COMPETITION AS TO REWARDS.When a potion of the matter of reward is allotted for the purchase of services, ought the liberty of competition tobe submitted?---in any, and what cases?---what is the general rule, and what are the exceptions?---in the case of that species of service?---for what species of reward?
If popular opinion be allowed to determine, the question concerning the general rule is already answered.In all cases in which no particular reason can be given to the contrary the liberty of competition ought to be admitted upon the largest scale.Yet to thin decision of the public, the practice of nation that is, of those who bear the sway in nations is by no means uniformly conformable: there are privileges and there are exclusions---pursuits open to one set, closed to another set of men: all governments have been more or less infected with that intermeddling disposition, which believes it can give perfection to particular species of service, by appropriating its exercise exclusively to particular individuals.
That there may be cases fit to be excepted out of the above general rule, is allowed: hut before we come to the consideration of the exceptions, let us see how the matter stands upon principle---whether the people are most right, or their rulers.
And in the first place, by way of illustration, let us stop a moment to examine the connexion there is upon this occasion between reward and punishment.Let us suppose, apprehensions are entertained of the prevalence of murder and incendiarism.Against a particular person the suspicions are stronger than against any one else.There is as yet no law against either of those offences.The sovereign, intending to do his utmost to guard the state against those calamities sends for the suspected person, and prohibits him from committing any such crimes, under such penalties as he thinks proper: for the suspected person, observe, and for him only;there being as yet no general law prohibiting such enormities and everybody else being left at perfect liberty.If it were possible that any such incident could have happened within time of history, should not we pronounce at once that either the nation could not yet have emerged from a state of the profoundest barbarism, or else that the sovereign so acting would not have been in his right mind.Such, however, is the exact counterpart of the policy of him, who wanting a service to be performed of such a nature as that, for aught he can be certain, there are several competent to perform it---some better than others, and each man, according to the motives that are given him, better than himself---commits the business to one in exclusion of the rest.
If penal laws must be applicable to all, that there may be a chance of preventing all offences, the offer of reward ought to be general, that there may be a chance of obtaining services, and of obtaining the best.
If we inquire in detail for the reasons why competition for reward, and for everything else which can be bestowed in the way of producing service, should be as open and as free as possible, the question may be considered in two points of view---first, as it concerns the interests of those for whose sake the service wanted is to be performed; secondly, as it concerns the interest of those by whom the service might come to be performed.
With regard to the former set of interests, it has already been observed, as a reason for the employment of reward as a fitter instrument than punishment for attaining a given degree of excellence, the idea of which has already been conceived by the person who wishes it to be attained, that the chance is greater when reward is employed as the incitement than when use is made of punishment because punishment can only operate upon few selected individuals, and should they be unequal to the task, would be altogether employed in ruin.Whatever number you select, you forego all the chance which you might have of the service being performed by any one else.The case is equally the same when rewards are offered to a selected few.Allowing the liberty of competition, you may propose rewards to any number without expense---you pay it but to one: you do not pay it till the service is performed; and the chance of its being performed is in proportion to the number of persons to whom it is proposed.
Another advantage which reward has over punishment, as we have seen, is, that by means of the former, the value of the service may be brought to an indefinitely high degree of perfection.But this can only be effected by means of a free competition.In this way, and this only, can individuals be led to exert their faculties.Were the reward proposed to one only, having rendered the degree of service sufficient to entitle him to the reward be would stop there: to make the exertions necessary to carry it to any higher degree of perfection, would be to trouble himself to no purpose.But let reward be offered to that one of two competitors, for example, who best performs the service: unless either of them know exactly the degree of skill possessed by the other, and knows it to be clearly inferior to his own, each will exert himself to his utmost, since the more perfect he makes his work, the better chance has he of gaining the reward.The matter is so ordered, that for every part of the greatest degree of service he can possibly find means to render, there will be a motive to induce him to render it.The same reasoning may be applied to any other number of competitors; and the chance of perfection will be increased, if the faculties of the competitors are equal in proportion to their number.
