15: Models too perfect may sometimes rather impede than promote improvement
A model of perfection is created with the knowledge it will likely never be achieved, but is considered to be a worthwhile exercise nonetheless as a goal toward which we should strive to make progress. This observation "has a plausible appearance" but cannot be considered true in all instances.
In some instances, a model can perceive an unachievable ideal toward which progress renders no value at all and may, in fact, distract intellect and resources from the pursuit of more feasible but less perfect goals. An intellectual may realize he can be more productive if he does not pause in his pursuits to eat or sleep - attempting to do so will not succeed and will degrade the quality of his intellectual product.
In other instances, partial success leaves us worse off than we presently are. A scheme to double the size of nation by doubling its population and productivity achieves 50% success by doubling population alone, without doubling productivity, but is in a far more miserable state than if things had been left as they were.
The form and structure of Godwin's ideal society suffers very much from both of these limitations: parts of it will not be achievable, and other parts will do greater damage if they are effected in the absence of others.
(EN: The remainder of the chapter seems to refute specific points of Godwin's model - but again, I'll follow along even though it is oblique top the main topic.)
There is a contrast between Smith and Godwin on the topic of capital: Smith praises frugality, Godwin avarice. The difference being that a frugal man spends his money wisely and for the greatest benefit, which is a benefit to the state, whereas an avaricious man "locks up his wealth in a chest" to amass a fortune - the chief difference being that the latter removes capital from circulation and sets in motion no labor of any kind.
There's also objection to the notion that society is divided into two classes of persons, the wealthy and the poor, by the division of capital. This follows Godwin's notion of wealth as the product of avarice. The notion that wealth confers power (to buy) is true enough, but the notion that this power is coercive is incorrect: any commercial transaction is conducted between a buyer and a seller, each is obliged to the other in equal measure, and each is at liberty to refuse to enter into a transaction. Where any commerce takes place, there are two parties who each have what the other wants, terms of a fair exchange are negotiated and agreed upon by mutual consent.
The power that exists in the hands of any consumer, regardless of his stored wealth, is to encourage the behavior of the supplier who wishes to get money from the consumer. If the mass of customers do not feel a given supplier's goods or services are worth the value demanded, they do not buy them and the supplier is thus encouraged to seek to apply his capital in a different manner.
Even the poorest class of laborer has some commodity to offer - his own labor - for which he can expect only a price that buyers are willing to pay for it. If he finds the price insufficient he should, as any supplier, seek a buyer who is willing to pay, or consider whether he should improve the value of his labor to fetch a higher price, or accept a lower price in realization that his estimation of the value of his labor is unrealistic.
The notion that the employer is in some way doing wrong to those in his employ is contrary to good sense: it is only by means of employment that those who have nothing but their labor to offer can gain anything in trade for it. If an employer is evil, then is a non-employer to be considered good for refraining from the practice? It would be difficult to assert that a miser does greater social good by keeping his wealth than an employer does by trading it to those who can make use of it.
At the same time, Malthus concedes to Godwin the point that there is more labor in the world than is really necessary, and if the lower classes could agree among themselves never to work more than six hours a day, the commodities essential to survival could still be produced. But there will always be those who want more, or need more, and are willing to give more in return for them.
As some men are wiser or more circumspect in the way they spend their money, acting as both supplier and consumer in different transactions, it is a natural consequence that there will be in society those with greater and lesser wealth. This is inevitable in any society that advances beyond a savage state, and the older the society the greater the disparity. Even if wealth were redistributed and all were set as equal, the thrifty and productive would again amass wealth, and the indolent and wasteful be parted from it.
It is not characteristic of human beings to be pacified at the level of mere subsistence, but to seek to improve their condition, or at the very least to amass resources presenrly to preserve them through future hardship. These are not traits to be discouraged.
There's also some consideration of the balance between the labor done to produce necessities and the labor done to produce luxuries - but this is an equation that tends to balance itself. When "too much" labor is devoted to luxury foods, less food is produced, scarcity increases its price, which raises the wages that can be offered for agricultural labor, attracting some portion of workers back to that sector, until the balance is again achieved according to the tastes and preferences of the society in question, with the limitation that food will always take precedence over baubles, so long as men have some iota of common sense.