mirror of git://git.acid.vegas/ircart.git
2784 lines
143 KiB
Plaintext
2784 lines
143 KiB
Plaintext
|
The Law
|
|||
|
by Frederic Bastiat
|
|||
|
Translated from the French by Dean Russell
|
|||
|
Foreword by Walter E. Williams
|
|||
|
Introduction by Richard Ebeling
|
|||
|
Afterword by Sheldon Richman
|
|||
|
Foundation for Economic Education
|
|||
|
Irvington-on-Hudson, New York
|
|||
|
The Law
|
|||
|
Copyright <20> 1998 by the Foundation for Economic Education
|
|||
|
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in
|
|||
|
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
|
|||
|
recording or by any information storage and retrieval system without permission
|
|||
|
in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer, who may quote brief
|
|||
|
passages in a review.
|
|||
|
Foundation for Economic Education
|
|||
|
30 South Broadway
|
|||
|
Irvington-on-Hudson, NY 10533
|
|||
|
(914) 591-7230
|
|||
|
Publisher<EFBFBD>s Cataloging in Publication
|
|||
|
(Prepared by Quality Books, Inc.)
|
|||
|
Bastiat, Frederic, 1801-1850
|
|||
|
[Loi. English]
|
|||
|
The law / Frederic Bastiat. <20> 2nd ed.
|
|||
|
p. cm.
|
|||
|
Includes index
|
|||
|
Preassigned LCCN: 98-73568
|
|||
|
ISBN 1-57246-073-3
|
|||
|
1. Law and socialism. 2. Law<61>Philosophy. 3.
|
|||
|
Socialism and liberty. I. Title.
|
|||
|
K357.B37 1998 340.115
|
|||
|
QBI98-1118
|
|||
|
Second edition, August 1998
|
|||
|
second printing, September 2000; third printing, October 2001
|
|||
|
fourth printing, June 2004
|
|||
|
Cover design by Doug Hesseltine
|
|||
|
Manufactured in the United States of America
|
|||
|
iii
|
|||
|
Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics
|
|||
|
at George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.
|
|||
|
Foreword
|
|||
|
Walter E. Williams
|
|||
|
I must have been forty years old before reading Frederic
|
|||
|
Bastiat<EFBFBD>s classic The Law. An anonymous person, to whom I shall
|
|||
|
eternally be in debt, mailed me an unsolicited copy. After reading
|
|||
|
the book I was convinced that a liberal-arts education without
|
|||
|
an encounter with Bastiat is incomplete. Reading Bastiat
|
|||
|
made me keenly aware of all the time wasted, along with the
|
|||
|
frustrations of going down one blind alley after another, organizing
|
|||
|
my philosophy of life. The Law did not produce a philosophical
|
|||
|
conversion for me as much as it created order in my thinking
|
|||
|
about liberty and just human conduct.
|
|||
|
Many philosophers have made important contributions to
|
|||
|
the discourse on liberty, Bastiat among them. But Bastiat<61>s greatest
|
|||
|
contribution is that he took the discourse out of the ivory
|
|||
|
tower and made ideas on liberty so clear that even the unlettered
|
|||
|
can understand them and statists cannot obfuscate them.
|
|||
|
Clarity is crucial to persuading our fellowman of the moral superiority
|
|||
|
of personal liberty.
|
|||
|
Like others, Bastiat recognized that the greatest single
|
|||
|
threat to liberty is government. Notice the clarity he employs to
|
|||
|
help us identify and understand evil government acts such as
|
|||
|
legalized plunder. Bastiat says, <20>See if the law takes from some
|
|||
|
persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to
|
|||
|
whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at
|
|||
|
the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot
|
|||
|
do without committing a crime.<2E> With such an accurate description
|
|||
|
of legalized plunder, we cannot deny the conclusion that
|
|||
|
most government activities, including ours, are legalized plunder,
|
|||
|
or for the sake of modernity, legalized theft.
|
|||
|
Frederic Bastiat could have easily been a fellow traveler of
|
|||
|
the signers of our Declaration of Independence. The signers<72>
|
|||
|
vision of liberty and the proper role of government was captured
|
|||
|
in the immortal words <20>We hold these truths to be self-evident,
|
|||
|
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
|
|||
|
Creator with certain Unalienable Rights, that among these are
|
|||
|
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these
|
|||
|
rights, governments are instituted among Men. . . .<2E> Bastiat
|
|||
|
echoes the identical vision, saying, <20>Life, faculties, production<6F>
|
|||
|
in other words individuality, liberty, property<74> that is man. And
|
|||
|
in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts
|
|||
|
from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.<2E>
|
|||
|
Bastiat gave the same rationale for government as did our
|
|||
|
Founders, saying, <20>Life, liberty and property do not exist
|
|||
|
because men have made laws. On the contrary, it is the fact that
|
|||
|
life, liberty and property existed beforehand that caused men to
|
|||
|
make laws in the first place.<2E> No finer statements of natural or
|
|||
|
iv
|
|||
|
God-given rights have been made than those found in our Declaration
|
|||
|
of Independence and The Law.
|
|||
|
Bastiat pinned his hopes for liberty on the United States
|
|||
|
saying, <20> . . . look at the United States. There is no country in the
|
|||
|
world where the law is kept more within its proper domain: the
|
|||
|
protection of every person<6F>s liberty and property. As a consequence
|
|||
|
of this, there appears to be no country in the world
|
|||
|
where the social order rests on a firmer foundation.<2E> Writing in
|
|||
|
1850, Bastiat noted two areas where the United States fell short:
|
|||
|
<EFBFBD>Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protective tariff is a
|
|||
|
violation, by law, of property.<2E>
|
|||
|
If Bastiat were alive today, he would be disappointed with
|
|||
|
our failure to keep the law within its proper domain. Over the
|
|||
|
course of a century and a half, we have created more than 50,000
|
|||
|
laws. Most of them permit the state to initiate violence against
|
|||
|
those who have not initiated violence against others. These laws
|
|||
|
range from anti-smoking laws for private establishments and
|
|||
|
Social Security <20>contributions<6E> to licensure laws and minimum
|
|||
|
wage laws. In each case, the person who resolutely demands and
|
|||
|
defends his God-given right to be left alone can ultimately suffer
|
|||
|
death at the hands of our government.*
|
|||
|
Bastiat explains the call for laws that restrict peaceable, voluntary
|
|||
|
exchange and punish the desire to be left alone by saying
|
|||
|
that socialists want to play God. Socialists look upon people as
|
|||
|
raw material to be formed into social combinations. To them<65>
|
|||
|
v
|
|||
|
*Death is not the stated penalty for disobedience; however, death can
|
|||
|
occur if the person refuses to submit to government sanctions for his disobedience.
|
|||
|
the elite<74><65>the relationship between persons and the legislator
|
|||
|
appears to be the same as the relationship between the clay and
|
|||
|
the potter.<2E> And for people who have this vision, Bastiat displays
|
|||
|
the only anger I find in The Law when he lashes out at do-gooders
|
|||
|
and would-be rulers of mankind, <20>Ah, you miserable creatures!
|
|||
|
You who think that you are so great! You who judge
|
|||
|
humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything!
|
|||
|
Why don<6F>t you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient
|
|||
|
enough.<2E>
|
|||
|
Bastiat was an optimist who thought that eloquent arguments
|
|||
|
in defense of liberty might save the day; but history is not
|
|||
|
on his side. Mankind<6E>s history is one of systematic, arbitrary
|
|||
|
abuse and control by the elite acting privately, through the
|
|||
|
church, but mostly through government. It is a tragic history
|
|||
|
where hundreds of millions of unfortunate souls have been
|
|||
|
slaughtered, mostly by their own government. A historian writing
|
|||
|
200 or 300 years from now might view the liberties that
|
|||
|
existed for a tiny portion of mankind<6E>s population, mostly in the
|
|||
|
Western world, for only a tiny portion of its history, the last century
|
|||
|
or two, as a historical curiosity that defies explanation. That
|
|||
|
historian might also observe that the curiosity was only a temporary
|
|||
|
phenomenon and mankind reverted back to the traditional
|
|||
|
state of affairs<72>arbitrary control and abuse.
|
|||
|
Hopefully, history will prove that pessimistic assessment
|
|||
|
false. The worldwide collapse of the respectability of the ideas of
|
|||
|
socialism and communism suggests that there is a glimmer of
|
|||
|
hope. Another hopeful sign is the technological innovations that
|
|||
|
make it more difficult for government to gain information on its
|
|||
|
vi
|
|||
|
citizens and control them. Innovations such as information
|
|||
|
access, communication, and electronic monetary transactions
|
|||
|
will make government attempts at control more costly and less
|
|||
|
probable. These technological innovations will increasingly
|
|||
|
make it possible for world citizens to communicate and
|
|||
|
exchange with one another without government knowledge,
|
|||
|
sanction, or permission.
|
|||
|
Collapse of communism and technological innovations,
|
|||
|
accompanied by robust free-market organizations promoting
|
|||
|
Bastiat<EFBFBD>s ideas, are the most optimistic things I can say about the
|
|||
|
future of liberty in the United States. Americans share an awesome
|
|||
|
burden and moral responsibility. If liberty dies in the
|
|||
|
United States, it is destined to die everywhere. A greater familiarity
|
|||
|
with Bastiat<61>s clear ideas about liberty would be an important
|
|||
|
step in rekindling respect and love, and allowing the resuscitation
|
|||
|
of the spirit of liberty among our fellow Americans.
|
|||
|
vii
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
ix
|
|||
|
Introduction
|
|||
|
Richard Ebeling
|
|||
|
The defense of economic liberty has never been an easy
|
|||
|
task. Adam Smith expressed his own despair at this problem in
|
|||
|
The Wealth of Nations. After presenting his powerful criticisms
|
|||
|
of mercantilism<73>the eighteenth-century system of government
|
|||
|
regulation and planning<6E>he despondently suggested that free
|
|||
|
trade in Great Britain was as unlikely as the establishment of a
|
|||
|
utopia.
|
|||
|
He said that two factors made the success of economic liberty
|
|||
|
unpromising. <20>Not only the prejudices of the public,<2C> Smith
|
|||
|
said, <20>but what is much more unconquerable, the private interests
|
|||
|
of many individuals, irresistibly oppose it.<2E>1 By the prejudices
|
|||
|
of the public, Smith meant the apparent difficulty of many
|
|||
|
ordinary people to follow the often abstract and complex arguments
|
|||
|
of the economic theorist that demonstrate the superior
|
|||
|
workings of the free market over various forms of government
|
|||
|
intervention and control. And by the private interests of many
|
|||
|
individuals, Smith had in mind the wide variety of specialinterest
|
|||
|
groups that gain from, and would therefore always
|
|||
|
lobby hard to maintain, government regulations that limit or
|
|||
|
prevent open competition. In combination, Smith feared, these
|
|||
|
Richard Ebeling is president of the Foundation for Economic Education.
|
|||
|
two factors would permanently prevent the logic of economic
|
|||
|
freedom from ever winning in the arenas of ideas and politics.
|
|||
|
In the nineteenth century, however, there was one champion
|
|||
|
of freedom who mastered the art of making the complexities
|
|||
|
of economic reasoning understandable to the layman: the
|
|||
|
French classical-liberal economist Frederic Bastiat
|
|||
|
(1801<30>1850). More than one historian of economic thought has
|
|||
|
emphasized Bastiat<61>s special abilities in undermining the rationales
|
|||
|
for protectionism, socialism, and interventionism.
|
|||
|
Sir Alexander Gray, for example, said that, <20>No one has
|
|||
|
ever been quite so skillful in making the case of his antagonist
|
|||
|
look extremely foolish. Even now his most ephemeral work
|
|||
|
remains a joy to read, by reason of its wit, its merciless satire and
|
|||
|
the neatness wherewith he pinks his opponents.<2E> 2 Lewis Haney
|
|||
|
referred to Bastiat<61>s <20>pleasing and luminous style<6C> and how,
|
|||
|
<EFBFBD>brilliantly, with fable and irony, the masses are appealed to.<2E>3
|
|||
|
Eduard Heimann, a critic of the market economy,
|
|||
|
described him as, <20>A brilliant writer, [who] achieved world fame
|
|||
|
with his parable of the candle-makers, who petition for protection
|
|||
|
against the unfair competition of the sun in order that the
|
|||
|
community may become richer by the enrichment of their
|
|||
|
industry.<2E>4 Charles Gide and Charles Rist pointed out that <20>If
|
|||
|
modern Protectionists no longer speak of the <20>inundation of a
|
|||
|
country<EFBFBD> or of an <20>invasion of foreign goods<64> . . . we too often forget
|
|||
|
that all this is due to the small but admirable pamphlets written
|
|||
|
by Bastiat . . . . No one could more scornfully show the
|
|||
|
laughable inconsistency of tunneling the mountains which
|
|||
|
divide countries, with a view to facilitating exchange, while at
|
|||
|
x
|
|||
|
the same time setting up a customs barrier at each end.<2E>5 And
|
|||
|
even though Bastiat<61>s pen was sharp against the protectionist
|
|||
|
and collectivist ideas of his time, William Scott emphasized that
|
|||
|
the French liberal<61>s <20>attitude was calm and dignified and in spite
|
|||
|
of the incisiveness of his criticism he showed appreciation of the
|
|||
|
motives of his adversaries. He gave them full credit for a desire
|
|||
|
to promote the well-being of society, but wished simply to show
|
|||
|
that they were on the wrong path and, if possible, to set them
|
|||
|
right.<2E>6
|
|||
|
Those qualities led Joseph A. Schumpeter to call Bastiat
|
|||
|
<EFBFBD>the most brilliant economic journalist who ever lived.<2E>7 And
|
|||
|
Ludwig von Mises praised him as a <20>brilliant stylist, so that the
|
|||
|
reading of his writings affords a quite genuine pleasure. . . .
|
|||
|
[H]is critique of all protectionist and related tendencies is even
|
|||
|
today unsurpassed. The protectionists and interventionists have
|
|||
|
not been able to advance a single word in pertinent and objective
|
|||
|
rejoinder.<2E>8
|
|||
|
Other authors have modeled some of their own works after
|
|||
|
him. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the French freemarket
|
|||
|
economist Yves Guyot said that his own little book,
|
|||
|
Economic Prejudices, was offered in the footsteps of Frederic
|
|||
|
Bastiat, with the purpose of <20>[setting] forth truths in a handy,
|
|||
|
convenient form that is easy to remember, to criticize errors by
|
|||
|
means of proof that any one can apply,<2C> as Bastiat had done half
|
|||
|
a century earlier.9 And surely the most famous and influential
|
|||
|
adaptation of Bastiat<61>s method and approach in the twentieth
|
|||
|
century was Henry Hazlitt<74>s Economics in One Lesson, in which
|
|||
|
the author said, <20>The present work may, in fact, be regarded as
|
|||
|
xi
|
|||
|
a modernization, extension and generalization of the approach
|
|||
|
found in Bastiat<61>s pamphlet,<2C> known by the title <20>What Is Seen
|
|||
|
and What Is Not Seen.<2E>10
|
|||
|
* * *
|
|||
|
Claude Frederic Bastiat was born on June 30, 1801, in
|
|||
|
Bayonne, France, the son of a prominent merchant.11 His mother
|
|||
|
died when he was seven years old, and his father passed away
|
|||
|
two years later, when Frederic was only nine. He was brought
|
|||
|
up by an aunt, who also saw to it that he went to the College of
|
|||
|
Sor<EFBFBD>ze beginning when he was 14. But at 17 he left without finishing
|
|||
|
the requirements for his degree and entered his uncle<6C>s
|
|||
|
commercial firm in Bayonne. Shortly afterward he came across
|
|||
|
the writings of the French classical-liberal economist Jean-
|
|||
|
Baptiste Say, and they transformed his life and thinking.12 He
|
|||
|
began a serious study of political economy and soon discovered
|
|||
|
the works of many of the other classical-liberal writers in France
|
|||
|
and Great Britain.
|
|||
|
In 1825 he inherited a modest estate in Mugron from his
|
|||
|
grandfather and remained there until 1846, when he moved to
|
|||
|
Paris. During these 20 years Bastiat devoted almost all his time
|
|||
|
to absorbing a vast amount of literature on a wide variety of subjects,
|
|||
|
sharing books and ideas with his friend F<>lix Coudroy. It
|
|||
|
seems that Coudroy had socialist leanings, and Bastiat began to
|
|||
|
refine his skills in clear thinking and writing by formulating the
|
|||
|
arguments that finally won over his friend to a philosophy of
|
|||
|
freedom.
|
|||
|
xii
|
|||
|
In the late 1820s and 1830s he began writing monographs
|
|||
|
and essays on a variety of economic topics. But his real reputation
|
|||
|
as a writer began in 1844, when he published a lengthy article in
|
|||
|
defense of free trade and then a monograph on Cobden and the
|
|||
|
League: The English Movement for Free Trade. While writing
|
|||
|
these works Bastiat began a correspondence with Richard
|
|||
|
Cobden, one of the primary leaders of the British Anti-Corn Law
|
|||
|
League, the association working for the repeal of all barriers to
|
|||
|
free trade. The two proponents of economic freedom became fast
|
|||
|
friends, supporting each other in the cause of liberty.
|
|||
|
The success of these writings, and the inspiration from the
|
|||
|
success of Cobden<65>s free-trade activities in bringing about the
|
|||
|
end of agricultural protectionism in Great Britain in 1846, resulted
|
|||
|
in Bastiat<61>s moving to Paris to establish a French free-trade
|
|||
|
association and to start Le Libre <20>change, a newspaper devoted
|
|||
|
to this cause.13 For two years Bastiat labored to organize and propagandize
|
|||
|
for free trade. At first he was able to attract a variety of
|
|||
|
people in commerce and industry to support his activities, including
|
|||
|
delivering speeches, designing legislation for the repeal of
|
|||
|
French protectionism, and preparing writings to change public
|
|||
|
opinion. But it was to no avail. There were too many special interests
|
|||
|
benefiting from privileges and favors given by the government,
|
|||
|
and he was unable to arouse a sustained interest in his
|
|||
|
cause among the general public. It appeared that Adam Smith
|
|||
|
had been right in lamenting the prejudices of the public and the
|
|||
|
power of the interests, at least in France.
|
|||
|
Following the revolution of February 1848, Bastiat began a
|
|||
|
career in politics, serving first in the French Constituent
|
|||
|
xiii
|
|||
|
Assembly and then in the Legislative Assembly. Having devoted
|
|||
|
most of his previous writings to demonstrating the fallacies in
|
|||
|
the arguments for protectionism, Bastiat turned his attention to
|
|||
|
a new enemy of economic liberty: socialism. In the Legislative
|
|||
|
Assembly he delivered powerful speeches against public-works
|
|||
|
programs, guaranteed national-employment schemes, wealthredistribution
|
|||
|
proposals, nationalization of industry, and rationales
|
|||
|
for the expansion of bureaucratic controls over social and
|
|||
|
economic life. But because of a worsening tuberculosis that
|
|||
|
weakened his voice, he turned to the written word, producing a
|
|||
|
large number of essays detailing the absurdities in the arguments
|
|||
|
of the socialists.
|
|||
|
Bastiat made his last appearance in the Assembly in
|
|||
|
February 1850. By spring of that year his health had declined so
|
|||
|
dramatically that he was forced to step down from his legislative
|
|||
|
responsibilities and spend the summer in the Pyr<79>n<EFBFBD>es mountains
|
|||
|
in the south of France. He returned to Paris in September
|
|||
|
and visited his friends in the cause for free trade, before setting
|
|||
|
out for Italy in search of a cure for his tuberculosis. He died in
|
|||
|
Rome on December 24, 1850, at the age of 49.
