Answer to the Question on Rural Trade, § 16

§ 16

Yes, my reader now says, that is how it began, but ah, how did the game end? To that I reply: that game of being able to enjoy freedom in everything, except vices, is not a new one; it is the oldest of all and has already been able to show its effect for several thousand years. It, and not constraints, has filled the world with people and supplied58 their needs; the same causes must in every age have the same effects.

Apart from that, we have quite new gratifying evidence of the effects of freedom in our time. I merely wish to cite a single case: from Florence the following was recently reported on 15 April: “Within a few years the population here has manifestly increased. Wherever people may live without constraint and oppression, there they inevitably increase in numbers. That principle is constantly in the mind of our enlightened government. The grain trade enjoys an unrestricted freedom, and no individual is hampered in any useful enterprise. Everyone acts and lives here as he wishes, under the protection of the laws. The government is greatly concerned for the health of the people and by means of suitable regulations prevents59 the spread of all epidemics. During 1767 a great multitude of people died in Tuscany, some because they could not afford the extremely expensive grain, some because their health was affected by its spoiled condition.1During 1767 a great multitude of people died in Tuscany: without doubt the spread of epidemic disease (contagious pneumonia) in Tuscany in 1767 was made worse by famine caused by bad harvests. It is often supposed that this had to do with restrictions on the trade of grain. As a consequence of the famine, the grain trade was opened in September 1767, after which conditions seem to have improved. The government, however, with the most laudable generosity, arranged from its own resources the importation from abroad and distribution among the people of grain worth more than 500,000 Roman daler. Since then the harvests have during several years been far worse than that, but Tuscany has nevertheless always had a surplus of grain, and that of good quality. Nor have any such general diseases ravaged the country. To what may one then attribute the amazing difference between these, in certain respects equivalent, periods?60 During the aforementioned year Tuscany was still subject to the restrictive principle in respect of all commerce that was then still common in Europe and especially with regard to grain, the transport and sale of which were burdened with the most intolerable obstacles. During recent years our mild Sovereign2our mild Sovereign: refers to Leopold I (1747–92), Grand Duke of Tuscany from 1765 to 1790; also known as Leopold II when he was Holy Roman Emperor and king of Hungary and Bohemia, from 1790 to 1792. has removed all these fetters, and Tuscany has that freedom to thank for its present bliss.”

What objections can one have to all this? The blessed effect of freedom has within eight years become so manifest that it is already obvious to everyone who has not become quite blinded by prejudices and self­interest. How long, then, shall Swedes argue about the means to make the country blissful? or how long shall the repressed freedom be trampled upon by self­interest and private aims?

1. During 1767 a great multitude of people died in Tuscany: without doubt the spread of epidemic disease (contagious pneumonia) in Tuscany in 1767 was made worse by famine caused by bad harvests. It is often supposed that this had to do with restrictions on the trade of grain. As a consequence of the famine, the grain trade was opened in September 1767, after which conditions seem to have improved.
2. our mild Sovereign: refers to Leopold I (1747–92), Grand Duke of Tuscany from 1765 to 1790; also known as Leopold II when he was Holy Roman Emperor and king of Hungary and Bohemia, from 1790 to 1792.