Socialists look upon people as raw material to be formed intosocial combinations. This is so true that, if by chance, thesocialists have any doubts about the success of these combinations,they will demand that a small portion of mankind be set aside toexperiment upon. The popular idea of trying all systems is wellknown. And one socialist leader has been known seriously to demandthat the Constituent Assembly give him a small district with all itsinhabitants, to try his experiments upon.
In the same manner, an inventor makes a model before he constructsthe full-sized machine; the chemist wastes some chemicals -- thefarmer wastes some seeds and land -- to try out an idea.
But what a difference there is between the gardener and his trees,between the inventor and his machine, between the chemist and hiselements, between the farmer and his seeds! And in all sincerity, thesocialist thinks that there is the same difference between him andmankind!
It is no wonder that the writers of the nineteenth century lookupon society as an artificial creation of the legislator's genius.This idea -- the fruit of classical education -- has taken possessionof all the intellectuals and famous writers of our country. To theseintellectuals and writers, the relationship between persons and thelegislator appears to be the same as the relationship between theclay and the potter.
Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a principleof action in the heart of man -- and a principle of discernment inman's intellect -- they have considered these gifts from God to befatal gifts. They have thought that persons, under the impulse ofthese two gifts, would fatally tend to ruin themselves. They assumethat if the legislators left persons free to follow their owninclinations, they would arrive at atheism instead of religion,ignorance instead of knowledge, poverty instead of production andexchange.