|
|||
|
Frederic Bastiat<61>s intellectual legacy in the fight for economic
|
|||
|
freedom is contained in three volumes. Two of them are
|
|||
|
collections of some of his most biting, witty, and insightful essays
|
|||
|
and articles, and are available in English under the titles
|
|||
|
Economic Sophisms14 and Selected Essays on Political
|
|||
|
Economy.15 In his last years, Bastiat devoted part of his time to
|
|||
|
a general work of social philosophy and economic principles,
|
|||
|
published under the name Economic Harmonies.16
|
|||
|
xiv
|
|||
|
As Henry Hazlitt rightly emphasized, the central idea in
|
|||
|
much of Bastiat<61>s writings is captured in his essay <20>What Is Seen
|
|||
|
and What Is Not Seen,<2C> which was the last piece he wrote
|
|||
|
before his death in 1850.17 He points out that the short-run
|
|||
|
effects of any action or policy can often be quite different from
|
|||
|
its longer-run consequences, and that these more remote consequences
|
|||
|
in fact may be the opposite from what one had hoped
|
|||
|
for or originally planned.
|
|||
|
Bastiat was able to apply the principle of the seen and the
|
|||
|
unseen to taxes and government jobs. When government taxes,
|
|||
|
what is seen are the workers employed and the results of their
|
|||
|
labor: a road, a bridge, or a canal. What is unseen are all the
|
|||
|
other things that would have been produced if the tax money
|
|||
|
had not been taken from individuals in the private sector and if
|
|||
|
the resources and labor employed by the government had been
|
|||
|
free to serve the desires of those private citizens. Government,
|
|||
|
Bastiat explained, produces nothing independent from the
|
|||
|
resources and labor it diverts from private uses.
|
|||
|
This simple but profoundly important insight is the theoretical
|
|||
|
weapon through which Bastiat is able to demonstrate the
|
|||
|
errors and contradictions in the ideas of both protectionists and
|
|||
|
socialists. Thus in such essays as <20>Abundance and Scarcity,<2C>
|
|||
|
<EFBFBD>Obstacle and Cause,<2C> and <20>Effort and Result,<2C> he shows that barriers
|
|||
|
and prohibitions to freedom of trade only lead to poverty.18
|
|||
|
He points out that each of us is both a consumer and a producer.
|
|||
|
To consume a good we must either make it ourselves or
|
|||
|
make some other good that we think someone else will take in
|
|||
|
exchange for the good we want. As consumers we desire as
|
|||
|
xv
|
|||
|
many goods as possible at the lowest possible prices. In other
|
|||
|
words, we want abundance. But as producers we want a scarcity
|
|||
|
of the goods we bring to market. In open competition, in
|
|||
|
which all exchanges are voluntary, the only way to <20>capture<72> customers
|
|||
|
and earn the income that enables each of us, in turn, to
|
|||
|
be a consumer is to offer better, cheaper, and more goods than
|
|||
|
our competitors. The alternative to this method, Bastiat warns,
|
|||
|
is for each of us as a producer to turn to the government to gain
|
|||
|
from our neighbors what we are unable to obtain through
|
|||
|
peaceful, nonviolent trade on the market.
|
|||
|
Herein lies Bastiat<61>s famous distinction between illegal and
|
|||
|
legal plunder, which is at the center of his analysis in The Law.19
|
|||
|
The purpose of government, he says, is precisely to secure individuals
|
|||
|
in their rights to life, liberty, and property. Without such
|
|||
|
security men are reduced to a primitive life of fear and selfdefense,
|
|||
|
with every neighbor a potential enemy ready to plunder
|
|||
|
what another has produced. If a government is strictly limited
|
|||
|
to protecting men<65>s rights, then peace prevails, and men can
|
|||
|
go about working to improve their lives, associating with their
|
|||
|
neighbors in a division of labor and exchange.
|
|||
|
But government can also be turned against those whom it
|
|||
|
is meant to protect in their property. There can arise legal plunder,
|
|||
|
in which the powers of government are used by various
|
|||
|
individuals and groups to prevent rivals from competing, to
|
|||
|
restrict the domestic and foreign trading opportunities of other
|
|||
|
consumers in the society, and therefore to steal the wealth of
|
|||
|
one<EFBFBD>s neighbors. This, Bastiat argues, is the origin and basis of
|
|||
|
protectionism, regulation, and redistributive taxation.
|
|||
|
xvi
|
|||
|
But the consequences of legal plunder are not only the
|
|||
|
political legitimizing of theft and the breakdown of morality
|
|||
|
through the blurring of the distinction between right and
|
|||
|
wrong<EFBFBD>however crucially important and dangerous these may
|
|||
|
be for the long-term stability and well-being of society. Such
|
|||
|
policies also, by necessity, reduce the prosperity of the society.
|
|||
|
Every trade protection, every domestic regulatory restriction,
|
|||
|
every redistributive act of taxation above that minimal
|
|||
|
amount necessary to secure the equal protection of each individual<61>s
|
|||
|
rights, Bastiat insisted, reduces production and competition
|
|||
|
in society. Scarcity replaces abundance. Limiting competition
|
|||
|
reduces the supply of goods available to all members of
|
|||
|
the society. Imposing protectionist barriers on foreign trade or
|
|||
|
domestic regulations on production decreases the general availability
|
|||
|
of goods and makes them more expensive. Everyone is,
|
|||
|
in the end, made worse off. And thus Bastiat reached his famous
|
|||
|
conclusion that the state is the great fiction through which
|
|||
|
everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.
|
|||
|
Why does legal plunder come about? Bastiat saw its origin
|
|||
|
in two sources. First, as we have just seen, some people see it as
|
|||
|
an easier means of acquiring wealth than through work and production.
|
|||
|
They use political power to redistribute from others
|
|||
|
what they are unwilling or unable to obtain from their neighbors
|
|||
|
through the voluntary exchanges of the marketplace. One basis
|
|||
|
for legal plunder, in other words, is the misguided spirit of theft.
|
|||
|
The second, and far more dangerous, source of legal plunder
|
|||
|
is the arrogant mentality of the social engineer. Through the
|
|||
|
ages, Bastiat showed, social and political philosophers have
|
|||
|
xvii
|
|||
|
viewed the multitude of humanity as passive matter, similar to
|
|||
|
clay, waiting to be molded and shaped, arranged and moved
|
|||
|
about according to the design of an intellectually superior elite.
|
|||
|
With a timeless relevance, Bastiat points out that the political
|
|||
|
elite praises the ideal of democracy, under which <20>the people<6C>
|
|||
|
select those who will hold political office. But once the
|
|||
|
electoral process is finished, those elected to high political office
|
|||
|
arrogate to themselves the planning, directing, and controlling
|
|||
|
of every aspect of social and economic life. The task of modern
|
|||
|
democracy, apparently, is to periodically appoint those who shall
|
|||
|
be our societal dictators.
|
|||
|
Is this the way men have to live? Was illegal and legal plunder
|
|||
|
the only form of social existence? Bastiat answered no. In
|
|||
|
Economic Harmonies he tried to explain the nature and logic of
|
|||
|
a system of peaceful human association through production and
|
|||
|
trade. Historians of economic thought and other critics of
|
|||
|
Bastiat have said this work demonstrates that, despite his brilliant
|
|||
|
journalistic talents, he failed as a serious economic theorist.
|
|||
|
They point to his use of a form of a labor theory of value or his
|
|||
|
faulty theory of savings, capital, and interest.20
|
|||
|
But beyond these errors and limitations is an aspect of
|
|||
|
Economic Harmonies that still makes it insightful. Harmonies
|
|||
|
attempts to offer a grand vision of the causal relationships
|
|||
|
among work, the division of labor, voluntary exchange, and
|
|||
|
mutual improvement of men<65>s condition, as well as the importance
|
|||
|
of private property, individual freedom, and domestic and
|
|||
|
foreign free trade. In freedom there is social harmony, since
|
|||
|
each man sees his neighbor not as an enemy but as a partner in
|
|||
|
xviii
|
|||
|
xix
|
|||
|
the ongoing processes of human improvement. Where relationships
|
|||
|
are based on consent and mutual agreement there can be
|
|||
|
no plunder, only reinforcing prosperity, as each works to trade
|
|||
|
with his neighbors and acquire all the things that make life better
|
|||
|
for each and all.
|
|||
|
If one looks at the period during which Bastiat devoted his
|
|||
|
efforts to fight for freedom and free trade, the conclusion would
|
|||
|
appear to be that his life ended in failure. Both during his lifetime
|
|||
|
and following his death France remained in the grip of the
|
|||
|
protectionist and interventionist spirit, never achieving the
|
|||
|
degree of economic liberty enjoyed in Great Britain through the
|
|||
|
second half of the nineteenth century.
|
|||
|
And yet Bastiat<61>s life should be seen as a glorious success.
|
|||
|
For the 150 years since his passing, each new generation of
|
|||
|
advocates of economic liberty has been inspired by his writings.
|
|||
|
His fables and essays read as fresh as if they were written yesterday,
|
|||
|
because they address the underlying nature of human
|
|||
|
association and the dangers from political encroachment on the
|
|||
|
social and market orders.
|
|||
|
1. Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of
|
|||
|
Nations, Book Four, chapter two (New York: Modern Library, 1937 [1776]),
|
|||
|
pp. 437<33>38.
|
|||
|
2. Sir Alexander Gray, The Development of Economic Doctrine: An
|
|||
|
Introductory Survey (London: Longmans, Green, 1931), pp. 244<34>45.
|
|||
|
3. Lewis H. Haney, History of Economic Thought (New York:
|
|||
|
Macmillan, 1936), pp. 331<33>32.
|
|||
|
4. Eduard Heimann, History of Economic Doctrines: An Introduction to
|
|||
|
Economic Theory (London: Oxford University Press, 1945), p. 124.
|
|||
|
xx
|
|||
|
5. Charles Gide and Charles Rist, A History of Economic Doctrines,
|
|||
|
From the Time of the Physiocrats to the Present Day (Boston: D.C. Heath,
|
|||
|
1915), pp. 329<32>30.
|
|||
|
6. William A. Scott, The Development of Economics (New York: The
|
|||
|
Century Co., 1933), p. 244.
|
|||
|
7. Joseph A. Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis (New York:
|
|||
|
Oxford University Press, 1954), p. 500.
|
|||
|
8. Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism: The Classical Tradition (Irvington-on-
|
|||
|
Hudson, N.Y.: Foundation for Economic Education, 1996 [1927]), p. 197.
|
|||
|
9. Yves Guyot, Economic Prejudices (London: Swan Sonnenschein,
|
|||
|
1910), p. v.
|
|||
|
10. Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson (New York: Harper &
|
|||
|
Brothers, 1946).
|
|||
|
11. The following brief summary of Bastiat<61>s life and professional activities
|
|||
|
is drawn primarily from Dean Russell, Fr<46>d<EFBFBD>ric Bastiat: Ideas and
|
|||
|
Influence (Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Foundation for Economic Education,
|
|||
|
1965); also Dean Russell, Fr<46>d<EFBFBD>ric Bastiat and the Free Trade Movement in
|
|||
|
France and England, 1840<34>1850 (Geneva: Imprimarie Albert Kundig, 1959);
|
|||
|
and George C. Roche, Frederic Bastiat: A Man Alone (Hillsdale, Mich.:
|
|||
|
Hillsdale College Press, 1977).
|
|||
|
12. Jean-Baptiste Say, A Treatise on Political Economy, or the
|
|||
|
Production, Distribution and Consumption of Wealth [1921] (N.Y.: Augustus
|
|||
|
M. Kelley, 1971); Say, Letters to Mr. Malthus on Several Subjects of Political
|
|||
|
Economy [1821] (N.Y.: Augustus M. Kelley, 1967); and R. R. Palmer, ed., J.-B.
|
|||
|
Say: An Economist in Troubled Times (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
|
|||
|
Press, 1997).
|
|||
|
13. For a brief account of the free-trade movement in Great Britain and
|
|||
|
its triumph in the middle of the nineteenth century, see Richard M. Ebeling,
|
|||
|
Austrian Economics and the Political Economy of Freedom (Northampton,
|
|||
|
Mass.: Edward Elgar, 2005), ch. 10: <20>The Global Economy and Classical
|
|||
|
Liberalism: Past, Present and Future,<2C> pp. 247<34>281, and especially pp.
|
|||
|
248<EFBFBD>252.
|
|||
|
14. Economic Sophisms, trans. and ed. Arthur Goddard, with introduction
|
|||
|
by Henry Hazlitt (Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Foundation for Economic
|
|||
|
Education, 1996 [1845]).
|
|||
|
15. Selected Essays on Political Economy, trans. Seymour Cain, ed.
|
|||
|
George B. de Huszar, with introduction by F. A. Hayek (Irvington-on-Hudson,
|
|||
|
N.Y.: Foundation for Economic Education, 1995 [1964]).
|
|||
|
16. Economic Harmonies, trans. W. Hayden Boyers, ed. George B. de
|
|||
|
Huszar, with introduction by Dean Russell (Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.:
|
|||
|
Foundation for Economic Education, 1996 [1850]).
|
|||
|
176. In Selected Essays, pp. 1<>50.
|
|||
|
18. Economic Sophisms, pp. 7<>27.
|
|||
|
19. <20>The Law,<2C> in Selected Essays, pp. 51<35>96; and, <20>The Physiology of
|
|||
|
Plunder,<2C> in Economic Sophisms, pp. 129<32>46.
|
|||
|
20. See, for example, Eugen von B<>hm-Bawerk, Capital and Interest,
|
|||
|
vol. 1: History and Critique of Interest Theories (South Holland, Ill.:
|
|||
|
Libertarian Press, 1959), pp. 191<39>94.
|
|||
|
xxi
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The Law
|
|||
|
The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted
|
|||
|
along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its
|
|||
|
proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose!
|
|||
|
The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of
|
|||
|
checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to
|
|||
|
punish!
|
|||
|
If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me
|
|||
|
to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.
|
|||
|
Life Is a Gift from God
|
|||
|
We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This
|
|||
|
gift is life<66>physical, intellectual, and moral life.
|
|||
|
But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has
|
|||
|
entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing,
|
|||
|
and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has
|
|||
|
provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has
|
|||
|
put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application
|
|||
|
of our faculties to these natural resources we convert
|
|||
|
them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in
|
|||
|
order that life may run its appointed course.
|
|||
|
Life, faculties, production<6F>in other words, individuality,
|
|||
|
liberty, property<74>this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful
|
|||
|
political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all
|
|||
|
human legislation, and are superior to it.
|
|||
|
1
|
|||
|
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have
|
|||
|
made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and
|
|||
|
property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in
|
|||
|
the first place.
|
|||
|
What Is Law?
|
|||
|
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the
|
|||
|
individual right to lawful defense.
|
|||
|
Each of us has a natural right<68>from God<6F>to defend his
|
|||
|
person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic
|
|||
|
requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is
|
|||
|
completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two.
|
|||
|
For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality?
|
|||
|
And what is property but an extension of our faculties?
|
|||
|
If every person has the right to defend<6E>even by force<63>his
|
|||
|
person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group
|
|||
|
of men have the right to organize and support a common force
|
|||
|
to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective
|
|||
|
right<EFBFBD>its reason for existing, its lawfulness<73>is based on
|
|||
|
individual right. And the common force that protects this collective
|
|||
|
right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other
|
|||
|
mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an
|
|||
|
individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty,
|
|||
|
or property of another individual, then the common force<63>for
|
|||
|
the same reason<6F>cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person,
|
|||
|
liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
|
|||
|
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary
|
|||
|
2
|
|||
|
to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own
|
|||
|
individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given
|
|||
|
to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual
|
|||
|
acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the
|
|||
|
rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle
|
|||
|
also applies to the common force that is nothing more than
|
|||
|
the organized combination of the individual forces?
|
|||
|
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this:
|
|||
|
The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense.
|
|||
|
It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces.
|
|||
|
And this common force is to do only what the individual forces
|
|||
|
have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties,
|
|||
|
and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause
|
|||
|
justice to reign over us all.
|
|||
|
A Just and Enduring Government
|
|||
|
If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that
|
|||
|
order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in
|
|||
|
deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most
|
|||
|
simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, non-oppressive, just,
|
|||
|
and enduring government imaginable<6C>whatever its political
|
|||
|
form might be.
|
|||
|
Under such an administration, everyone would understand
|
|||
|
that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities
|
|||
|
of his existence. No one would have any argument with government,
|
|||
|
provided that his person was respected, his labor was
|
|||
|
free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust
|
|||
|
3
|
|||
|
attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state
|
|||
|
for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would
|
|||
|
no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than
|
|||
|
would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The
|
|||
|
state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided
|
|||
|
by this concept of government.
|
|||
|
It can be further stated that, thanks to the non-intervention
|
|||
|
of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions
|
|||
|
would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see
|
|||
|
poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread.
|
|||
|
We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts,
|
|||
|
nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not
|
|||
|
see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that
|
|||
|
are caused by legislative decisions.
|
|||
|
The sources of our existence are made uncertain and precarious
|
|||
|
by these state-created displacements. And, furthermore,
|
|||
|
these acts burden the government with increased responsibilities.
|
|||
|
The Complete Perversion of the Law
|
|||
|
But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its
|
|||
|
proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions,
|
|||
|
it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and
|
|||
|
debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has
|
|||
|
acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been
|
|||
|
used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihi-
|
|||
|
4
|
|||
|
lating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting
|
|||
|
and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The
|
|||
|
law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the
|
|||
|
unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty,
|
|||
|
and property of others. It has converted plunder into a
|
|||
|
right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful
|
|||
|
defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.
|
|||
|
How has this perversion of the law been accomplished?
|
|||
|
And what have been the results?
|
|||
|
The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely
|
|||
|
different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy. Let us
|
|||
|
speak of the first.
|
|||
|
A Fatal Tendency of Mankind
|
|||
|
Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations
|
|||
|
among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted
|
|||
|
use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits
|
|||
|
of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted,
|
|||
|
and unfailing.
|
|||
|
But there is also another tendency that is common among
|
|||
|
people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the
|
|||
|
expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come
|
|||
|
from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear
|
|||
|
witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations,
|
|||
|
religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce,
|
|||
|
and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the
|
|||
|
5
|
|||
|
very nature of man<61>in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible
|
|||
|
instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the
|
|||
|
least possible pain.
|
|||
|
Property and Plunder
|
|||
|
Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor;
|
|||
|
by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources.
|
|||
|
This process is the origin of property.
|
|||
|
But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants
|
|||
|
by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others.
|
|||
|
This process is the origin of plunder.
|
|||
|
Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain<69>and
|
|||
|
since labor is pain in itself<6C>it follows that men will resort to
|
|||
|
plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows
|
|||
|
this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion
|
|||
|
nor morality can stop it.
|
|||
|
When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes
|
|||
|
more painful and more dangerous than labor. It is evident, then,
|
|||
|
that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective
|
|||
|
force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to
|
|||
|
work. All the measures of the law should protect property and
|
|||
|
punish plunder.
|
|||
|
But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of
|
|||
|
men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and
|
|||
|
support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to
|
|||
|
those who make the laws.
|
|||
|
This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in
|
|||
|
6
|
|||
|
the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible
|
|||
|
effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus
|
|||
|
it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice,
|
|||
|
becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand
|
|||
|
why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying
|
|||
|
degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence
|
|||
|
by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property
|
|||
|
by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes
|
|||
|
the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.
