commodities for actual public consumption does
not, of course, require by any means all the national force of workers.
After the necessary contingents have been detailed for the various
industries, the amount of labor left for other employment is expended
in creating fixed capital, such as buildings, machinery, engineering
works, and so forth."

"One point occurs to me," I said, "on which I should think there might
be dissatisfaction. Where there is no opportunity for private
enterprise, how is there any assurance that the claims of small
minorities of the people to have articles produced, for which there is
no wide demand, will be respected? An official decree at any moment may
deprive them of the means of gratifying some special taste, merely
because the majority does not share it."

"That would be tyranny indeed," replied Dr. Leete, "and you may be very
sure that it does not happen with us, to whom liberty is as dear as
equality or fraternity. As you come to know our system better, you will
see that our officials are in fact, and not merely in name, the agents
and servants of the people. The administration has no power to stop the
production of any commodity for which there continues to be a demand.
Suppose the demand for any article declines to such a point that its
production becomes very costly. The price has to be raised in
proportion, of course, but as long as the consumer cares to pay it, the
production goes on. Again, suppose an article not before produced is
demanded. If the administration doubts the reality of the demand, a
popular petition guaranteeing a certain basis of consumption compels it
to produce the desired article. A government, or a majority, which
should undertake to tell the people, or a minority, what they were to
eat, drink, or wear, as I believe governments in America did in your
day, would be regarded as a curious anachronism indeed. Possibly you
had reasons for tolerating these infringements of personal
independence, but we should not think them endurable. I am glad you
raised this point, for it has given me a chance to show you how much
more direct and efficient is the control over production exercised by
the individual citizen now than it was in your day, when what you
called private initiative prevailed, though it should have been called
capitalist initiative, for the average private citizen had little
enough share in it."

"You speak of raising the price of costly articles," I said