4. _The services of each are being measured and paid for by each and all._ In two ways society is putting its valuation on the economic services of other members of society: first, by law, or formal social convention; secondly, by individual estimates. By formal law is determined what institutions shall be continued. If the class of property owners is considered worthy of this reward, the institution of property will be continued; if not, it will be altered or destroyed. These decisions are made imperfectly, but as well as men of limited intelligence and honesty can make them. If men were more capable in both these ways they would enact better laws. Again, individuals are putting their estimates on others in bidding for services to minister to wisdom and virtue or to ignorance and vice. If there is to be a much juster estimate of social service, there must be wiser men in society. [Sidenote: The ideal of social service] Does the world owe each man a living? No; on the contrary, each man owes the world his services in exchange for his living. The pauperism of spirit that consists in taking something for nothing is found in every rank of society that enjoys the blessings of progress without giving its best services in return. The ideal of a better adjustment of reward and service grows in the minds of men. Social evolution, shaped by this changing ideal and by accumulating experience, will bring into closer relation the social services and the economic rewards of men. CHAPTER 40 WASTE AND LUXURY § I. WASTE OF WEALTH [Sidenote: Loss of wealth in an isolated or an exchanging economy] 1. _The accidental destruction of wealth is a loss to the owner, rarely with benefit, on the whole, to others._ In the consumption of wealth the loss of its utility is accompanied by the gratifying of wants; in the destruction of wealth utility is lost without the gratifying of wants. In a simple society, without exchange, the result of such a loss is evident. If food is destroyed, men suffer from hunger or gratify appetite less perfectly; if clothing is destroyed, they are cold; if houses are destroyed, they have no shelter. Likewise, if the self-sufficing family on a farm loses wealth by fire or storm or blight, its economic environment is made less fitted to gratify wants. In the conditions of our society, where goods are exchanged, the result appears to be different. The need to replace the lost goods makes a demand for special kinds of labor or goods. There may be, therefore, an immediate benefit to some, which obscures the corresponding loss to others. If a part of the income of the loser must be diverted from other uses to replace the wealth destroyed, those from whom he would have bought suffer an unexpected falling off of their sales, and he has himself gained nothing. The net result is a loss of wealth and gratification to the community as a whole.