|
|||
|
Victims of Lawful Plunder
|
|||
|
Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are
|
|||
|
victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of
|
|||
|
those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow
|
|||
|
to enter<65>by peaceful or revolutionary means<6E>into the making
|
|||
|
of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered
|
|||
|
classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes
|
|||
|
when they attempt to attain political power: Either they
|
|||
|
may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.
|
|||
|
Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among
|
|||
|
the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the
|
|||
|
power to make laws!
|
|||
|
Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon
|
|||
|
the many, a common practice where the right to participate in
|
|||
|
the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation
|
|||
|
in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men
|
|||
|
seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder.
|
|||
|
7
|
|||
|
Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make
|
|||
|
these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain
|
|||
|
political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other
|
|||
|
classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would
|
|||
|
demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they
|
|||
|
emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal
|
|||
|
plunder, even though it is against their own interests.
|
|||
|
It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears,
|
|||
|
for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution<6F>some for their evilness,
|
|||
|
and some for their lack of understanding.
|
|||
|
The Results of Legal Plunder
|
|||
|
It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change
|
|||
|
and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an
|
|||
|
instrument of plunder.
|
|||
|
What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would
|
|||
|
require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content
|
|||
|
ourselves with pointing out the most striking.
|
|||
|
In the first place, it erases from everyone<6E>s conscience the
|
|||
|
distinction between justice and injustice.
|
|||
|
No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain
|
|||
|
degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make
|
|||
|
them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other,
|
|||
|
the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral
|
|||
|
sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of
|
|||
|
8
|
|||
|
equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to
|
|||
|
choose between them.
|
|||
|
The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the
|
|||
|
case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and
|
|||
|
the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to
|
|||
|
believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so
|
|||
|
widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things
|
|||
|
are <20>just<73> because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make
|
|||
|
plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only
|
|||
|
necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions,
|
|||
|
and monopoly find defenders not only among those who
|
|||
|
profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.
|
|||
|
The Fate of Non-Conformists
|
|||
|
If you suggest a doubt as to the morality of these institutions,
|
|||
|
it is boldly said that <20>You are a dangerous innovator, a
|
|||
|
utopian, a theorist, a subversive; you would shatter the foundation
|
|||
|
upon which society rests.<2E>
|
|||
|
If you lecture upon morality or upon political science, there
|
|||
|
will be found official organizations petitioning the government
|
|||
|
in this vein of thought: <20>That science no longer be taught exclusively
|
|||
|
from the point of view of free trade (of liberty, of property,
|
|||
|
and of justice) as has been the case until now, but also, in the
|
|||
|
future, science is to be especially taught from the viewpoint of
|
|||
|
the facts and laws that regulate French industry (facts and laws
|
|||
|
9
|
|||
|
which are contrary to liberty, to property, and to justice). That, in
|
|||
|
government-endowed teaching positions, the professor rigorously
|
|||
|
refrain from endangering in the slightest degree the
|
|||
|
respect due to the laws now in force.<2E>*
|
|||
|
Thus, if there exists a law which sanctions slavery or
|
|||
|
monopoly, oppression or robbery, in any form whatever, it must
|
|||
|
not ever be mentioned. For how can it be mentioned without
|
|||
|
damaging the respect which it inspires? Still further, morality
|
|||
|
and political economy must be taught from the point of view of
|
|||
|
this law; from the supposition that it must be a just law merely
|
|||
|
because it is a law.
|
|||
|
Another effect of this tragic perversion of the law is that it
|
|||
|
gives an exaggerated importance to political passions and conflicts,
|
|||
|
and to politics in general.
|
|||
|
I could prove this assertion in a thousand ways. But, by way
|
|||
|
of illustration, I shall limit myself to a subject that has lately
|
|||
|
occupied the minds of everyone: universal suffrage.
|
|||
|
Who Shall Judge?
|
|||
|
The followers of Rousseau<61>s school of thought<68>who consider
|
|||
|
themselves far advanced, but whom I consider twenty centuries
|
|||
|
behind the times<65>will not agree with me on this. But universal
|
|||
|
suffrage<EFBFBD>using the word in its strictest sense<73>is not one
|
|||
|
10
|
|||
|
*General Council of Manufacturers, Agriculture, and Commerce, May
|
|||
|
6, 1850.
|
|||
|
of those sacred dogmas which it is a crime to examine or doubt.
|
|||
|
In fact, serious objections may be made to universal suffrage.
|
|||
|
In the first place, the word universal conceals a gross fallacy.
|
|||
|
For example, there are 36 million people in France. Thus,
|
|||
|
to make the right of suffrage universal, there should be 36 million
|
|||
|
voters. But the most extended system permits only 9 million
|
|||
|
people to vote. Three persons out of four are excluded. And
|
|||
|
more than this, they are excluded by the fourth. This fourth person
|
|||
|
advances the principle of incapacity as his reason for excluding
|
|||
|
the others. Universal suffrage means, then, universal suffrage
|
|||
|
for those who are capable. But there remains this question
|
|||
|
of fact: Who is capable? Are minors, females, insane persons,
|
|||
|
and persons who have committed certain major crimes the only
|
|||
|
ones to be determined incapable?
|
|||
|
The Reason Why Voting Is Restricted
|
|||
|
A closer examination of the subject shows us the motive
|
|||
|
which causes the right of suffrage to be based upon the supposition
|
|||
|
of incapacity. The motive is that the elector or voter does
|
|||
|
not exercise this right for himself alone, but for everybody.
|
|||
|
The most extended elective system and the most restricted
|
|||
|
elective system are alike in this respect. They differ only in
|
|||
|
respect to what constitutes incapacity. It is not a difference of
|
|||
|
principle, but merely a difference of degree.
|
|||
|
If, as the republicans of our present-day Greek and Roman
|
|||
|
schools of thought pretend, the right of suffrage arrives with
|
|||
|
11
|
|||
|
one<EFBFBD>s birth, it would be an injustice for adults to prevent women
|
|||
|
and children from voting. Why are they prevented? Because
|
|||
|
they are presumed to be incapable. And why is incapacity a
|
|||
|
motive for exclusion? Because it is not the voter alone who suffers
|
|||
|
the consequences of his vote; because each vote touches
|
|||
|
and affects everyone in the entire community; because the people
|
|||
|
in the community have a right to demand some safeguards
|
|||
|
concerning the acts upon which their welfare and existence
|
|||
|
depend.
|
|||
|
The Answer Is to Restrict the Law
|
|||
|
I know what might be said in answer to this; what the objections
|
|||
|
might be. But this is not the place to exhaust a controversy
|
|||
|
of this nature. I wish merely to observe here that this controversy
|
|||
|
over universal suffrage (as well as most other political
|
|||
|
questions) which agitates, excites, and overthrows nations,
|
|||
|
would lose nearly all of its importance if the law had always been
|
|||
|
what it ought to be.
|
|||
|
In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all
|
|||
|
liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the
|
|||
|
organized combination of the individual<61>s right to self defense; if
|
|||
|
law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression
|
|||
|
and plunder<65>is it likely that we citizens would then argue much
|
|||
|
about the extent of the franchise?
|
|||
|
Under these circumstances, is it likely that the extent of the
|
|||
|
right to vote would endanger that supreme good, the public
|
|||
|
peace? Is it likely that the excluded classes would refuse to
|
|||
|
12
|
|||
|
peaceably await the coming of their right to vote? Is it likely that
|
|||
|
those who had the right to vote would jealously defend their
|
|||
|
privilege?
|
|||
|
If the law were confined to its proper functions, everyone<6E>s
|
|||
|
interest in the law would be the same. Is it not clear that, under
|
|||
|
these circumstances, those who voted could not inconvenience
|
|||
|
those who did not vote?
|
|||
|
The Fatal Idea of Legal Plunder
|
|||
|
But on the other hand, imagine that this fatal principle has
|
|||
|
been introduced: Under the pretense of organization, regulation,
|
|||
|
protection, or encouragement, the law takes property from
|
|||
|
one person and gives it to another; the law takes the wealth of all
|
|||
|
and gives it to a few<65>whether farmers, manufacturers,
|
|||
|
shipowners, artists, or comedians. Under these circumstances,
|
|||
|
then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically
|
|||
|
so.
|
|||
|
The excluded classes will furiously demand their right to
|
|||
|
vote<EFBFBD>and will overthrow society rather than not to obtain it.
|
|||
|
Even beggars and vagabonds will then prove to you that they
|
|||
|
also have an incontestable title to vote. They will say to you:
|
|||
|
<EFBFBD>We cannot buy wine, tobacco, or salt without paying the
|
|||
|
tax. And a part of the tax that we pay is given by law<61>in privileges
|
|||
|
and subsidies<65>to men who are richer than we are. Others
|
|||
|
use the law to raise the prices of bread, meat, iron, or cloth.
|
|||
|
Thus, since everyone else uses the law for his own profit, we also
|
|||
|
would like to use the law for our own profit. We demand from
|
|||
|
13
|
|||
|
the law the right to relief, which is the poor man<61>s plunder. To
|
|||
|
obtain this right, we also should be voters and legislators in order
|
|||
|
that we may organize Beggary on a grand scale for our own class,
|
|||
|
as you have organized Protection on a grand scale for your class.
|
|||
|
Now don<6F>t tell us beggars that you will act for us, and then toss
|
|||
|
us, as Mr. Mimerel proposes, 600,000 francs to keep us quiet,
|
|||
|
like throwing us a bone to gnaw. We have other claims. And anyway,
|
|||
|
we wish to bargain for ourselves as other classes have bargained
|
|||
|
for themselves!<21>
|
|||
|
And what can you say to answer that argument!
|
|||
|
Perverted Law Causes Conflict
|
|||
|
As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from
|
|||
|
its true purpose<73>that it may violate property instead of protecting
|
|||
|
it<EFBFBD>then everyone will want to participate in making the law,
|
|||
|
either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder.
|
|||
|
Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and allabsorbing.
|
|||
|
There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative
|
|||
|
Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious. To know
|
|||
|
this, it is hardly necessary to examine what transpires in the
|
|||
|
French and English legislatures; merely to understand the issue
|
|||
|
is to know the answer.
|
|||
|
Is there any need to offer proof that this odious perversion
|
|||
|
of the law is a perpetual source of hatred and discord; that it
|
|||
|
tends to destroy society itself? If such proof is needed, look at
|
|||
|
the United States [in 1850]. There is no country in the world
|
|||
|
where the law is kept more within its proper domain: the pro-
|
|||
|
14
|
|||
|
tection of every person<6F>s liberty and property. As a consequence
|
|||
|
of this, there appears to be no country in the world where the
|
|||
|
social order rests on a firmer foundation. But even in the United
|
|||
|
States, there are two issues<65>-and only two<77>that have always
|
|||
|
endangered the public peace.
|
|||
|
Slavery and Tariffs Are Plunder
|
|||
|
What are these two issues? They are slavery and tariffs.
|
|||
|
These are the only two issues where, contrary to the general
|
|||
|
spirit of the republic of the United States, law has assumed the
|
|||
|
character of a plunderer.
|
|||
|
Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protective tariff
|
|||
|
is a violation, by law, of property.
|
|||
|
It is a most remarkable fact that this double legal crime<6D>a
|
|||
|
sorrowful inheritance from the Old World<6C>should be the only
|
|||
|
issue which can, and perhaps will, lead to the ruin of the Union.
|
|||
|
It is indeed impossible to imagine, at the very heart of a society,
|
|||
|
a more astounding fact than this: The law has come to be an
|
|||
|
instrument of injustice. And if this fact brings terrible consequences
|
|||
|
to the United States<65>where the proper purpose of the
|
|||
|
law has been perverted only in the instances of slavery and tariffs<66>
|
|||
|
what must be the consequences in Europe, where the perversion
|
|||
|
of the law is a principle; a system?
|
|||
|
Two Kinds of Plunder
|
|||
|
Mr. de Montalembert [politician and writer] adopting the
|
|||
|
thought contained in a famous proclamation by Mr. Carlier, has
|
|||
|
15
|
|||
|
said: <20>We must make war against socialism.<2E> According to the
|
|||
|
definition of socialism advanced by Mr. Charles Dupin, he
|
|||
|
meant: <20>We must make war against plunder.<2E>
|
|||
|
But of what plunder was he speaking? For there are two
|
|||
|
kinds of plunder: legal and illegal.
|
|||
|
I do not think that illegal plunder, such as theft or swindling<6E>
|
|||
|
which the penal code defines, anticipates, and punishes<65>
|
|||
|
can be called socialism. It is not this kind of plunder that
|
|||
|
systematically threatens the foundations of society. Anyway, the
|
|||
|
war against this kind of plunder has not waited for the command
|
|||
|
of these gentlemen. The war against illegal plunder has been
|
|||
|
fought since the beginning of the world. Long before the Revolution
|
|||
|
of February 1848<34>long before the appearance even of
|
|||
|
socialism itself<6C>France had provided police, judges, gendarmes,
|
|||
|
prisons, dungeons, and scaffolds for the purpose of
|
|||
|
fighting illegal plunder. The law itself conducts this war, and it is
|
|||
|
my wish and opinion that the law should always maintain this
|
|||
|
attitude toward plunder.
|
|||
|
The Law Defends Plunder
|
|||
|
But it does not always do this. Sometimes the law defends
|
|||
|
plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared
|
|||
|
the shame, danger, and scruple which their acts would otherwise
|
|||
|
involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of
|
|||
|
judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers,
|
|||
|
and treats the victim<69>when he defends himself<6C>as a
|
|||
|
16
|
|||
|
criminal. In short, there is a legal plunder, and it is of this, no
|
|||
|
doubt, that Mr. de Montalembert speaks.
|
|||
|
This legal plunder may be only an isolated stain among the
|
|||
|
legislative measures of the people. If so, it is best to wipe it out
|
|||
|
with a minimum of speeches and denunciations<6E>and in spite of
|
|||
|
the uproar of the vested interests.
|
|||
|
How to Identify Legal Plunder
|
|||
|
But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply.
|
|||
|
See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them,
|
|||
|
and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if
|
|||
|
the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing
|
|||
|
what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
|
|||
|
Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil
|
|||
|
itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it
|
|||
|
invites reprisals. If such a law<61>which may be an isolated case<73>
|
|||
|
is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and
|
|||
|
develop into a system.
|
|||
|
The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly,
|
|||
|
defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is
|
|||
|
obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that
|
|||
|
this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry
|
|||
|
is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor
|
|||
|
workingmen.
|
|||
|
Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The
|
|||
|
acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a
|
|||
|
17
|
|||
|
whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The presentday
|
|||
|
delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of
|
|||
|
everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of
|
|||
|
organizing it.
|
|||
|
Legal Plunder Has Many Names
|
|||
|
Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number
|
|||
|
of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing
|
|||
|
it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive
|
|||
|
taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed
|
|||
|
profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of
|
|||
|
labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a
|
|||
|
whole<EFBFBD>with their common aim of legal plunder<65>constitute
|
|||
|
socialism.
|
|||
|
Now, since under this definition socialism is a body of doctrine,
|
|||
|
what attack can be made against it other than a war of doctrine?
|
|||
|
If you find this socialistic doctrine to be false, absurd, and
|
|||
|
evil, then refute it. And the more false, the more absurd, and the
|
|||
|
more evil it is, the easier it will be to refute. Above all, if you wish
|
|||
|
to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that
|
|||
|
may have crept into your legislation. This will be no light task.
|
|||
|
Socialism Is Legal Plunder
|
|||
|
Mr. de Montalembert has been accused of desiring to fight
|
|||
|
socialism by the use of brute force. He ought to be exonerated
|
|||
|
from this accusation, for he has plainly said: <20>The war that we
|
|||
|
18
|
|||
|
must fight against socialism must be in harmony with law, honor,
|
|||
|
and justice.<2E>
|
|||
|
But why does not Mr. de Montalembert see that he has
|
|||
|
placed himself in a vicious circle? You would use the law to
|
|||
|
oppose socialism? But it is upon the law that socialism itself
|
|||
|
relies. Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder.
|
|||
|
Socialists, like all other monopolists, desire to make the law
|
|||
|
their own weapon. And when once the law is on the side of
|
|||
|
socialism, how can it be used against socialism? For when plunder
|
|||
|
is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes,
|
|||
|
and your prisons. Rather, it may call upon them for
|
|||
|
help.
|
|||
|
To prevent this, you would exclude socialism from entering
|
|||
|
into the making of laws? You would prevent socialists from
|
|||
|
entering the Legislative Palace? You shall not succeed, I predict,
|
|||
|
so long as legal plunder continues to be the main business of the
|
|||
|
legislature. It is illogical<61>in fact, absurd<72>to assume otherwise.
|
|||
|
The Choice Before Us
|
|||
|
This question of legal plunder must be settled once and for
|
|||
|
all, and there are only three ways to settle it:
|
|||
|
1. The few plunder the many.
|
|||
|
2. Everybody plunders everybody.
|
|||
|
3. Nobody plunders anybody.
|
|||
|
We must make our choice among limited plunder, universal
|
|||
|
plunder, and no plunder. The law can follow only one of these
|
|||
|
three.
|
|||
|
19
|
|||
|
Limited legal plunder: This system prevailed when the right
|
|||
|
to vote was restricted. One would turn back to this system to
|
|||
|
prevent the invasion of socialism.
|
|||
|
Universal legal plunder:We have been threatened with this
|
|||
|
system since the franchise was made universal. The newly
|
|||
|
enfranchised majority has decided to formulate law on the same
|
|||
|
principle of legal plunder that was used by their predecessors
|
|||
|
when the vote was limited.
|
|||
|
No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace,
|
|||
|
order, stability, harmony, and logic. Until the day of my death, I
|
|||
|
shall proclaim this principle with all the force of my lungs (which
|
|||
|
alas! is all too inadequate).*
|
|||
|
The Proper Function of the Law
|
|||
|
And, in all sincerity, can anything more than the absence of
|
|||
|
plunder be required of the law? Can the law<61>which necessarily
|
|||
|
requires the use of force<63>rationally be used for anything except
|
|||
|
protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it
|
|||
|
beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently,
|
|||
|
turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical
|
|||
|
social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be
|
|||
|
admitted that the true solution<6F>so long searched for in the area
|
|||
|
of social relationships<70>is contained in these simple words: Law
|
|||
|
is organized justice.
|
|||
|
20
|
|||
|
*Translator<6F>s note: At the time this was written, Mr. Bastiat knew that he
|
|||
|
was dying of tuberculosis. Within a year, he was dead.
|
|||
|
Now this must be said: When justice is organized by law<61>
|
|||
|
that is, by force<63>this excludes the idea of using law (force) to
|
|||
|
organize any human activity whatever, whether it be labor, charity,
|
|||
|
agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or religion.
|
|||
|
The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably
|
|||
|
destroy the essential organization<6F>justice. For truly, how can
|
|||
|
we imagine force being used against the liberty of citizens without
|
|||
|
it also being used against justice, and thus acting against its
|
|||
|
proper purpose?
|
|||
|
The Seductive Lure of Socialism
|
|||
|
Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It
|
|||
|
is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be
|
|||
|
philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee
|
|||
|
to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for
|
|||
|
physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is
|
|||
|
demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education,
|
|||
|
and morality throughout the nation.
|
|||
|
This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again:
|
|||
|
These two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each
|
|||
|
other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the
|
|||
|
same time be free and not free.
