|
THE LAW
By Fredric Bastiat (1801 to 1850)
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense
of everyone else."
Fredric Bastiat |
|
|
|
Table of Contents |
|
|
1. Life Is a Gift from God
2. What Is Law?
3. A Just and Enduring Government
4. The Complete Perversion of the Law
5. A Fatal Tendency of Mankind
6. Property and Plunder
7. Victims of Lawful Plunder
8. The Results of Legal Plunder
9. The Fate of Non-Conformists
10. Who Shall Judge?
11. The Reason Why Voting Is Restricted
12. The Answer Is to Restrict the Law
13. The Fatal Idea of Legal Plunder
14. Perverted Law Causes Conflict
15. Slavery and Tariffs Are Plunder
16. Two Kinds of Plunder
17. The Law Defends Plunder
18. How to Identify Legal Plunder
19. Legal Plunder Has Many Names
20. Socialism Is Legal Plunder
21. The Choice Before Us
22. The Proper Function of the Law
23. The Seductive Lure of Socialism
24. Enforced Fraternity Destroys Liberty
25. Plunder Violates Ownership
26. Three Systems of Plunder
27. Law Is Force
28. Law Is a Negative Concept
29. The Political Approach
30. The Law and Charity
31. The Law and Education
32. The Law and Morals
33. A Confusion of Terms
34. The Influence of Socialist Writers
35. The Socialists Wish to Play God
36. The Socialists Despise Mankind
37. A Defense of Compulsory Labor
|
38. A Defense of Paternal Government
39. The Idea of Passive Mankind
40. Socialists Ignore Reason and Facts
41. Socialists Want to Regiment People
42. A Famous Name and an Evil Idea
43. A Frightful Idea
44. The Leader of the Democrats
45. Socialists Want Forced Conformity
46. Legislators Desire to Mold Mankind
47. Legislators Told How to Manage Men
48. A Temporary Dictatorship
49. Socialists Want Equality of Wealth
50. The Error of the Socialist Writers
51. What Is Liberty?
52. Philanthropic Tyranny
53. The Socialists Want Dictatorship
54. Dictatorial Arrogance
55. The Indirect Approach to Despotism
56. Napoleon Wanted Passive Mankind
57. The Vicious Circle of Socialism
58. The Doctrine of the Democrats
59. The Socialist Concept of Liberty
60. Socialists Fear All Liberties
61. The Superman Idea
62. The Socialists Reject Free Choice
63. The Cause of French Revolutions
64. The Enormous Power of Government
65. Politics and Economics
66. Proper Legislative Functions
67. Law and Charity Are Not the Same
68. The High Road to Communism
69. The Basis for Stable Government
70. Justice Means Equal Rights
71. The Path to Dignity and Progress
72. Proof of an Idea
73. The Desire to Rule Over Others
74. Let us Now Try Liberty |
|
|
Life Is a Gift from God
We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life -
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 - in other words, individuality, liberty, property -
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.
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 - from God - 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 - even by force - 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 - its reason for existing, its lawfulness - 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 - for the same reason - 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 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 - 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 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 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 annihilating 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, 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 very nature of man - 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 be 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 - and since labor is pain in
itself - 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 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 a 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 - by peaceful or revolutionary means -
into the making of the laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these
plundered classes may propose one of the 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.
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 - 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'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
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 "just" 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 "You are a dangerous innovator, a utopian, a theorist, a subversive;
you would shatter the foundation upon which society rests."
If you lecture upon morality or upon political science, there will be found
official organizations petitioning the government in this vein of thought: "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 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." (Author's note: General
Council of Manufacturers, Agriculture and Commerce, May 6, 1850.)
Thus, if there exists a law which sanctions slavery or monopoly, oppression or
robbery, in any form whatever, it must not even 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's school of thought - who consider themselves far
advanced, but whom I consider twenty centuries behind the times - will not agree
with me on this. But universal suffrage - using the word in its strictest sense
- is not one 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 one's birth, it would be an
injustice 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 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's right to self defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the
punisher of all oppression and plunder - 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 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'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 - whether farmers, manufacturers,
ship-owners, 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 - and will
overthrow society rather than not to obtain it. Even beggars and vagabonds will
then prove to you that the also have an incontestable title to vote. They will
say to you:
"We cannot buy wine, tobacco, or salt without paying the tax. And a part of the
tax that we pay is given by law - in privileges and subsidies - 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 the law the right
to relief, which is the poor man'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'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!"
