say we are upon the descent which leads to Communism, whether we are conscious of it or not. And if they say to me, the state never acts thus in favour of any one, but only in favour of some classes, I would reply--Then it has found the means of making Communism even worse than it naturally is. I know, Sir, that some doubt is thrown on these conclusions by the aid of a ready confusion of ideas. Some administrative acts are quoted, very legitimate cases in their way, where the intervention of the state is as equitable as it is useful; then, establishing an apparent analogy between these cases, and those against which I protest, they will attempt to place me in the wrong, and will say to me--'As you can only see Communism in Protection, so you ought to see it in every case where government interferes.' This is a trap into which I will not fall. This is why I am compelled to inquire what is the precise circumstance which impresses on state intervention the communistic character. What is the province of the state? What are the things which individuals ought to entrust to the Supreme Power? Which are those which they ought to reserve for private enterprise? To reply to these questions would require a dissertation on political economy. Fortunately I need not do this for the purpose of solving the problem before us.