|
|||
|
Enforced Fraternity Destroys Liberty
|
|||
|
Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: <20>Your doctrine
|
|||
|
is only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go
|
|||
|
21
|
|||
|
on to fraternity.<2E> I answered him: <20>The second half of your program
|
|||
|
will destroy the first.<2E>
|
|||
|
In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity
|
|||
|
from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how
|
|||
|
fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally
|
|||
|
destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot.
|
|||
|
Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said
|
|||
|
before, is in human greed; the other is in false philanthropy.
|
|||
|
At this point, I think that I should explain exactly what I
|
|||
|
mean by the word plunder.*
|
|||
|
Plunder Violates Ownership
|
|||
|
I do not, as is often done, use the word in any vague, uncertain,
|
|||
|
approximate, or metaphorical sense. I use it in its scientific
|
|||
|
acceptance<EFBFBD>as expressing the idea opposite to that of property
|
|||
|
[wages, land, money, or whatever]. When a portion of wealth is
|
|||
|
transferred from the person who owns it<69>without his consent
|
|||
|
and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud<75>
|
|||
|
to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated;
|
|||
|
that an act of plunder is committed.
|
|||
|
I say that this act is exactly what the law is supposed to suppress,
|
|||
|
always and everywhere. When the law itself commits this
|
|||
|
act that it is supposed to suppress, I say that plunder is still com-
|
|||
|
22
|
|||
|
*Translator<6F>s note: The French word used by Mr. Bastiat is spoliation.
|
|||
|
mitted, and I add that from the point of view of society and welfare,
|
|||
|
this aggression against rights is even worse. In this case of
|
|||
|
legal plunder, however, the person who receives the benefits is
|
|||
|
not responsible for the act of plundering. The responsibility for
|
|||
|
this legal plunder rests with the law, the legislator, and society
|
|||
|
itself. Therein lies the political danger.
|
|||
|
It is to be regretted that the word plunder is offensive. I
|
|||
|
have tried in vain to find an inoffensive word, for I would not at
|
|||
|
any time<6D>especially now<6F>wish to add an irritating word to our
|
|||
|
dissentions. Thus, whether I am believed or not, I declare that I
|
|||
|
do not mean to attack the intentions or the morality of anyone.
|
|||
|
Rather, I am attacking an idea which I believe to be false; a system
|
|||
|
which appears to me to be unjust; an injustice so independent
|
|||
|
of personal intentions that each of us profits from it without
|
|||
|
wishing to do so, and suffers from it without knowing the cause
|
|||
|
of the suffering.
|
|||
|
Three Systems of Plunder
|
|||
|
The sincerity of those who advocate protectionism, socialism,
|
|||
|
and communism is not here questioned. Any writer who
|
|||
|
would do that must be influenced by a political spirit or a political
|
|||
|
fear. It is to be pointed out, however, that protectionism,
|
|||
|
socialism, and communism are basically the same plant in three
|
|||
|
different stages of its growth. All that can be said is that legal
|
|||
|
plunder is more visible in communism because it is complete
|
|||
|
23
|
|||
|
plunder; and in protectionism because the plunder is limited to
|
|||
|
specific groups and industries.* Thus it follows that, of the three
|
|||
|
systems, socialism is the vaguest, the most indecisive, and, consequently,
|
|||
|
the most sincere stage of development.
|
|||
|
But sincere or insincere, the intentions of persons are not
|
|||
|
here under question. In fact, I have already said that legal plunder
|
|||
|
is based partially on philanthropy, even though it is a false
|
|||
|
philanthropy.
|
|||
|
With this explanation, let us examine the value<75>the origin
|
|||
|
and the tendency<63>of this popular aspiration which claims to
|
|||
|
accomplish the general welfare by general plunder.
|
|||
|
Law Is Force
|
|||
|
Since the law organizes justice, the socialists ask why the
|
|||
|
law should not also organize labor, education, and religion.
|
|||
|
Why should not law be used for these purposes? Because it
|
|||
|
could not organize labor, education, and religion without
|
|||
|
destroying justice. We must remember that law is force, and
|
|||
|
that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully
|
|||
|
extend beyond the proper functions of force.
|
|||
|
24
|
|||
|
* If the special privilege of government protection against competition<6F>
|
|||
|
a monopoly<6C>were granted only to one group in France, the iron workers, for
|
|||
|
instance, this act would so obviously be legal plunder that it could not last for
|
|||
|
long. It is for this reason that we see all the protected trades combined into a
|
|||
|
common cause. They even organize themselves in such a manner as to appear
|
|||
|
to represent all persons who labor. Instinctively, they feel that legal plunder is
|
|||
|
concealed by generalizing it.
|
|||
|
When law and force keep a person within the bounds of
|
|||
|
justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige
|
|||
|
him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither
|
|||
|
his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard all of
|
|||
|
these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.
|
|||
|
Law Is a Negative Concept
|
|||
|
The harmlessness of the mission performed by law and lawful
|
|||
|
defense is self-evident; the usefulness is obvious; and the
|
|||
|
legitimacy cannot be disputed.
|
|||
|
As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of
|
|||
|
law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to
|
|||
|
cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It
|
|||
|
ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice
|
|||
|
from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that
|
|||
|
has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice
|
|||
|
is absent.
|
|||
|
But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force,
|
|||
|
imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of
|
|||
|
education, a religious faith or creed<65>then the law is no longer
|
|||
|
negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of
|
|||
|
the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator
|
|||
|
for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no
|
|||
|
longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does
|
|||
|
all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the
|
|||
|
people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their
|
|||
|
liberty, their property.
|
|||
|
25
|
|||
|
Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is
|
|||
|
not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force
|
|||
|
that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these
|
|||
|
contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot
|
|||
|
organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.
|
|||
|
The Political Approach
|
|||
|
When a politician views society from the seclusion of his
|
|||
|
office, he is struck by the spectacle of the inequality that he sees.
|
|||
|
He deplores the deprivations which are the lot of so many of our
|
|||
|
brothers, deprivations which appear to be even sadder when
|
|||
|
contrasted with luxury and wealth.
|
|||
|
Perhaps the politician should ask himself whether this state
|
|||
|
of affairs has not been caused by old conquests and lootings, and
|
|||
|
by more recent legal plunder. Perhaps he should consider this
|
|||
|
proposition: Since all persons seek well-being and perfection,
|
|||
|
would not a condition of justice be sufficient to cause the greatest
|
|||
|
efforts toward progress, and the greatest possible equality
|
|||
|
that is compatible with individual responsibility? Would not this
|
|||
|
be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which
|
|||
|
God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice
|
|||
|
between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and
|
|||
|
reward?
|
|||
|
But the politician never gives this a thought. His mind turns
|
|||
|
to organizations, combinations, and arrangements<74>legal or
|
|||
|
26
|
|||
|
apparently legal. He attempts to remedy the evil by increasing
|
|||
|
and perpetuating the very thing that caused the evil in the first
|
|||
|
place: legal plunder. We have seen that justice is a negative concept.
|
|||
|
Is there even one of these positive legal actions that does
|
|||
|
not contain the principle of plunder?
|
|||
|
The Law and Charity
|
|||
|
You say: <20>There are persons who have no money,<2C> and you
|
|||
|
turn to the law. But the law is not a breast that fills itself with
|
|||
|
milk. Nor are the lacteal veins of the law supplied with milk from
|
|||
|
a source outside the society. Nothing can enter the public treasury
|
|||
|
for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens
|
|||
|
and other classes have been forced to send it in. If every
|
|||
|
person draws from the treasury the amount that he has put in it,
|
|||
|
it is true that the law then plunders nobody. But this procedure
|
|||
|
does nothing for the persons who have no money. It does not
|
|||
|
promote equality of income. The law can be an instrument of
|
|||
|
equalization only as it takes from some persons and gives to
|
|||
|
other persons. When the law does this, it is an instrument of
|
|||
|
plunder.
|
|||
|
With this in mind, examine the protective tariffs, subsidies,
|
|||
|
guaranteed profits, guaranteed jobs, relief and welfare schemes,
|
|||
|
public education, progressive taxation, free credit, and public
|
|||
|
works. You will find that they are always based on legal plunder,
|
|||
|
organized injustice.
|
|||
|
27
|
|||
|
The Law and Education
|
|||
|
You say: <20>There are persons who lack education<6F> and you
|
|||
|
turn to the law. But the law is not, in itself, a torch of learning
|
|||
|
which shines its light abroad. The law extends over a society
|
|||
|
where some persons have knowledge and others do not; where
|
|||
|
some citizens need to learn, and others can teach. In this matter
|
|||
|
of education, the law has only two alternatives: It can permit this
|
|||
|
transaction of teaching-and-learning to operate freely and without
|
|||
|
the use of force, or it can force human wills in this matter by
|
|||
|
taking from some of them enough to pay the teachers who are
|
|||
|
appointed by government to instruct others, without charge. But
|
|||
|
in this second case, the law commits legal plunder by violating
|
|||
|
liberty and property.
|
|||
|
The Law and Morals
|
|||
|
You say: <20>Here are persons who are lacking in morality or
|
|||
|
religion,<2C> and you turn to the law. But law is force. And need I
|
|||
|
point out what a violent and futile effort it is to use force in the
|
|||
|
matters of morality and religion?
|
|||
|
It would seem that socialists, however self-complacent,
|
|||
|
could not avoid seeing this monstrous legal plunder that results
|
|||
|
from such systems and such efforts. But what do the socialists
|
|||
|
do? They cleverly disguise this legal plunder from others<72>and
|
|||
|
even from themselves<65>under the seductive names of fraternity,
|
|||
|
28
|
|||
|
unity, organization, and association. Because we ask so little
|
|||
|
from the law<61>only justice<63>the socialists thereby assume that
|
|||
|
we reject fraternity, unity, organization, and association. The
|
|||
|
socialists brand us with the name individualist.
|
|||
|
But we assure the socialists that we repudiate only forced
|
|||
|
organization, not natural organization. We repudiate the forms
|
|||
|
of association that are forced upon us, not free association. We
|
|||
|
repudiate forced fraternity, not true fraternity. We repudiate the
|
|||
|
artificial unity that does nothing more than deprive persons of
|
|||
|
individual responsibility. We do not repudiate the natural unity
|
|||
|
of mankind under Providence.
|
|||
|
A Confusion of Terms
|
|||
|
Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses
|
|||
|
the distinction between government and society. As a
|
|||
|
result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government,
|
|||
|
the socialists conclude that we object to its being done
|
|||
|
at all.
|
|||
|
We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say
|
|||
|
that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion.
|
|||
|
Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We
|
|||
|
object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are
|
|||
|
against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists
|
|||
|
were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do
|
|||
|
not want the state to raise grain.
|
|||
|
29
|
|||
|
The Influence of Socialist Writers
|
|||
|
How did politicians ever come to believe this weird idea
|
|||
|
that the law could be made to produce what it does not contain<69>
|
|||
|
the wealth, science, and religion that, in a positive sense,
|
|||
|
constitute prosperity? Is it due to the influence of our modern
|
|||
|
writers on public affairs?
|
|||
|
Present-day writers<72>especially those of the socialist school
|
|||
|
of thought<68>base their various theories upon one common
|
|||
|
hypothesis: They divide mankind into two parts. People in general<61>
|
|||
|
with the exception of the writer himself<6C>form the first
|
|||
|
group. The writer, all alone, forms the second and most important
|
|||
|
group. Surely this is the weirdest and most conceited notion
|
|||
|
that ever entered a human brain!
|
|||
|
In fact, these writers on public affairs begin by supposing
|
|||
|
that people have within themselves no means of discernment;
|
|||
|
no motivation to action. The writers assume that people are inert
|
|||
|
matter, passive particles, motionless atoms, at best a kind of vegetation
|
|||
|
indifferent to its own manner of existence. They assume
|
|||
|
that people are susceptible to being shaped<65>by the will and
|
|||
|
hand of another person<6F>into an infinite variety of forms, more
|
|||
|
or less symmetrical, artistic, and perfected.
|
|||
|
Moreover, not one of these writers on governmental affairs
|
|||
|
hesitates to imagine that he himself<6C>under the title of organizer,
|
|||
|
discoverer, legislator, or founder<65>is this will and hand,
|
|||
|
this universal motivating force, this creative power whose sublime
|
|||
|
mission is to mold these scattered materials<6C>persons<6E>
|
|||
|
into a society.
|
|||
|
30
|
|||
|
These socialist writers look upon people in the same manner
|
|||
|
that the gardener views his trees. Just as the gardener capriciously
|
|||
|
shapes the trees into pyramids, parasols, cubes, vases,
|
|||
|
fans, and other forms, just so does the socialist writer whimsically
|
|||
|
shape human beings into groups, series, centers, sub-centers,
|
|||
|
honeycombs, labor-corps, and other variations. And just as
|
|||
|
the gardener needs axes, pruning hooks, saws, and shears to
|
|||
|
shape his trees, just so does the socialist writer need the force
|
|||
|
that he can find only in law to shape human beings. For this purpose,
|
|||
|
he devises tariff laws, tax laws, relief laws, and school laws.
|
|||
|
The Socialists Want to Play God
|
|||
|
Socialists look upon people as raw material to be formed
|
|||
|
into social combinations. This is so true that, if by chance, the
|
|||
|
socialists have any doubts about the success of these combinations,
|
|||
|
they will demand that a small portion of mankind be set
|
|||
|
aside to experiment upon. The popular idea of trying all systems
|
|||
|
is well known. And one socialist leader has been known seriously
|
|||
|
to demand that the Constituent Assembly give him a small district
|
|||
|
with all its inhabitants, to try his experiments upon.
|
|||
|
In the same manner, an inventor makes a model before he
|
|||
|
constructs the full-sized machine; the chemist wastes some
|
|||
|
chemicals<EFBFBD>the farmer wastes some seeds and land<6E>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 his elements, between the farmer and his seeds!
|
|||
|
31
|
|||
|
And in all sincerity, the socialist thinks that there is the same difference
|
|||
|
between him and mankind!
|
|||
|
It is no wonder that the writers of the nineteenth century
|
|||
|
look upon society as an artificial creation of the legislator<6F>s
|
|||
|
genius. This idea<65>the fruit of classical education<6F>has taken
|
|||
|
possession of all the intellectuals and famous writers of our
|
|||
|
country. To these intellectuals and writers, the relationship
|
|||
|
between persons and the legislator appears to be the same as the
|
|||
|
relationship between the clay and the potter.
|
|||
|
Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a
|
|||
|
principle of action in the heart of man<61>and a principle of discernment
|
|||
|
in man<61>s intellect<63>they have considered these gifts
|
|||
|
from God to be fatal gifts. They have thought that persons,
|
|||
|
under the impulse of these two gifts, would fatally tend to ruin
|
|||
|
themselves. They assume that if the legislators left persons free
|
|||
|
to follow their own inclinations, they would arrive at atheism
|
|||
|
instead of religion, ignorance instead of knowledge, poverty
|
|||
|
instead of production and exchange.
|
|||
|
The Socialists Despise Mankind
|
|||
|
According to these writers, it is indeed fortunate that
|
|||
|
Heaven has bestowed upon certain men<65>governors and legislators<72>
|
|||
|
the exact opposite inclinations, not only for their own
|
|||
|
sake but also for the sake of the rest of the world! While
|
|||
|
mankind tends toward evil, the legislators yearn for good;
|
|||
|
while mankind advances toward darkness, the legislators aspire
|
|||
|
32
|
|||
|
for enlightenment; while mankind is drawn toward vice, the
|
|||
|
legislators are attracted toward virtue. Since they have decided
|
|||
|
that this is the true state of affairs, they then demand the use of
|
|||
|
force in order to substitute their own inclinations for those of
|
|||
|
the human race.
|
|||
|
Open at random any book on philosophy, politics, or history,
|
|||
|
and you will probably see how deeply rooted in our country
|
|||
|
is this idea<65>the child of classical studies, the mother of socialism.
|
|||
|
In all of them, you will probably find this idea that mankind
|
|||
|
is merely inert matter, receiving life, organization, morality, and
|
|||
|
prosperity from the power of the state. And even worse, it will be
|
|||
|
stated that mankind tends toward degeneration, and is stopped
|
|||
|
from this downward course only by the mysterious hand of the
|
|||
|
legislator. Conventional classical thought everywhere says that
|
|||
|
behind passive society there is a concealed power called law or
|
|||
|
legislator (or called by some other terminology that designates
|
|||
|
some unnamed person or persons of undisputed influence and
|
|||
|
authority) which moves, controls, benefits, and improves
|
|||
|
mankind.
|
|||
|
A Defense of Compulsory Labor
|
|||
|
Let us first consider a quotation from Bossuet [tutor to the
|
|||
|
Dauphin in the Court of Louis XIV]:
|
|||
|
One of the things most strongly impressed (by
|
|||
|
whom?) upon the minds of the Egyptians was patrio-
|
|||
|
33
|
|||
|
tism. . . . No one was permitted to be useless to the
|
|||
|
state. The law assigned to each one his work, which was
|
|||
|
handed down from father to son. No one was permitted
|
|||
|
to have two professions. Nor could a person change
|
|||
|
from one job to another. . . . But there was one task to
|
|||
|
which all were forced to conform: the study of the laws
|
|||
|
and of wisdom. Ignorance of religion and of the political
|
|||
|
regulations of the country was not excused under
|
|||
|
any circumstances. Moreover each occupation was
|
|||
|
assigned (by whom?) to a certain district. . . . Among
|
|||
|
the good laws, one of the best was that everyone was
|
|||
|
trained (by whom?) to obey them. As a result of this,
|
|||
|
Egypt was filled with wonderful inventions, and nothing
|
|||
|
was neglected that could make life easy and quiet.
|
|||
|
Thus, according to Bossuet, persons derive nothing from
|
|||
|
themselves. Patriotism, prosperity, inventions, husbandry, science<63>
|
|||
|
all of these are given to the people by the operation of the
|
|||
|
laws, the rulers. All that the people have to do is to bow to leadership.
|
|||
|
A Defense of Paternal Government
|
|||
|
Bossuet carries this idea of the state as the source of all
|
|||
|
progress even so far as to defend the Egyptians against the
|
|||
|
charge that they rejected wrestling and music. He said:
|
|||
|
34
|
|||
|
How is that possible? These arts were invented by
|
|||
|
Trismegistus [who was alleged to have been Chancellor
|
|||
|
to the Egyptian god Osiris].
|
|||
|
And again among the Persians, Bossuet claims that all
|
|||
|
comes from above:
|
|||
|
One of the first responsibilities of the prince was
|
|||
|
to encourage agriculture. . . . Just as there were offices
|
|||
|
established for the regulation of armies, just so were
|
|||
|
there offices for the direction of farm work. . . . The
|
|||
|
Persian people were inspired with an overwhelming
|
|||
|
respect for royal authority.
|
|||
|
And according to Bossuet, the Greek people, although
|
|||
|
exceedingly intelligent, had no sense of personal responsibility;
|
|||
|
like dogs and horses, they themselves could not have invented
|
|||
|
the most simple games:
|
|||
|
The Greeks, naturally intelligent and courageous,
|
|||
|
had been early cultivated by the kings and settlers who
|
|||
|
had come from Egypt. From these Egyptian rulers,
|
|||
|
the Greek people had learned bodily exercises, foot
|
|||
|
races, and horse and chariot races. . . . But the best
|
|||
|
thing that the Egyptians had taught the Greeks was to
|
|||
|
become docile, and to permit themselves to be formed
|
|||
|
by the law for the public good.
