FullReads

Phed
. (Laughing). This is too hot to last. Here we have a fifth refutation. Can’t you give us a sixth, X.?

X
. If you please. Supposing Mr. Malthus’ theory to be good, it shall be impossible for anything whatsoever at any time to vary in value. For how shall it vary? Because the quantity of producing labor varies? But that is the very principle which he is writing to overthrow. Shall it vary, then, because the value of the producing labor varies? But that is impossible on the system of Mr. Malthus; for, according to this system, the value of labor is invariable.

Phil
. Stop! I’ve thought of a dodge. The thing shall vary because the quantity of labor commanded shall vary.

X
. But how shall that vary? A can never command a greater quantity of labor, or of anything which is presumed to be of invariable value, until A itself be of a higher value. To command an altered quantity of labor, which (on any theory) must be the consequence of altered value, can never be the cause of altered value. No alterations of labor, therefore, whether as to quantity or value, shall ever account for the altered value of A; for, according to Mr. Malthus, they are either insufficient on the one hand, or impossible on the other.

Phil
. Grant this, yet value may still vary; for suppose labor to be invariable, still profits may vary.

X
. So that, if A rise, it will irresistibly argue profits to have risen?

Phil
. It will; because no other element can have risen.

X
. But now column eight assigns the value of a uniform quantity of corn–namely, one hundred quarters. In case Alpha, one hundred quarters are worth 8.33. What are one hundred quarters worth in the case Iota?

Phil
. They are worth ten.

X
. And that is clearly more. Now, if A have risen, by your own admission I am entitled to infer that profits have risen: but what are profits in the case Iota?

Phil
. By column four they are twenty per cent.

X
. And what in the case Alpha?

Phil
. By column four, twenty-five per cent.

X
. Then profits have fallen in the case Iota, but, because L has risen in case Iota from 8.33 to ten, it is an irresistible inference, on your theory, that profits ought to have risen.

Phed
. (Laughing). Philebus, this is a sharp practice; go on, X., and skirmish with him a little more in this voltigeur style.

N.B.–With respect to “The Templars’ Dialogues,” it may possibly be complained, that this paper is in some measure a fragment. My answer is, that, although fragmentary in relation to the entire system of Ricardo, and that previous system which he opposed, it is no fragment in relation to the radical principle concerned in those systems. The conflicting systems are brought under review simply at the locus of collision: just as the reader may have seen the chemical theory of Dr. Priestley, and the counter-theory of his anti- phlogistic opponents, stated within the limits of a single page. If the principle relied on by either party can be shown to lead into inextricable self-contradiction, that is enough. So much is accomplished in that case as was proposed from the beginning–namely, not to exhaust the positive elements of this system or that, but simply to settle the central logic of their several polemics; to settle, in fact, not the matter of what is evolved, but simply the principle of evolution.