|
|||
|
35
|
|||
|
The Idea of Passive Mankind
|
|||
|
It cannot be disputed that these classical theories
|
|||
|
[advanced by these latter-day teachers, writers, legislators, economists,
|
|||
|
and philosophers] held that everything came to the people
|
|||
|
from a source outside themselves. As another example, take
|
|||
|
Fenelon [archbishop, author, and instructor to the Duke of Burgundy].
|
|||
|
He was a witness to the power of Louis XIV. This, plus the
|
|||
|
fact that he was nurtured in the classical studies and the admiration
|
|||
|
of antiquity, naturally caused Fenelon to accept the idea
|
|||
|
that mankind should be passive; that the misfortunes and the
|
|||
|
prosperity<EFBFBD>vices and virtues<65>of people are caused by the
|
|||
|
external influence exercised upon them by the law and the legislators.
|
|||
|
Thus, in his Utopia of Salentum, he puts men<65>with all
|
|||
|
their interests, faculties, desires, and possessions<6E>under the
|
|||
|
absolute discretion of the legislator. Whatever the issue may be,
|
|||
|
persons do not decide it for themselves; the prince decides for
|
|||
|
them. The prince is depicted as the soul of this shapeless mass of
|
|||
|
people who form the nation. In the prince resides the thought,
|
|||
|
the foresight, all progress, and the principle of all organization.
|
|||
|
Thus all responsibility rests with him.
|
|||
|
The whole of the tenth book of Fenelon<6F>s Telemachus
|
|||
|
proves this. I refer the reader to it, and content myself with
|
|||
|
quoting at random from this celebrated work to which, in every
|
|||
|
other respect, I am the first to pay homage.
|
|||
|
36
|
|||
|
Socialists Ignore Reason and Facts
|
|||
|
With the amazing credulity which is typical of the classicists,
|
|||
|
Fenelon ignores the authority of reason and facts when he
|
|||
|
attributes the general happiness of the Egyptians, not to their
|
|||
|
own wisdom but to the wisdom of their kings:
|
|||
|
We could not turn our eyes to either shore without
|
|||
|
seeing rich towns and country estates most agreeably
|
|||
|
located; fields, never fallowed, covered with
|
|||
|
golden crops every year; meadows full of flocks; workers
|
|||
|
bending under the weight of the fruit which the
|
|||
|
earth lavished upon its cultivators; shepherds who
|
|||
|
made the echoes resound with the soft notes from
|
|||
|
their pipes and flutes. <20>Happy,<2C> said Mentor, <20>is the
|
|||
|
people governed by a wise king. . . .<2E>
|
|||
|
Later, Mentor desired that I observe the contentment
|
|||
|
and abundance which covered all Egypt, where
|
|||
|
twenty-two thousand cities could be counted. He
|
|||
|
admired the good police regulations in the cities; the
|
|||
|
justice rendered in favor of the poor against the rich;
|
|||
|
the sound education of the children in obedience,
|
|||
|
labor, sobriety, and the love of the arts and letters; the
|
|||
|
exactness with which all religious ceremonies were
|
|||
|
performed; the unselfishness, the high regard for
|
|||
|
honor, the faithfulness to men, and the fear of the gods
|
|||
|
37
|
|||
|
which every father taught his children. He never
|
|||
|
stopped admiring the prosperity of the country.
|
|||
|
<EFBFBD>Happy,<2C> said he, <20>is the people ruled by a wise king in
|
|||
|
such a manner.<2E>
|
|||
|
Socialists Want to Regiment People
|
|||
|
Fenelon<EFBFBD>s idyl on Crete is even more alluring. Mentor is
|
|||
|
made to say:
|
|||
|
All that you see in this wonderful island results
|
|||
|
from the laws of Minos. The education which he
|
|||
|
ordained for the children makes their bodies strong
|
|||
|
and robust. From the very beginning, one accustoms
|
|||
|
the children to a life of frugality and labor, because
|
|||
|
one assumes that all pleasures of the senses weaken
|
|||
|
both body and mind. Thus one allows them no pleasure
|
|||
|
except that of becoming invincible by virtue, and
|
|||
|
of acquiring glory. . . . Here one punishes three vices
|
|||
|
that go unpunished among other people: ingratitude,
|
|||
|
hypocrisy, and greed. There is no need to punish persons
|
|||
|
for pomp and dissipation, for they are unknown
|
|||
|
in Crete. . . . No costly furniture, no magnificent
|
|||
|
clothing, no delicious feasts, no gilded palaces are
|
|||
|
permitted.
|
|||
|
Thus does Mentor prepare his student to mold and to
|
|||
|
manipulate<EFBFBD>doubtless with the best of intentions<6E>the people
|
|||
|
38
|
|||
|
of Ithaca. And to convince the student of the wisdom of these
|
|||
|
ideas, Mentor recites to him the example of Salentum.
|
|||
|
It is from this sort of philosophy that we receive our first
|
|||
|
political ideas! We are taught to treat persons much as an
|
|||
|
instructor in agriculture teaches farmers to prepare and tend the
|
|||
|
soil.
|
|||
|
A Famous Name and an Evil Idea
|
|||
|
Now listen to the great Montesquieu on this same subject:
|
|||
|
To maintain the spirit of commerce, it is necessary
|
|||
|
that all the laws must favor it. These laws, by proportionately
|
|||
|
dividing up the fortunes as they are made
|
|||
|
in commerce, should provide every poor citizen with
|
|||
|
sufficiently easy circumstances to enable him to work
|
|||
|
like the others. These same laws should put every rich
|
|||
|
citizen in such lowered circumstances as to force him
|
|||
|
to work in order to keep or to gain.
|
|||
|
Thus the laws are to dispose of all fortunes!
|
|||
|
Although real equality is the soul of the state in a
|
|||
|
democracy, yet this is so difficult to establish that an
|
|||
|
extreme precision in this matter would not always be
|
|||
|
desirable. It is sufficient that here be established a
|
|||
|
census to reduce or fix these differences in wealth
|
|||
|
within a certain limit. After this is done, it remains for
|
|||
|
39
|
|||
|
specific laws to equalize inequality by imposing burdens
|
|||
|
upon the rich and granting relief to the poor.
|
|||
|
Here again we find the idea of equalizing fortunes by law,
|
|||
|
by force.
|
|||
|
In Greece, there were two kinds of republics,
|
|||
|
One, Sparta, was military; the other, Athens, was commercial.
|
|||
|
In the former, it was desired that the citizens
|
|||
|
be idle; in the latter, love of labor was encouraged.
|
|||
|
Note the marvelous genius of these legislators: By
|
|||
|
debasing all established customs<6D>by mixing the usual
|
|||
|
concepts of all virtues<65>they knew in advance that the
|
|||
|
world would admire their wisdom.
|
|||
|
Lycurgus gave stability to his city of Sparta by
|
|||
|
combining petty thievery with the soul of justice; by
|
|||
|
combining the most complete bondage with the most
|
|||
|
extreme liberty; by combining the most atrocious
|
|||
|
beliefs with the greatest moderation. He appeared to
|
|||
|
deprive his city of all its resources, arts, commerce,
|
|||
|
money, and defenses. In Sparta, ambition went without
|
|||
|
the hope of material reward. Natural affection
|
|||
|
found no outlet because a man was neither son, husband,
|
|||
|
nor father. Even chastity was no longer considered
|
|||
|
becoming. By this road, Lycurgus led Sparta on
|
|||
|
to greatness and glory.
|
|||
|
This boldness which was to be found in the institutions
|
|||
|
of Greece has been repeated in the midst of
|
|||
|
40
|
|||
|
the degeneracy and corruption of our modern times.
|
|||
|
An occasional honest legislator has molded a people in
|
|||
|
whom integrity appears as natural as courage in the
|
|||
|
Spartans.
|
|||
|
Mr. William Penn, for example, is a true Lycurgus.
|
|||
|
Even though Mr. Penn had peace as his objective<76>
|
|||
|
while Lycurgus had war as his objective<76>they
|
|||
|
resemble each other in that their moral prestige over
|
|||
|
free men allowed them to overcome prejudices, to
|
|||
|
subdue passions, and to lead their respective peoples
|
|||
|
into new paths.
|
|||
|
The country of Paraguay furnishes us with
|
|||
|
another example [of a people who, for their own good,
|
|||
|
are molded by their legislators].*
|
|||
|
Now it is true that if one considers the sheer pleasure
|
|||
|
of commanding to be the greatest joy in life, he
|
|||
|
contemplates a crime against society; it will, however,
|
|||
|
always be a noble ideal to govern men in a manner that
|
|||
|
will make them happier.
|
|||
|
Those who desire to establish similar institutions
|
|||
|
must do as follows: Establish common ownership of
|
|||
|
property as in the republic of Plato; revere the gods as
|
|||
|
Plato commanded; prevent foreigners from mingling
|
|||
|
with the people, in order to preserve the customs; let
|
|||
|
41
|
|||
|
*Translator<6F>s note: What was then known as Paraguay was a much larger
|
|||
|
area than it is today. It was colonized by the Jesuits who settled the Indians into
|
|||
|
villages, and generally saved them from further brutalities by the avid conquerors.
|
|||
|
the state, instead of the citizens, establish commerce.
|
|||
|
The legislators should supply arts instead of luxuries;
|
|||
|
they should satisfy needs instead of desires.
|
|||
|
A Frightful Idea
|
|||
|
Those who are subject to vulgar infatuation may exclaim:
|
|||
|
<EFBFBD>Montesquieu has said this! So it<69>s magnificent! It<49>s sublime!<21> As
|
|||
|
for me, I have the courage of my own opinion. I say: What! You
|
|||
|
have the nerve to call that fine? It is frightful! It is abominable!
|
|||
|
These random selections from the writings of Montesquieu
|
|||
|
show that he considers persons, liberties, property<74>mankind
|
|||
|
itself<EFBFBD>to be nothing but materials for legislators to exercise
|
|||
|
their wisdom upon.
|
|||
|
The Leader of the Democrats
|
|||
|
Now let us examine Rousseau on this subject. This writer
|
|||
|
on public affairs is the supreme authority of the democrats. And
|
|||
|
although he bases the social structure upon the will of the people,
|
|||
|
he has, to a greater extent than anyone else, completely
|
|||
|
accepted the theory of the total inertness of mankind in the
|
|||
|
presence of the legislators:
|
|||
|
If it is true that a great prince is rare, then is it not
|
|||
|
true that a great legislator is even more rare? The
|
|||
|
prince has only to follow the pattern that the legislator
|
|||
|
creates. The legislator is the mechanic who invents the
|
|||
|
42
|
|||
|
machine; the prince is merely the workman who sets it
|
|||
|
in motion.
|
|||
|
And what part do persons play in all this? They are merely
|
|||
|
the machine that is set in motion. In fact, are they not merely
|
|||
|
considered to be the raw material of which the machine is
|
|||
|
made?
|
|||
|
Thus the same relationship exists between the legislator
|
|||
|
and the prince as exists between the agricultural expert and the
|
|||
|
farmer; and the relationship between the prince and his subjects
|
|||
|
is the same as that between the farmer and his land. How high
|
|||
|
above mankind, then, has this writer on public affairs been
|
|||
|
placed? Rousseau rules over legislators themselves, and teaches
|
|||
|
them their trade in these imperious terms:
|
|||
|
Would you give stability to the state? Then bring
|
|||
|
the extremes as closely together as possible. Tolerate
|
|||
|
neither wealthy persons nor beggars.
|
|||
|
If the soil is poor or barren, or the country too
|
|||
|
small for its inhabitants, then turn to industry and arts,
|
|||
|
and trade these products for the foods that you need.
|
|||
|
. . . On a fertile soil<69>if you are short of inhabitants<74>
|
|||
|
devote all your attention to agriculture, because this
|
|||
|
multiplies people; banish the arts, because they only
|
|||
|
serve to depopulate the nation. . . .
|
|||
|
If you have extensive and accessible coast lines,
|
|||
|
then cover the sea with merchant ships; you will have a
|
|||
|
brilliant but short existence. If your seas wash only
|
|||
|
43
|
|||
|
inaccessible cliffs, let the people be barbarous and eat
|
|||
|
fish; they will live more quietly<6C>perhaps better<65>and,
|
|||
|
most certainly, they will live more happily.
|
|||
|
In short, and in addition to the maxims that are
|
|||
|
common to all, every people has its own particular circumstances.
|
|||
|
And this fact in itself will cause legislation
|
|||
|
appropriate to the circumstances.
|
|||
|
This is the reason why the Hebrews formerly<6C>
|
|||
|
and, more recently, the Arabs<62>had religion as their
|
|||
|
principle objective. The objective of the Athenians
|
|||
|
was literature; of Carthage and Tyre, commerce; of
|
|||
|
Rhodes, naval affairs; of Sparta, war; and of Rome,
|
|||
|
virtue. The author of The Spirit of Laws has shown by
|
|||
|
what art the legislator should direct his institutions
|
|||
|
toward each of these objectives. . . . But suppose that
|
|||
|
the legislator mistakes his proper objective, and acts
|
|||
|
on a principle different from that indicated by the
|
|||
|
nature of things? Suppose that the selected principle
|
|||
|
sometimes creates slavery, and sometimes liberty;
|
|||
|
sometimes wealth, and sometimes population; sometimes
|
|||
|
peace, and sometimes conquest? This confusion
|
|||
|
of objective will slowly enfeeble the law and impair the
|
|||
|
constitution. The state will be subjected to ceaseless
|
|||
|
agitations until it is destroyed or changed, and invincible
|
|||
|
nature regains her empire.
|
|||
|
But if nature is sufficiently invincible to regain its empire,
|
|||
|
why does not Rousseau admit that it did not need the legislator
|
|||
|
44
|
|||
|
to gain it in the first place? Why does he not see that men, by
|
|||
|
obeying their own instincts, would turn to farming on fertile soil,
|
|||
|
and to commerce on an extensive and easily accessible coast,
|
|||
|
without the interference of a Lycurgus or a Solon or a Rousseau
|
|||
|
who might easily be mistaken.
|
|||
|
Socialists Want Forced Conformity
|
|||
|
Be that as it may, Rousseau invests the creators, organizers,
|
|||
|
directors, legislators, and controllers of society with a terrible
|
|||
|
responsibility. He is, therefore, most exacting with them:
|
|||
|
He who would dare to undertake the political
|
|||
|
creation of a people ought to believe that he can, in a
|
|||
|
manner of speaking, transform human nature; transform
|
|||
|
each individual<61>who, by himself, is a solitary
|
|||
|
and perfect whole<6C>into a mere part of a greater
|
|||
|
whole from which the individual will henceforth
|
|||
|
receive his life and being. Thus the person who would
|
|||
|
undertake the political creation of a people should
|
|||
|
believe in his ability to alter man<61>s constitution; to
|
|||
|
strengthen it; to substitute for the physical and independent
|
|||
|
existence received from nature, an existence
|
|||
|
which is partial and moral.* In short, the would-be
|
|||
|
45
|
|||
|
*Translator<6F>s note: According to Rousseau, the existence of social man is
|
|||
|
partial in the sense that he is henceforth merely a part of society. Knowing himself
|
|||
|
as such<63>-and thinking and feeling from the point of view of the whole<6C>
|
|||
|
he thereby becomes moral.
|
|||
|
creator of political man must remove man<61>s own forces
|
|||
|
and endow him with others that are naturally alien to
|
|||
|
him.
|
|||
|
Poor human nature! What would become of a person<6F>s dignity
|
|||
|
if it were entrusted to the followers of Rousseau?
|
|||
|
Legislators Desire to Mold Mankind
|
|||
|
Now let us examine Raynal on this subject of mankind
|
|||
|
being molded by the legislator:
|
|||
|
The legislator must first consider the climate, the
|
|||
|
air, and the soil. The resources at his disposal determine
|
|||
|
his duties. He must first consider his locality. A
|
|||
|
population living on maritime shores must have laws
|
|||
|
designed for navigation. . . . If it is an inland settlement,
|
|||
|
the legislator must make his plans according to
|
|||
|
the nature and fertility of the soil. . . .
|
|||
|
It is especially in the distribution of property that
|
|||
|
the genius of the legislator will be found. As a general
|
|||
|
rule, when a new colony is established in any country,
|
|||
|
sufficient land should be given to each man to support
|
|||
|
his family. . . .
|
|||
|
On an uncultivated island that you are populating
|
|||
|
with children, you need do nothing but let the seeds of
|
|||
|
truth germinate along with the development of reason.
|
|||
|
. . . But when you resettle a nation with a past into a
|
|||
|
46
|
|||
|
new country, the skill of the legislator rests in the policy
|
|||
|
of permitting the people to retain no injurious opinions
|
|||
|
and customs which can possibly be cured and corrected.
|
|||
|
If you desire to prevent these opinions and
|
|||
|
customs from becoming permanent, you will secure
|
|||
|
the second generation by a general system of public
|
|||
|
education for the children. A prince or a legislator
|
|||
|
should never establish a colony without first arranging
|
|||
|
to send wise men along to instruct the youth. . . .
|
|||
|
In a new colony, ample opportunity is open to the
|
|||
|
careful legislator who desires to purify the customs
|
|||
|
and manners of the people. If he has virtue and genius,
|
|||
|
the land and the people at his disposal will inspire his
|
|||
|
soul with a plan for society. A writer can only vaguely
|
|||
|
trace the plan in advance because it is necessarily subject
|
|||
|
to the instability of all hypotheses; the problem
|
|||
|
has many forms, complications, and circumstances
|
|||
|
that are difficult to foresee and settle in detail.
|
|||
|
Legislators Told How to Manage Men
|
|||
|
Raynal<EFBFBD>s instructions to the legislators on how to manage
|
|||
|
people may be compared to a professor of agriculture lecturing
|
|||
|
his students: <20>The climate is the first rule for the farmer. His
|
|||
|
resources determine his procedure. He must first consider his
|
|||
|
locality. If his soil is clay, he must do so and so. If his soil is sand,
|
|||
|
he must act in another manner. Every facility is open to the
|
|||
|
farmer who wishes to clear and improve his soil. If he is skillful
|
|||
|
47
|
|||
|
enough, the manure at his disposal will suggest to him a plan of
|
|||
|
operation. A professor can only vaguely trace this plan in
|
|||
|
advance because it is necessarily subject to the instability of all
|
|||
|
hypotheses; the problem has many forms, complications, and
|
|||
|
circumstances that are difficult to foresee and settle in detail.<2E>
|
|||
|
Oh, sublime writers! Please remember sometimes that this
|
|||
|
clay, this sand, and this manure which you so arbitrarily dispose
|
|||
|
of, are men! They are your equals! They are intelligent and free
|
|||
|
human beings like yourselves! As you have, they too have
|
|||
|
received from God the faculty to observe, to plan ahead, to
|
|||
|
think, and to judge for themselves!
|
|||
|
A Temporary Dictatorship
|
|||
|
Here is Mably on this subject of the law and the legislator.
|
|||
|
In the passages preceding the one here quoted, Mably has supposed
|
|||
|
the laws, due to a neglect of security, to be worn out. He
|
|||
|
continues to address the reader thusly:
|
|||
|
Under these circumstances, it is obvious that the
|
|||
|
springs of government are slack. Give them a new tension,
|
|||
|
and the evil will be cured. . . . Think less of punishing
|
|||
|
faults, and more of rewarding that which you
|
|||
|
need. In this manner you will restore to your republic
|
|||
|
the vigor of youth. Because free people have been
|
|||
|
ignorant of this procedure, they have lost their liberty!
|
|||
|
But if the evil has made such headway that ordinary
|
|||
|
48
|
|||
|
governmental procedures are unable to cure it, then
|
|||
|
resort to an extraordinary tribunal with considerable
|
|||
|
powers for a short time. The imagination of the citizens
|
|||
|
needs to be struck a hard blow.
|
|||
|
In this manner, Mably continues through twenty volumes.
|
|||
|
Under the influence of teaching like this<69>which stems
|
|||
|
from classical education<6F>there came a time when everyone
|
|||
|
wished to place himself above mankind in order to arrange,
|
|||
|
organize, and regulate it in his own way.
|
|||
|
Socialists Want Equality of Wealth
|
|||
|
Next let us examine Condillac on this subject of the legislators
|
|||
|
and mankind:
|
|||
|
My Lord, assume the character of Lycurgus or of
|
|||
|
Solon. And before you finish reading this essay, amuse
|
|||
|
yourself by giving laws to some savages in America or
|
|||
|
Africa. Confine these nomads to fixed dwellings; teach
|
|||
|
them to tend flocks. . . . Attempt to develop the social
|
|||
|
consciousness that nature has planted in them. . . .
|
|||
|
Force them to begin to practice the duties of humanity.
|
|||
|
. . . Use punishment to cause sensual pleasures to
|
|||
|
become distasteful to them. Then you will see that
|
|||
|
every point of your legislation will cause these savages
|
|||
|
to lose a vice and gain a virtue.
|
|||
|
49
|
|||
|
All people have had laws. But few people have
|
|||
|
been happy. Why is this so? Because the legislators
|
|||
|
themselves have almost always been ignorant of the
|
|||
|
purpose of society, which is the uniting of families by a
|
|||
|
common interest.
|
|||
|
Impartiality in law consists of two things: the
|
|||
|
establishing of equality in wealth and equality in dignity
|
|||
|
among the citizens. . . . As the laws establish
|
|||
|
greater equality, they become proportionately more
|
|||
|
precarious to every citizen. . . . When all men are equal
|
|||
|
in wealth and dignity<74>and when the laws leave no
|
|||
|
hope of disturbing this equality<74>how can men then
|
|||
|
be agitated by greed, ambition, dissipation, idleness,
|
|||
|
sloth, envy, hatred, or jealously?
|
|||
|
What you have learned about the republic of
|
|||
|
Sparta should enlighten you on this question. No other
|
|||
|
state has ever had laws more in accord with the order
|
|||
|
of nature; of equality.
|
|||
|
The Error of the Socialist Writers
|
|||
|
Actually, it is not strange that during the seventeenth and
|
|||
|
eighteenth centuries the human race was regarded as inert matter,
|
|||
|
ready to receive everything<6E>form, face, energy, movement,
|
|||
|
life<EFBFBD>from a great prince or great legislator or a great genius.
|
|||
|
These centuries were nourished on the study of antiquity. And
|
|||
|
antiquity presents everywhere<72>in Egypt, Persia, Greece,
|
|||
|
50
|
|||
|
Rome<EFBFBD>the spectacle of a few men molding mankind according
|
|||
|
to their whims, thanks to the prestige of force and fraud. But this
|
|||
|
does not prove that this situation is desirable. It proves only that
|
|||
|
since men and society are capable of improvement, it is naturally
|
|||
|
to be expected that error, ignorance, despotism, slavery, and
|
|||
|
superstition should be greatest towards the origins of history.
|
|||
|
The writers quoted above were not in error when they found
|
|||
|
ancient institutions to be such, but they were in error when they
|
|||
|
offered them for the admiration and imitation of future generations.
|
|||
|
Uncritical and childish conformists, they took for granted
|
|||
|
the grandeur, dignity, morality, and happiness of the artificial
|
|||
|
societies of the ancient world. They did not understand that
|
|||
|
knowledge appears and grows with the passage of time; and that
|
|||
|
in proportion to this growth of knowledge, might takes the side
|
|||
|
of right, and society regains possession of itself
|
|||
|
What Is Liberty?
|
|||
|
Actually, what is the political struggle that we witness? It is
|
|||
|
the instinctive struggle of all people toward liberty. And what is
|
|||
|
this liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and
|
|||
|
shakes the world? Is it not the union of all liberties<65>liberty of
|
|||
|
conscience, of education, of association, of the press, of travel, of
|
|||
|
labor, of trade? In short, is not liberty the freedom of every person
|
|||
|
to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm
|
|||
|
other persons while doing so? Is not liberty the destruction of all
|
|||
|
despotism<EFBFBD>including, of course, legal despotism? Finally, is not
|
|||
|
51
|
|||
|
liberty the restricting of the law only to its rational sphere of
|
|||
|
organizing the right of the individual to lawful self-defense; of
|
|||
|
punishing injustice?
|
|||
|
It must be admitted that the tendency of the human race
|
|||
|
toward liberty is largely thwarted, especially in France. This is
|
|||
|
greatly due to a fatal desire<72>learned from the teachings of
|
|||
|
antiquity<EFBFBD>that our writers on public affairs have in common:
|
|||
|
They desire to set themselves above mankind in order to
|
|||
|
arrange, organize, and regulate it according to their fancy.
|
|||
|
Philanthropic Tyranny
|
|||
|
While society is struggling toward liberty, these famous
|
|||
|
men who put themselves at its head are filled with the spirit of
|
|||
|
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. They think only of
|
|||
|
subjecting mankind to the philanthropic tyranny of their own
|
|||
|
social inventions. Like Rousseau, they desire to force mankind
|
|||
|
docilely to bear this yoke of the public welfare that they have
|
|||
|
dreamed up in their own imaginations.
|
|||
|
This was especially true in 1789. No sooner was the old
|
|||
|
regime destroyed than society was subjected to still other artificial
|
|||
|
arrangements, always starting from the same point: the
|
|||
|
omnipotence of the law.
|
|||
|
Listen to the ideas of a few of the writers and politicians
|
|||
|
during that period:
|
|||
|
SAINT-JUST: The legislator commands the future.
|
|||
|
It is for him to will the good of mankind. It is for him
|
|||
|
to make men what he wills them to be.
|
|||
|
52
|
|||
|
ROBESPIERRE: The function of government is to
|
|||
|
direct the physical and moral powers of the nation
|
|||
|
toward the end for which the commonwealth has
|
|||
|
come into being.
|
|||
|
BILLAUD-VARENNES: A people who are to be
|
|||
|
returned to liberty must be formed anew. A strong
|
|||
|
force and vigorous action are necessary to destroy old
|
|||
|
prejudices, to change old customs, to correct depraved
|
|||
|
affections, to restrict superfluous wants, and to destroy
|
|||
|
ingrained vices. . . . Citizens, the inflexible austerity of
|
|||
|
Lycurgus created the firm foundation of the Spartan
|
|||
|
republic. The weak and trusting character of Solon
|
|||
|
plunged Athens into slavery. This parallel embraces
|
|||
|
the whole science of government.
|
|||
|
LE PELLETIER: Considering the extent of human
|
|||
|
degradation, I am convinced that it is necessary to
|
|||
|
effect a total regeneration and, if I may so express
|
|||
|
myself, of creating a new people.
|
|||
|
The Socialists Want Dictatorship
|
|||
|
Again, it is claimed that persons are nothing but raw material.
|
|||
|
It is not for them to will their own improvement; they are
|
|||
|
incapable of it. According to Saint-Just, only the legislator is
|
|||
|
capable of doing this. Persons are merely to be what the legislator
|
|||
|
wills them to be. According to Robespierre, who copies
|
|||
|
53
|
|||
|
Rousseau literally, the legislator begins by decreeing the end for
|
|||
|
which the commonwealth has come into being. Once this is
|
|||
|
determined, the government has only to direct the physical and
|
|||
|
moral forces of the nation toward that end. Meanwhile, the
|
|||
|
inhabitants of the nation are to remain completely passive. And
|
|||
|
according to the teachings of Billaud-Varennes, the people
|
|||
|
should have no prejudices, no affections, and no desires except
|
|||
|
those authorized by the legislator. He even goes so far as to say
|
|||
|
that the inflexible austerity of one man is the foundation of a
|
|||
|
republic.
|
|||
|
In cases where the alleged evil is so great that ordinary governmental
|
|||
|
procedures cannot cure it, Mably recommends a dictatorship
|
|||
|
to promote virtue: <20>Resort,<2C> he says, <20>to an extraordinary
|
|||
|
tribunal with considerable powers for a short time. The
|
|||
|
imagination of the citizens needs to be struck a hard blow.<2E> This
|
|||
|
doctrine has not been forgotten. Listen to Robespierre:
|
|||
|
The principle of the republican government is
|
|||
|
virtue, and the means required to establish virtue is
|
|||
|
terror. In our country we desire to substitute morality
|
|||
|
for selfishness, honesty for honor, principles for customs,
|
|||
|
duties for manners, the empire of reason for
|
|||
|
the tyranny of fashion, contempt of vice for contempt
|
|||
|
of poverty, pride for insolence, greatness of soul for
|
|||
|
vanity, love of glory for love of money, good people
|
|||
|
for good companions, merit for intrigue, genius for
|
|||
|
wit, truth for glitter, the charm of happiness for the
|
|||
|
54
|
|||
|
boredom of pleasure, the greatness of man for the littleness
|
|||
|
of the great, a generous, strong, happy people
|
|||
|
for a good-natured, frivolous, degraded people; in
|
|||
|
short, we desire to substitute all the virtues and miracles
|
|||
|
of a republic for all the vices and absurdities of
|
|||
|
a monarchy.
|
|||
|
Dictatorial Arrogance
|
|||
|
At what a tremendous height above the rest of mankind
|
|||
|
does Robespierre here place himself! And note the arrogance
|
|||
|
with which he speaks. He is not content to pray for a great
|
|||
|
reawakening of the human spirit. Nor does he expect such a
|
|||
|
result from a well-ordered government. No, he himself will
|
|||
|
remake mankind, and by means of terror.
|
|||
|
This mass of rotten and contradictory statements is
|
|||
|
extracted from a discourse by Robespierre in which he aims to
|
|||
|
explain the principles of morality which ought to guide a revolutionary
|
|||
|
government. Note that Robespierre<72>s request for dictatorship
|
|||
|
is not made merely for the purpose of repelling a foreign
|
|||
|
invasion or putting down the opposing groups. Rather he wants
|
|||
|
a dictatorship in order that he may use terror to force upon the
|
|||
|
country his own principles of morality. He says that this act is
|
|||
|
only to be a temporary measure preceding a new constitution.
|
|||
|
But in reality, he desires nothing short of using terror to extinguish
|
|||
|
from France selfishness, honor, customs, manners, fashion,
|
|||
|
vanity, love of money, good companionship, intrigue, wit, sensu-
|
|||
|
55
|
|||
|
ousness, and poverty. Not until he, Robespierre, shall have
|
|||
|
accomplished these miracles, as he so rightly calls them, will he
|
|||
|
permit the law to reign again.*
|
|||
|
The Indirect Approach to Despotism
|
|||
|
Usually, however, these gentlemen<65>the reformers, the
|
|||
|
legislators, and the writers on public affairs do not desire to
|
|||
|
impose direct despotism upon mankind. Oh no, they are too
|
|||
|
moderate and philanthropic for such direct action. Instead, they
|
|||
|
turn to the law for this despotism, this absolutism, this omnipotence.
|
|||
|
They desire only to make the laws.
|
|||
|
To show the prevalence of this queer idea in France, I
|
|||
|
would need to copy not only the entire works of Mably, Raynal,
|
|||
|
Rousseau, and Fenelon<6F>plus long extracts from Bossuet and
|
|||
|
Montesquieu<EFBFBD>but also the entire proceedings of the Convention.
|
|||
|
I shall do no such thing; I merely refer the reader to them.
|
|||
|
Napoleon Wanted Passive Mankind
|
|||
|
It is, of course, not at all surprising that this same idea
|
|||
|
should have greatly appealed to Napoleon. He embraced it
|
|||
|
56
|
|||
|
*At this point in the original French text, Mr. Bastiat pauses and speaks
|
|||
|
thusly to all do- gooders and would-be rulers of mankind: <20>Ah, you miserable
|
|||
|
creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be
|
|||
|
so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don<6F>t you reform yourselves?
|
|||
|
That task would be sufficient enough.<2E>
|
|||
|
ardently and used it with vigor. Like a chemist, Napoleon considered
|
|||
|
all Europe to be material for his experiments. But, in
|
|||
|
due course, this material reacted against him.
|
|||
|
At St. Helena, Napoleon<6F>greatly disillusioned<65>seemed
|
|||
|
to recognize some initiative in mankind. Recognizing this, he
|
|||
|
became less hostile to liberty. Nevertheless, this did not prevent
|
|||
|
him from leaving this lesson to his son in his will: <20>To govern is
|
|||
|
to increase and spread morality, education, and happiness.<2E>
|
|||
|
After all this, it is hardly necessary to quote the same opinions
|
|||
|
from Morelly, Babeuf, Owen, Saint-Simon, and Fourier.
|
|||
|
Here are, however, a few extracts from Louis Blanc<6E>s book on
|
|||
|
the organization of labor: <20>In our plan, society receives its
|
|||
|
momentum from power.<2E>
|
|||
|
Now consider this: The impulse behind this momentum is
|
|||
|
to be supplied by the plan of Louis Blanc; his plan is to be forced
|
|||
|
upon society; the Society referred to is the human race. Thus the
|
|||
|
human race is to receive its momentum from Louis Blanc.
|
|||
|
Now it will be said that the people are free to accept or to
|
|||
|
reject this plan. Admittedly, people are free to accept or to reject
|
|||
|
advice from whomever they wish. But this is not the way in
|
|||
|
which Mr. Louis Blanc understands the matter. He expects that
|
|||
|
his plan will be legalized, and thus forcibly imposed upon the
|
|||
|
people by the power of the law:
|
|||
|
In our plan, the state has only to pass labor laws
|
|||
|
(nothing else?) by means of which industrial progress
|
|||
|
can and must proceed in complete liberty. The state
|
|||
|
merely places society on an incline (that is all?). Then
|
|||
|
57
|
|||
|
society will slide down this incline by the mere force of
|
|||
|
things, and by the natural workings of the established
|
|||
|
mechanism.
|
|||
|
But what is this incline that is indicated by Mr. Louis
|
|||
|
Blanc? Does it not lead to an abyss? (No, it leads to happiness.)
|
|||
|
If this is true, then why does not society go there of its own
|
|||
|
choice? (Because society does not know what it wants; it must be
|
|||
|
propelled.) What is to propel it? (Power.) And who is to supply
|
|||
|
the impulse for this power? (Why, the inventor of the machine<6E>
|
|||
|
in this instance, Mr. Louis Blanc.)
|
|||
|
The Vicious Circle of Socialism
|
|||
|
We shall never escape from this circle: the idea of passive
|
|||
|
mankind, and the power of the law being used by a great man to
|
|||
|
propel the people.
|
|||
|
Once on this incline, will society enjoy some liberty? (Certainly.)
|
|||
|
And what is liberty, Mr. Louis Blanc?
|
|||
|
Once and for all, liberty is not only a mere
|
|||
|
granted right; it is also the power granted to a person
|
|||
|
to use and to develop his faculties under a reign of justice
|
|||
|
and under the protection of the law.
|
|||
|
And this is no pointless distinction; its meaning is
|
|||
|
deep and its consequences are difficult to estimate.
|
|||
|
For once it is agreed that a person, to be truly free,
|
|||
|
must have the power to use and develop his faculties,
|
|||
|
58
|
|||
|
then it follows that every person has a claim on society
|
|||
|
for such education as will permit him to develop himself.
|
|||
|
It also follows that every person has a claim on
|
|||
|
society for tools of production, without which human
|
|||
|
activity cannot be fully effective. Now by what action
|
|||
|
can society give to every person the necessary education
|
|||
|
and the necessary tools of production, if not by
|
|||
|
the action of the state?
|
|||
|
Thus, again, liberty is power. Of what does this
|
|||
|
power consist? (Of being educated and of being given
|
|||
|
the tools of production.) Who is to give the education
|
|||
|
and the tools of production? (Society, which owes
|
|||
|
them to everyone.) By what action is society to give
|
|||
|
tools of production to those who do not own them?
|
|||
|
(Why, by the action of the state.) And from whom will
|
|||
|
the state take them?
|
|||
|
Let the reader answer that question. Let him also notice
|
|||
|
the direction in which this is taking us.
|
|||
|
The Doctrine of the Democrats
|
|||
|
The strange phenomenon of our times<65>one which will
|
|||
|
probably astound our descendants<74>is the doctrine based on
|
|||
|
this triple hypothesis: the total inertness of mankind, the
|
|||
|
omnipotence of the law, and the infallibility of the legislator.
|
|||
|
These three ideas form the sacred symbol of those who proclaim
|
|||
|
themselves totally democratic.
|
|||
|
59
|
|||
|
The advocates of this doctrine also profess to be social. So
|
|||
|
far as they are democratic, they place unlimited faith in
|
|||
|
mankind. But so far as they are social, they regard mankind as
|
|||
|
little better than mud. Let us examine this contrast in greater
|
|||
|
detail.
|
|||
|
What is the attitude of the democrat when political rights
|
|||
|
are under discussion? How does he regard the people when a
|
|||
|
legislator is to be chosen? Ah, then it is claimed that the people
|
|||
|
have an instinctive wisdom; they are gifted with the finest perception;
|
|||
|
their will is always right; the general will cannot err;
|
|||
|
voting cannot be too universal.
|
|||
|
When it is time to vote, apparently the voter is not to be
|
|||
|
asked for any guarantee of his wisdom. His will and capacity to
|
|||
|
choose wisely are taken for granted. Can the people be mistaken?
|
|||
|
Are we not living in an age of enlightenment? What! are
|
|||
|
the people always to be kept on leashes? Have they not won
|
|||
|
their rights by great effort and sacrifice? Have they not given
|
|||
|
ample proof of their intelligence and wisdom? Are they not
|
|||
|
adults? Are they not capable of judging for themselves? Do they
|
|||
|
not know what is best for themselves? Is there a class or a man
|
|||
|
who would be so bold as to set himself above the people, and
|
|||
|
judge and act for them? No, no, the people are and should be
|
|||
|
free. They desire to manage their own affairs, and they shall do
|
|||
|
so.
|
|||
|
But when the legislator is finally elected<65>ah! then indeed
|
|||
|
does the tone of his speech undergo a radical change. The people
|
|||
|
are returned to passiveness, inertness, and unconsciousness;
|
|||
|
60
|
|||
|
the legislator enters into omnipotence. Now it is for him to initiate,
|
|||
|
to direct, to propel, and to organize. Mankind has only to
|
|||
|
submit; the hour of despotism has struck. We now observe this
|
|||
|
fatal idea: The people who, during the election, were so wise, so
|
|||
|
moral, and so perfect, now have no tendencies whatever; or if
|
|||
|
they have any, they are tendencies that lead downward into
|
|||
|
degradation
|
|||
|
The Socialist Concept of Liberty
|
|||
|
But ought not the people be given a little liberty?
|
|||
|
But Mr. Considerant has assured us that liberty leads
|
|||
|
inevitably to monopoly!
|
|||
|
We understand that liberty means competition. But according
|
|||
|
to Mr. Louis Blanc, competition is a system that ruins the
|
|||
|
businessmen and exterminates the people. It is for this reason
|
|||
|
that free people are ruined and exterminated in proportion to
|
|||
|
their degree of freedom. (Possibly Mr. Louis Blanc should
|
|||
|
observe the results of competition in, for example, Switzerland,
|
|||
|
Holland, England, and the United States.)
|
|||
|
Mr. Louis Blanc also tells us that competition leads to
|
|||
|
monopoly. And by the same reasoning, he thus informs us that
|
|||
|
low prices lead to high prices; that competition drives production
|
|||
|
to destructive activity; that competition drains away the
|
|||
|
sources of purchasing power; that competition forces an increase
|
|||
|
in production while, at the same time, it forces a decrease in consumption.
|
|||
|
From this, it follows that free people produce for the
|
|||
|
61
|
|||
|
sake of not consuming; that liberty means oppression and madness
|
|||
|
among the people; and that Mr. Louis Blanc absolutely
|
|||
|
must attend to it.
|
|||
|
Socialists Fear All Liberties
|
|||
|
Well, what liberty should the legislators permit people to
|
|||
|
have? Liberty of conscience? (But if this were permitted, we
|
|||
|
would see the people taking this opportunity to become atheists.)
|
|||
|
Then liberty of education? (But parents would pay professors
|
|||
|
to teach their children immorality and falsehoods; besides,
|
|||
|
according to Mr. Thiers, if education were left to national liberty,
|
|||
|
it would cease to be national, and we would be teaching our children
|
|||
|
the ideas of the Turks or Hindus; whereas, thanks to this
|
|||
|
legal despotism over education, our children now have the good
|
|||
|
fortune to be taught the noble ideas of the Romans.)
|
|||
|
Then liberty of labor? (But that would mean competition
|
|||
|
which, in turn, leaves production unconsumed, ruins businessmen,
|
|||
|
and exterminates the people.)
|
|||
|
Perhaps liberty of trade? (But everyone knows<77>and the
|
|||
|
advocates of protective tariffs have proved over and over again<69>
|
|||
|
that freedom of trade ruins every person who engages in it, and
|
|||
|
that it is necessary to suppress freedom of trade in order to prosper.)
|
|||
|
Possibly then, liberty of association? (But, according to
|
|||
|
socialist doctrine, true liberty and voluntary association are in
|
|||
|
62
|
|||
|
contradiction to each other, and the purpose of the socialists is to
|
|||
|
suppress liberty of association precisely in order to force people
|
|||
|
to associate together in true liberty.)
|
|||
|
Clearly then, the conscience of the social democrats cannot
|
|||
|
permit persons to have any liberty because they believe that the
|
|||
|
nature of mankind tends always toward every kind of degradation
|
|||
|
and disaster. Thus, of course, the legislators must make
|
|||
|
plans for the people in order to save them from themselves.
|
|||
|
This line of reasoning brings us to a challenging question: If
|
|||
|
people are as incapable, as immoral, and as ignorant as the
|
|||
|
politicians indicate, then why is the right of these same people to
|
|||
|
vote defended with such passionate insistence?
|
|||
|
The Superman Idea
|
|||
|
The claims of these organizers of humanity raise another
|
|||
|
question which I have often asked them and which, so far as I
|
|||
|
know, they have never answered: If the natural tendencies of
|
|||
|
mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free,
|
|||
|
how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good?
|
|||
|
Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to
|
|||
|
the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are
|
|||
|
made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers
|
|||
|
maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to
|
|||
|
its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are
|
|||
|
so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and
|
|||
|
to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and
|
|||
|
63
|
|||
|
the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and
|
|||
|
virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let
|
|||
|
them show their titles to this superiority.
|
|||
|
They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly
|
|||
|
such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally
|
|||
|
superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in
|
|||
|
demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural
|
|||
|
superiority.
|
|||
|
The Socialists Reject Free Choice
|
|||
|
Please understand that I do not dispute their right to invent
|
|||
|
social combinations, to advertise them, to advocate them, and to
|
|||
|
try them upon themselves, at their own expense and risk. But I
|
|||
|
do dispute their right to impose these plans upon us by law<61>by
|
|||
|
force<EFBFBD>and to compel us to pay for them with our taxes.
|
|||
|
I do not insist that the supporters of these various social
|
|||
|
schools of thought<68>the Proudhonists, the Cabetists, the Fourierists,
|
|||
|
the Universitarists, and the Protectionists<74>renounce
|
|||
|
their various ideas. I insist only that they renounce this one idea
|
|||
|
that they have in common: They need only to give up the idea of
|
|||
|
forcing us to acquiesce to their groups and series, their socialized
|
|||
|
projects, their free-credit banks, their Graeco-Roman concept
|
|||
|
of morality, and their commercial regulations. I ask only
|
|||
|
that we be permitted to decide upon these plans for ourselves;
|
|||
|
that we not be forced to accept them, directly or indirectly, if we
|
|||
|
find them to be contrary to our best interests or repugnant to
|
|||
|
our consciences.
|
|||
|
64
|
|||
|
But these organizers desire access to the tax funds and to
|
|||
|
the power of the law in order to carry out their plans. In addition
|
|||
|
to being oppressive and unjust, this desire also implies the fatal
|
|||
|
supposition that the organizer is infallible and mankind is
|
|||
|
incompetent. But, again, if persons are incompetent to judge for
|
|||
|
themselves, then why all this talk about universal suffrage?
|
|||
|
The Cause of French Revolutions
|
|||
|
This contradiction in ideas is, unfortunately but logically,
|
|||
|
reflected in events in France. For example, Frenchmen have led
|
|||
|
all other Europeans in obtaining their rights<74>or, more accurately,
|
|||
|
their political demands. Yet this fact has in no respect prevented
|
|||
|
us from becoming the most governed, the most regulated,
|
|||
|
the most imposed upon, the most harnessed, and the most
|
|||
|
exploited people in Europe. France also leads all other nations
|
|||
|
as the one where revolutions are constantly to be anticipated.
|
|||
|
And under the circumstances, it is quite natural that this should
|
|||
|
be the case.
|
|||
|
And this will remain the case so long as our politicians continue
|
|||
|
to accept this idea that has been so well expressed by Mr.
|
|||
|
Louis Blanc: <20>Society receives its momentum from power.<2E> This
|
|||
|
will remain the case so long as human beings with feelings continue
|
|||
|
to remain passive; so long as they consider themselves incapable
|
|||
|
of bettering their prosperity and happiness by their own
|
|||
|
intelligence and heir own energy; so long as they expect everything
|
|||
|
from the law; in short, so long as they imagine that their relationship
|
|||
|
to the state is the same as that of the sheep to the shepherd.
|
|||
|
65
|
|||
|
The Enormous Power of Government
|
|||
|
As long as these ideas prevail, it is clear that the responsibility
|
|||
|
of government is enormous. Good fortune and bad fortune,
|
|||
|
wealth and destitution, equality and inequality, virtue and
|
|||
|
vice<EFBFBD>all then depend upon political administration. It is burdened
|
|||
|
with everything, it undertakes everything, it does everything;
|
|||
|
therefore it is responsible for everything.
|
|||
|
If we are fortunate, then government has a claim to our
|
|||
|
gratitude; but if we are unfortunate, then government must bear
|
|||
|
the blame. For are not our persons and property now at the disposal
|
|||
|
of government? Is not the law omnipotent?
|
|||
|
In creating a monopoly of education, the government must
|
|||
|
answer to the hopes of the fathers of families who have thus
|
|||
|
been deprived of their liberty; and if these hopes are shattered,
|
|||
|
whose fault is it?
|
|||
|
In regulating industry, the government has contracted to
|
|||
|
make it prosper; otherwise it is absurd to deprive industry of its
|
|||
|
liberty. And if industry now suffers, whose fault is it?
|
|||
|
In meddling with the balance of trade by playing with tariffs,
|
|||
|
the government thereby contracts to make trade prosper;
|
|||
|
and if this results in destruction instead of prosperity, whose
|
|||
|
fault is it?
|
|||
|
In giving the maritime industries protection in exchange for
|
|||
|
their liberty, the government undertakes to make them profitable;
|
|||
|
and if they become a burden to the taxpayers, whose fault
|
|||
|
is it?
|
|||
|
Thus there is not a grievance in the nation for which the
|
|||
|
66
|
|||
|
government does not voluntarily make itself responsible. Is it
|
|||
|
surprising, then, that every failure increases the threat of
|
|||
|
another revolution in France?
|
|||
|
And what remedy is proposed for this? To extend indefinitely
|
|||
|
the domain of the law; that is, the responsibility of government.
|
|||
|
But if the government undertakes to control and to raise
|
|||
|
wages, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to care
|
|||
|
for all who may be in want, and cannot do it; if the government
|
|||
|
undertakes to support all unemployed workers, and cannot do it;
|
|||
|
if the government undertakes to lend interest-free money to all
|
|||
|
borrowers, and cannot do it; if, in these words that we regret to
|
|||
|
say escaped from the pen of Mr. de Lamartine, <20>The state considers
|
|||
|
that its purpose is to enlighten, to develop, to enlarge, to
|
|||
|
strengthen, to spiritualize, and to sanctify the soul of the people<6C><65>
|
|||
|
and if the government cannot do all of these things, what
|
|||
|
then? Is it not certain that after every government failure<72>
|
|||
|
which, alas! is more than probable<6C>there will be an equally
|
|||
|
inevitable revolution?
|
|||
|
Politics and Economics
|
|||
|
[Now let us return to a subject that was briefly discussed in
|
|||
|
the opening pages of this thesis: the relationship of economics
|
|||
|
and of politics<63>political economy.*]
|
|||
|
67
|
|||
|
*Translator<6F>s note: Mr. Bastiat has devoted three other books and several
|
|||
|
articles to the development of the ideas contained in the three sentences of the
|
|||
|
following paragraph.
|
|||
|
A science of economics must be developed before a science
|
|||
|
of politics can be logically formulated. Essentially, economics is
|
|||
|
the science of determining whether the interests of human
|
|||
|
beings are harmonious or antagonistic. This must be known
|
|||
|
before a science of politics can be formulated to determine the
|
|||
|
proper functions of government.
|
|||
|
Immediately following the development of a science of
|
|||
|
economics, and at the very beginning of the formulation of a science
|
|||
|
of politics, this all-important question must be answered:
|
|||
|
What is law? What ought it to be? What is its scope; its limits?
|
|||
|
Logically, at what point do the just powers of the legislator stop?
|
|||
|
I do not hesitate to answer: Law is the common force organized
|
|||
|
to act as an obstacle to injustice. In short, law is justice.
|
|||
|
Proper Legislative Functions
|
|||
|
It is not true that the legislator has absolute power over our
|
|||
|
persons and property. The existence of persons and property
|
|||
|
preceded the existence of the legislator, and his function is only
|
|||
|
to guarantee their safety.
|
|||
|
It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences,
|
|||
|
our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our
|
|||
|
work, our trade, our talents, or our pleasures. The function of
|
|||
|
law is to protect the free exercise of these rights, and to prevent
|
|||
|
any person from interfering with the free exercise of these same
|
|||
|
rights by any other person.
|
|||
|
Since law necessarily requires the support of force, its law-
|
|||
|
68
|
|||
|
ful domain is only in the areas where the use of force is necessary.
|
|||
|
This is justice.
|
|||
|
Every individual has the right to use force for lawful selfdefense.
|
|||
|
It is for this reason that the collective force<63>which is
|
|||
|
only the organized combination of the individual forces<65>may
|
|||
|
lawfully be used for the same purpose; and it cannot be used
|
|||
|
legitimately for any other purpose.
|
|||
|
Law is solely the organization of the individual right of selfdefense
|
|||
|
which existed before law was formalized. Law is justice.
|
|||
|
Law and Charity Are Not the Same
|
|||
|
The mission of the law is not to oppress persons and plunder
|
|||
|
them of their property, even though the law may be acting in
|
|||
|
a philanthropic spirit. Its mission is to protect persons and property.
|
|||
|
Furthermore, it must not be said that the law may be philanthropic
|
|||
|
if, in the process, it refrains from oppressing persons
|
|||
|
and plundering them of their property; this would be a contradiction.
|
|||
|
The law cannot avoid having an effect upon persons and
|
|||
|
property; and if the law acts in any manner except to protect
|
|||
|
them, its actions then necessarily violate the liberty of persons
|
|||
|
and their right to own property.
|
|||
|
The law is justice<63>simple and clear, precise and bounded.
|
|||
|
Every eye can see it, and every mind can grasp it; for justice is
|
|||
|
measurable, immutable, and unchangeable. Justice is neither
|
|||
|
more than this nor less than this.
|
|||
|
69
|
|||
|
If you exceed this proper limit<69>if you attempt to make the
|
|||
|
law religious, fraternal, equalizing, philanthropic, industrial, literary,
|
|||
|
or artistic<69>you will then be lost in an uncharted territory,
|
|||
|
in vagueness and uncertainty, in a forced utopia or, even worse,
|
|||
|
in a multitude of utopias, each striving to seize the law and
|
|||
|
impose it upon you. This is true because fraternity and philanthropy,
|
|||
|
unlike justice, do not have precise limits. Once started,
|
|||
|
where will you stop? And where will the law stop itself?
|
|||
|
The High Road to Communism
|
|||
|
Mr. de Saint-Cricq would extend his philanthropy only to
|
|||
|
some of the industrial groups; he would demand that the law
|
|||
|
control the consumers to benefit the producers.
|
|||
|
Mr. Considerant would sponsor the cause of the labor
|
|||
|
groups; he would use the law to secure for them a guaranteed
|
|||
|
minimum of clothing, housing, food, and all other necessities of
|
|||
|
life.
|
|||
|
Mr. Louis Blanc would say<61>and with reason<6F>that these
|
|||
|
minimum guarantees are merely the beginning of complete fraternity;
|
|||
|
he would say that the law should give tools of production
|
|||
|
and free education to all working people.
|
|||
|
Another person would observe that this arrangement would
|
|||
|
still leave room for inequality; he would claim that the law
|
|||
|
should give to everyone<6E>even in the most inaccessible hamlet<65>
|
|||
|
luxury, literature, and art.
|
|||
|
All of these proposals are the high road to communism; leg-
|
|||
|
70
|
|||
|
islation will then be<62>in fact, it already is<69>the battlefield for the
|
|||
|
fantasies and greed of everyone.
|
|||
|
The Basis for Stable Government
|
|||
|
Law is justice. In this proposition a simple and enduring
|
|||
|
government can be conceived. And I defy anyone to say how
|
|||
|
even the thought of revolution, of insurrection, of the slightest
|
|||
|
uprising could arise against a government whose organized force
|
|||
|
was confined only to suppressing injustice.
|
|||
|
Under such a regime, there would be the most prosperity<74>
|
|||
|
and it would be the most equally distributed. As for the sufferings
|
|||
|
that are inseparable from humanity, none would even
|
|||
|
think of blaming the government for them. This is true because,
|
|||
|
if the force of government were limited to suppressing injustice,
|
|||
|
then government would be as innocent of these sufferings as it is
|
|||
|
now innocent of changes in the temperature.
|
|||
|
As proof of this statement, consider this question: Have the
|
|||
|
people ever been known to rise against the Court of Appeals, or
|
|||
|
mob a Justice of the Peace, in order to get higher wages, free
|
|||
|
credit, tools of production, favorable tariffs, or government-created
|
|||
|
jobs? Everyone knows perfectly well that such matters are
|
|||
|
not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals or a Justice of
|
|||
|
the Peace. And if government were limited to its proper functions,
|
|||
|
everyone would soon learn that these matters are not
|
|||
|
within the jurisdiction of the law itself.
|
|||
|
But make the laws upon the principle of fraternity<74>pro-
|
|||
|
71
|
|||
|
claim that all good, and all bad, stem from the law; that the law
|
|||
|
is responsible for all individual misfortunes and all social
|
|||
|
inequalities<EFBFBD>then the door is open to an endless succession of
|
|||
|
complaints, irritations, troubles, and revolutions.
|
|||
|
Justice Means Equal Rights
|
|||
|
Law is justice. And it would indeed be strange if law could
|
|||
|
properly be anything else! Is not justice right? Are not rights
|
|||
|
equal? By what right does the law force me to conform to the
|
|||
|
social plans of Mr. Mimerel, Mr. de Melun, Mr. Thiers, or Mr.
|
|||
|
Louis Blanc? If the law has a moral right to do this, why does it
|
|||
|
not, then, force these gentlemen to submit to my plans? Is it logical
|
|||
|
to suppose that nature has not given me sufficient imagination
|
|||
|
to dream up a utopia also? Should the law choose one fantasy
|
|||
|
among many, and put the organized force of government at
|
|||
|
its service only?
|
|||
|
Law is justice. And let it not be said<69>as it continually is
|
|||
|
said<EFBFBD>that under this concept, the law would be atheistic, individualistic,
|
|||
|
and heartless; that it would make mankind in its own
|
|||
|
image. This is an absurd conclusion, worthy only of those worshippers
|
|||
|
of government who believe that the law is mankind.
|
|||
|
Nonsense! Do those worshippers of government believe
|
|||
|
that free persons will cease to act? Does it follow that if we
|
|||
|
receive no energy from the law, we shall receive no energy at
|
|||
|
all? Does it follow that if the law is restricted to the function of
|
|||
|
protecting the free use of our faculties, we will be unable to use
|
|||
|
our faculties? Suppose that the law does not force us to follow
|
|||
|
72
|
|||
|
certain forms of religion, or systems of association, or methods
|
|||
|
of education, or regulations of labor, or regulations of trade, or
|
|||
|
plans for charity; does it then follow that we shall eagerly
|
|||
|
plunge into atheism, hermitary, ignorance, misery, and greed?
|
|||
|
If we are free, does it follow that we shall no longer recognize
|
|||
|
the power and goodness of God? Does it follow that we shall
|
|||
|
then cease to associate with each other, to help each other, to
|
|||
|
love and succor our unfortunate brothers, to study the secrets
|
|||
|
of nature, and to strive to improve ourselves to the best of our
|
|||
|
abilities?
|
|||
|
The Path to Dignity and Progress
|
|||
|
Law is Justice. And it is under the law of justice<63>under the
|
|||
|
reign of right; under the influence of liberty, safety, stability, and
|
|||
|
responsibility<EFBFBD>that every person will attain his real worth and
|
|||
|
the true dignity of his being. It is only under this law of justice
|
|||
|
that mankind will achieve slowly, no doubt, but certainly<6C>God<6F>s
|
|||
|
design for the orderly and peaceful progress of humanity.
|
|||
|
It seems to me that this is theoretically right, for whatever
|
|||
|
the question under discussion<6F>whether religious, philosophical,
|
|||
|
political, or economic; whether it concerns prosperity,
|
|||
|
morality, equality, right, justice, progress, responsibility, cooperation,
|
|||
|
property, labor, trade, capital, wages, taxes, population,
|
|||
|
finance, or government<6E>at whatever point on the scientific
|
|||
|
horizon I begin my researches, I invariably reach this one conclusion:
|
|||
|
The solution to the problems of human relationships is
|
|||
|
to be found in liberty.
|
|||
|
73
|
|||
|
Proof of an Idea
|
|||
|
And does not experience prove this? Look at the entire
|
|||
|
world. Which countries contain the most peaceful, the most
|
|||
|
moral, and the happiest people? Those people are found in the
|
|||
|
countries where the law least interferes with private affairs;
|
|||
|
where government is least felt; where the individual has the
|
|||
|
greatest scope, and free opinion the greatest influence; where
|
|||
|
administrative powers are fewest and simplest; where taxes are
|
|||
|
lightest and most nearly equal, and popular discontent the least
|
|||
|
excited and the least justifiable; where individuals and groups
|
|||
|
most actively assume their responsibilities, and, consequently,
|
|||
|
where the morals of admittedly imperfect human beings are constantly
|
|||
|
improving; where trade, assemblies, and associations are
|
|||
|
the least restricted; where labor, capital, and populations suffer
|
|||
|
the fewest forced displacements; where mankind most nearly follows
|
|||
|
its own natural inclinations; where the inventions of men are
|
|||
|
most nearly in harmony with the laws of God; in short, the happiest,
|
|||
|
most moral, and most peaceful people are those who most
|
|||
|
nearly follow this principle: Although mankind is not perfect,
|
|||
|
still, all hope rests upon the free and voluntary actions of persons
|
|||
|
within the limits of right; law or force is to be used for nothing
|
|||
|
except the administration of universal justice.
|
|||
|
The Desire to Rule over Others
|
|||
|
This must be said: There are too many <20>great<61> men in the
|
|||
|
world<EFBFBD>legislators, organizers, do-gooders, leaders of the peo-
|
|||
|
74
|
|||
|
ple, fathers of nations, and so on, and so on. Too many persons
|
|||
|
place themselves above mankind; they make a career of organizing
|
|||
|
it, patronizing it, and ruling it.
|
|||
|
Now someone will say: <20>You yourself are doing this very
|
|||
|
thing.<2E>
|
|||
|
True. But it must be admitted that I act in an entirely different
|
|||
|
sense; if I have joined the ranks of the reformers, it is
|
|||
|
solely for the purpose of persuading them to leave people alone.
|
|||
|
I do not look upon people as Vancauson looked upon his
|
|||
|
automaton. Rather, just as the physiologist accepts the human
|
|||
|
body as it is, so do I accept people as they are. I desire only to
|
|||
|
study and admire.
|
|||
|
My attitude toward all other persons is well illustrated by
|
|||
|
this story from a celebrated traveler: He arrived one day in the
|
|||
|
midst of a tribe of savages, where a child had just been born. A
|
|||
|
crowd of soothsayers, magicians, and quacks<6B>armed with rings,
|
|||
|
hooks, and cords<64>surrounded it. One said: <20>This child will
|
|||
|
never smell the perfume of a peace-pipe unless I stretch his nostrils.<2E>
|
|||
|
Another said: <20>He will never be able to hear unless I draw
|
|||
|
his ear-lobes down to his shoulders.<2E> A third said: <20>He will never
|
|||
|
see the sunshine unless I slant his eyes.<2E> Another said: <20>He will
|
|||
|
never stand upright unless I bend his legs.<2E> A fifth said: <20>He will
|
|||
|
never learn to think unless I flatten his skull.<2E>
|
|||
|
<EFBFBD>Stop,<2C> cried the traveler. <20>What God does is well done. Do
|
|||
|
not claim to know more than He. God has given organs to this
|
|||
|
frail creature; let them develop and grow strong by exercise, use,
|
|||
|
experience, and liberty.<2E>
|
|||
|
75
|
|||
|
Let Us Now Try Liberty
|
|||
|
God has given to men all that is necessary for them to
|
|||
|
accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well
|
|||
|
as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted
|
|||
|
that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the
|
|||
|
clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers!
|
|||
|
Away with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with
|
|||
|
their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental
|
|||
|
administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization,
|
|||
|
their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their
|
|||
|
free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their
|
|||
|
restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!
|
|||
|
And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely
|
|||
|
inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end
|
|||
|
where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and
|
|||
|
try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and
|
|||
|
His works.
|
|||
|
76
|
|||
|
Afterword
|
|||
|
Sheldon Richman
|
|||
|
The state is that great fiction by which everyone
|
|||
|
tries to live at the expense of everyone else.
|
|||
|
<EFBFBD>Frederic Bastiat
|
|||
|
Frederic Bastiat holds a special place in the hearts and
|
|||
|
minds of the friends of liberty. There is no mystery here to be
|
|||
|
solved. The key to Bastiat<61>s appeal is the integrity and elegance of
|
|||
|
his message. His writing exhibits a purity and a reasoned passion
|
|||
|
that are rare in the modern world. He always wrote to be understood,
|
|||
|
to persuade, not to impress or to obfuscate.
|
|||
|
Through the device of the fable, Bastiat deftly shattered the
|
|||
|
misconceptions about economics for his French contemporaries.
|
|||
|
When today, in modern America, we continue to be told,
|
|||
|
by intellectuals as well as by politicians, that the free entry of
|
|||
|
foreign-made products impoverishes us or that destructive
|
|||
|
earthquakes and hurricanes create prosperity by creating
|
|||
|
demand for rebuilding, we are seeing the results of a culture
|
|||
|
ignorant of Frederic Bastiat.
|
|||
|
But to think of Bastiat as just an economist is to insufficiently
|
|||
|
appreciate him. Bastiat was a legal philosopher of the
|
|||
|
first rank. What made him so is The Law. Writing as France was
|
|||
|
being seduced by the false promises of socialism, Bastiat was
|
|||
|
77
|
|||
|
Sheldon Richman is editor of The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty.
|
|||
|
concerned with law in the classical sense; he directs his reason to
|
|||
|
the discovery of the principles of social organization best suited
|
|||
|
to human beings.
|
|||
|
He begins by recognizing that individuals must act to maintain
|
|||
|
their lives. They do so by applying their faculties to the natural
|
|||
|
world and transforming its components into useful products.
|
|||
|
<EFBFBD>Life, faculties, production<6F>in other words, individuality,
|
|||
|
liberty, property<74>this is man,<2C> Bastiat writes. And since they are
|
|||
|
at the very core of human nature, they <20>precede all human legislation,
|
|||
|
and are superior to it.<2E> Too few people understand that
|
|||
|
point. Legal positivism, the notion that there is no right and
|
|||
|
wrong prior to the enactment of legislation, sadly afflicts even
|
|||
|
some advocates of individual liberty (the utilitarian descendants
|
|||
|
of Bentham, for example). But, Bastiat reminds us, <20>Life, liberty,
|
|||
|
and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the
|
|||
|
contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed
|
|||
|
beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.<2E>
|
|||
|
For Bastiat, law is a negative. He agreed with a friend who
|
|||
|
pointed out that it is imprecise to say that law should create justice.
|
|||
|
In truth, the law should prevent injustice. <20>Justice is
|
|||
|
achieved only when injustice is absent.<2E> That may strike some
|
|||
|
readers as dubious. But on reflection, one can see that a free and
|
|||
|
just society is what results when forcible intervention against
|
|||
|
individuals does not occur; when they are left alone.
|
|||
|
The purpose of law is the defense of life, liberty, and property.
|
|||
|
It is, says Bastiat, <20>the collective organization of the individual
|
|||
|
right of lawful defense.<2E> Each individual has the right to
|
|||
|
defend his life, liberty, and property. A group of individuals,
|
|||
|
78
|
|||
|
therefore, may be said to have <20>collective right<68> to pool their
|
|||
|
resources to defend themselves. <20>Thus the principle of collective
|
|||
|
right<EFBFBD>its reason for existing, its lawfulness<73>is based on individual
|
|||
|
right. And this common force that protects this collective
|
|||
|
right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission
|
|||
|
than that for which it acts as a substitute.<2E> If the very purpose
|
|||
|
of law is the protection of individual rights, then law may not
|
|||
|
be used<65>without contradiction<6F>to accomplish what individuals
|
|||
|
have no right to do. <20>Such a perversion of force would be . . . contrary
|
|||
|
to our premise.<2E> The result would be unlawful law.
|
|||
|
A society based on a proper conception of law would be
|
|||
|
orderly and prosperous. But unfortunately, some will choose
|
|||
|
plunder over production if the former requires less effort than
|
|||
|
the latter. A grave danger arises when the class of people who
|
|||
|
make the law (legislation) turns to plunder. The result, Bastiat
|
|||
|
writes, is <20>lawful plunder.<2E> At first, only the small group of lawmakers
|
|||
|
practices legal plunder. But that may set in motion a
|
|||
|
process in which the plundered classes, rather than seeking to
|
|||
|
abolish the perversion of law, instead strive to get in on it. <20>It is
|
|||
|
as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for
|
|||
|
everyone to suffer a cruel retribution<6F>some for their evilness,
|
|||
|
and some for their lack of understanding.<2E>
|
|||
|
The result of generalized legal plunder is moral chaos precisely
|
|||
|
because law and morality have been set at odds. <20>When
|
|||
|
law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel
|
|||
|
alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect
|
|||
|
for the law.<2E> Bastiat points out that for many people, what is legal
|
|||
|
is legitimate. So they are plunged into confusion. And conflict.
|
|||
|
79
|
|||
|
As long as it is admitted that the law may be
|
|||
|
diverted from its true purpose<73>that it may violate
|
|||
|
property instead of protecting it<69>then everyone will
|
|||
|
want to participate in making the law, either to protect
|
|||
|
himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political
|
|||
|
questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and
|
|||
|
all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the
|
|||
|
Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no
|
|||
|
less furious.
|
|||
|
Sound familiar?
|
|||
|
Bastiat finds another motive<76>besides the desire for booty<74>
|
|||
|
behind legal plunder: <20>false philanthropy.<2E> Again, he sees a contradiction.
|
|||
|
If philanthropy is not voluntary, it destroys liberty and
|
|||
|
justice. The law can give nothing that has not first been taken
|
|||
|
from its owner. He applies that analysis to all forms of government
|
|||
|
intervention, from tariffs to so-called public education.
|
|||
|
Bastiat<EFBFBD>s words are as fresh as if they were written today. He
|
|||
|
explains that one can identify legal plunder by looking for laws
|
|||
|
that authorize that one person<6F>s property be given to someone
|
|||
|
else. Such laws should be abolished <20>without delay.<2E> But, he
|
|||
|
warns, <20>the person who profits from such law will complain bitterly,
|
|||
|
defending his acquired rights,<2C> his entitlements. Bastiat<61>s
|
|||
|
advice is direct: <20>Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests.
|
|||
|
The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder
|
|||
|
into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-
|
|||
|
day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the
|
|||
|
expense of everyone else.<2E>
|
|||
|
80
|
|||
|
The world view that underlies the distortion of law, Bastiat
|
|||
|
writes, holds man as a passive entity, lacking a motor of his own
|
|||
|
and awaiting the hand and plan of the wise legislator. He quotes
|
|||
|
Rousseau: <20>The legislator is the mechanic who invents the
|
|||
|
machine.<2E> Saint-Just: <20>The legislator commands the future. It is
|
|||
|
for him to will the good of mankind. It is for him to make men
|
|||
|
what he wills them to be.<2E> And the razor-sharp Robespierre:
|
|||
|
<EFBFBD>The function of government is to direct the physical and moral
|
|||
|
powers of the nation toward the end for which the commonwealth
|
|||
|
has come into being.<2E>
|
|||
|
Bastiat echoes Adam Smith<74>s condemnation of the <20>man of
|
|||
|
system,<2C> who sees people as mere pieces to be moved about a
|
|||
|
chessboard. To accomplish his objectives, the legislator must
|
|||
|
stamp out human differences, for they impede the plan. Forced
|
|||
|
conformity (is there any other kind?) is the order of the day. Bastiat
|
|||
|
quotes several writers in this vein, then replies:
|
|||
|
Oh, sublime writers! Please remember sometimes
|
|||
|
that this clay, this sand, and this manure which
|
|||
|
you so arbitrarily dispose of, are men! They are your
|
|||
|
equals! They are intelligent and free human beings
|
|||
|
like yourselves! As you have, they too have received
|
|||
|
from God the faculty to observe, to plan ahead, to
|
|||
|
think, and to judge for themselves!
|
|||
|
After quoting several of those writers who are so willing to
|
|||
|
devote themselves to reinventing people, Bastiat can no longer
|
|||
|
control his outrage: <20>Ah, you miserable creatures! You think you
|
|||
|
are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who
|
|||
|
81
|
|||
|
wish to reform everything! Why don<6F>t you reform yourselves?
|
|||
|
That would be sufficient enough.<2E>
|
|||
|
Nor does Bastiat allow unrestrained democracy to escape
|
|||
|
his grasp. With his usual elegance, he goes right to the core of
|
|||
|
the issue. The democrat hails the people<6C>s wisdom. In what does
|
|||
|
that wisdom consist? The ability to pick all-powerful legislators<72>
|
|||
|
and that is all. <20>The people who, during the election, were
|
|||
|
so wise, so moral, so perfect, now have no tendencies whatever;
|
|||
|
or if they have any, they are tendencies that lead downward to
|
|||
|
degradation. . . . If people are as incapable, as immoral, and as
|
|||
|
ignorant as the politicians indicate, then why is the right of these
|
|||
|
same people to vote defended with such passionate insistence?<3F>
|
|||
|
And <20>if the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is
|
|||
|
not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies
|
|||
|
of these organizers are always good?<3F>
|
|||
|
Bastiat closes his volume with a clarion call for freedom and
|
|||
|
a rejection of all proposals to impose unnatural social arrangements
|
|||
|
on people. He implores all <20>legislators and do-gooders
|
|||
|
[to] reject all systems, and try liberty.<2E>
|
|||
|
In the years since The Law was first published, little has
|
|||
|
been written in the classical liberal tradition that can approach
|
|||
|
its purity, its power, its nearly poetic quality. Alas, the world is far
|
|||
|
from having learned the lessons of The Law. Bastiat would be
|
|||
|
saddened by what America has become. He warned us. He identified
|
|||
|
the principles indispensable for proper human society and
|
|||
|
made them accessible to all. In the struggle to end the legalized
|
|||
|
plunder of statism and to defend individual liberty, how much
|
|||
|
more could be asked of one man?
|
|||
|
82
|
|||
|
Athens, 40
|
|||
|
Blanc, Louis, 57<35>58, 61, 65, 70, 72
|
|||
|
Bossuet, Jacques-Benigne, 33<33>35, 38
|
|||
|
Capital, 4
|
|||
|
Charity, 27, 69
|
|||
|
Choice, freedom of, 64
|
|||
|
Communism, 23, 70
|
|||
|
Competition, 61
|
|||
|
Condillac, Etienne Bonnot de, 49, 50
|
|||
|
Conformity, 45
|
|||
|
Democracy and/or democrats, 42,
|
|||
|
59<EFBFBD>60, 63
|
|||
|
Despotism, 51, 56, 61
|
|||
|
Dictatorship, 49, 53, 54, 55
|
|||
|
Dignity, 73
|
|||
|
Economics, 51, 59, 61, 62, 66, 67<36>68
|
|||
|
Education, 18, 24, 27, 28, 29, 32, 34,
|
|||
|
62, 67
|
|||
|
Egyptians, 33<33>38, 50
|
|||
|
Equality, 48, 66, 72
|
|||
|
Excluded classes, 13<31>14
|
|||
|
Fenelon, Francois de Salignac,
|
|||
|
36<EFBFBD>38, 56
|
|||
|
Fraternity, 21, 29, 71
|
|||
|
Free choice, 64
|
|||
|
French Revolution, 65
|
|||
|
February Revolution of
|
|||
|
1848, 16
|
|||
|
Government
|
|||
|
force, 33, 64
|
|||
|
functions, 1, 2, 3
|
|||
|
power, 66
|
|||
|
stability, 71
|
|||
|
Greed, 5, 22, 71
|
|||
|
Greeks, 11, 35, 50
|
|||
|
History, 5, 6, 33
|
|||
|
Individualism, 29
|
|||
|
Industry, 66
|
|||
|
Inequality, 27
|
|||
|
Injustice, 7, 8, 15, 23, 25, 26, 27
|
|||
|
Justice, 8<>9, 19, 20<32>21, 22, 24<32>25,
|
|||
|
26, 29, 71, 72, 74
|
|||
|
83
|
|||
|
Index
|
|||
|
Labor, 3, 6, 24, 33, 62
|
|||
|
Law
|
|||
|
consequences, 8
|
|||
|
defined, 2, 3, 20
|
|||
|
force, 24<32>25
|
|||
|
functions, 20, 68
|
|||
|
morality and, 8
|
|||
|
negative concept, 25
|
|||
|
perversion of, 4, 7, 8, 14, 20
|
|||
|
proper legislative functions, 68<36>69
|
|||
|
Legislation, 7
|
|||
|
Legislators, 32<33>33, 43, 45, 46<34>47,
|
|||
|
59<EFBFBD>61, 62<36>64, 68, 74, 76
|
|||
|
Liberty, 21, 25, 51, 58, 59, 61<36>63, 66,
|
|||
|
73, 75, 76
|
|||
|
Living at the expense of others, 5
|
|||
|
Lycurgus, 40, 41, 45, 49
|
|||
|
Mably, Gabriel Bonnot de, 48, 49,
|
|||
|
54, 56
|
|||
|
Mentor, 37<33>39
|
|||
|
Minimum wages, 18
|
|||
|
Monopoly, 9, 10, 61, 66, 76
|
|||
|
Montalembert, Charles, Comte de,
|
|||
|
15<EFBFBD>19
|
|||
|
Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat,
|
|||
|
39, 42, 56
|
|||
|
Morality, 6, 8, 9, 23, 28, 55
|
|||
|
Napoleon I, 56<35>57
|
|||
|
Non-conformists, 9
|
|||
|
Paraguay, 41
|
|||
|
Paternalism, 34, 50
|
|||
|
Philanthropy, 5, 21, 24, 52, 69, 70
|
|||
|
Plato, 41
|
|||
|
Plunder
|
|||
|
defined, 22
|
|||
|
illegal, 16, 19
|
|||
|
legal, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17<31>20, 22,
|
|||
|
23, 24, 27, 28
|
|||
|
property and, 6, 22
|
|||
|
victims of, 7
|
|||
|
Political science, 9<>10
|
|||
|
Politicians, 26, 30
|
|||
|
Politics, 10, 67, 68
|
|||
|
Population, 4
|
|||
|
Poverty, 32
|
|||
|
Power, 7, 58, 59, 66
|
|||
|
Protectionism, 14, 18, 23<32>24
|
|||
|
Progress, 73
|
|||
|
Property, 1<>2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 13, 14<31>15,
|
|||
|
22, 25, 42, 69, 73
|
|||
|
Regulation, 66
|
|||
|
Relief, 14, 18, 27
|
|||
|
Religion, 24, 28, 29
|
|||
|
Rights
|
|||
|
acquired, 17
|
|||
|
individual, 2, 72
|
|||
|
political, 60
|
|||
|
natural, 2, 3
|
|||
|
Robespierre, Maximilien, 53, 54<35>56
|
|||
|
Rousseau, Jean Jacques, 10, 42<34>46,
|
|||
|
52, 54, 56
|
|||
|
Saint-Simon, Claude Henri, 57
|
|||
|
Slavery, 5, 15
|
|||
|
Socialism, 16, 18<31>19, 21, 23, 24, 29,
|
|||
|
58, 61, 62
|
|||
|
84
|
|||
|
Socialists, 19, 28, 30, 31<33>32, 37, 38,
|
|||
|
45, 49, 53, 62, 64
|
|||
|
Sparta, 40, 44, 50
|
|||
|
Subsidies, 18, 27
|
|||
|
Suffrage, 10, 11, 65
|
|||
|
Superman idea, 63
|
|||
|
Tariffs, 15, 18, 27, 62
|
|||
|
Taxation, 18, 27
|
|||
|
Telemachus (Fenelon), 36
|
|||
|
Trade, 62, 66
|
|||
|
United States, 15
|
|||
|
Utopia of Salentum (Fenelon),
|
|||
|
36
|
|||
|
Virtue, 33, 54
|
|||
|
War, 5
|
|||
|
Writers, 30<33>31, 51
|
|||
|
85
|