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 -
that it may violate property instead of protecting it - 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. 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 a 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
protection of every person's liberty and property. As a consequence or 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 - and
only two - 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 - a sorrowful
inheritance from the Old World - 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 consequence 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 said: "We must make war against
socialism." According to the definition of socialism advanced by Mr. Charles
Dupin, he meant: "We must make war against plunder."
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 - which the
penal code defines, anticipates, and punishes - 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 -
long before the appearance even of socialism itself - 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 - when he defends himself - as a 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 - 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 - which may be an isolated case - 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 whole system. In fact, this has
already occurred. The present-day 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 - with
their common aim of legal plunder - 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: "The war that we must fight against socialism must be in harmony
with law, honor, and justice."
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 - in fact, absurd - 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:
The few plunder the many.
Everybody plunders everybody.
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.
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).
[Translator's note: At the time this was written, Mr. Bastiat knew that he was
dying of tuberculosis. Within a year, he was dead] |
|
|
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 - which necessarily requires the use of force -
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 - so long searched for in the area of social relationships - is
contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice.
Now this must be said: When justice is organized by law - that is, by force -
this excludes the idea of using law (force) to organize any human activity
whatever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry,
education, art, religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would
inevitably destroy the essential 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: "Your doctrine is only the half of my
program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him:
"The second half of your program will destroy the first."
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. [Translator's note: The French word used by Mr. Bastiat is spoliation.] |
|
|
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 - 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 - without his
consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud - 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 committed, 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 it would not at any time - especially now -
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 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. (Author's
note: If the special privilege of government protection against competition -- a
monopoly -- were granted to only one group in France, the iron workers, for
example, this act would be so obviously 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 sense that legal plunder is
best concealed by generalizing it.)
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 - the origin and the tendency -
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.
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 - then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It
substitutes the will 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.
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 towards 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 - legal or 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: "There are persons who have no money," 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. |
|
|
The Law and Education
You say: "There are persons who lack education," 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: "Here are persons who are lacking in morality or religion," 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 - and even from themselves - under the seductive names of fraternity,
unity, organization, and association. Because we ask so little from the law -
only justice - 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. |
|
|
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 - 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 - especially those of the socialist school of thought - base
their various theories upon one common hypothesis: They divide mankind into two
parts. People in general - with the exception of the writer himself - 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 - by the will and hand of
another person - 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 - under the title of organizer, discoverer, legislator, or
founder - is this will and hand, this universal motivating force, this creative
power whose sublime mission is to mold these scattered materials - persons -
into a society.
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 Wish 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 - the farmer wastes some
seeds and land - 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! 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's genius. This idea - the fruit of
classical education - 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 - and a principle of discernment in man's intellect - 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 - governors and legislators - 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 for enlightenment; while
mankind is drawn toward vice, the legislators are attracted towards 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 - 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 patriotism....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 - 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:
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 responsibilities of the prince was to encourage agriculture....Just
as there were offices established for the regulation of armies, just so were
there office 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. |
|
|
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 - vices and virtues - 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 - with all their interests, faculties,
desires, and possessions - 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'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. |
|
|
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 which the earth lavished upon its cultivators;
shepherds who made the echoes resound with the soft notes from their pipes and
flutes. "Happy," said Mentor, "is the people governed by a wise king."...
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 art's 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 which every father
taught his children. He never stopped admiring the prosperity of the country.
"Happy," said he, "is the people ruled by a wise king in such a manner." |
|
|
Socialists Want to Regiment People
Fenelon's idyll 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 the 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 - doubtless with
the best of intentions - the people 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 there be established a census to reduce or
fix these differences in wealth within a certain limit. After this is done, it
remains for 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 - by mixing the usual concepts of all virtues - 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 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 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 - while Lycurgas had war as his objective - 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]. [Translator'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.]
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 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: "Montesquieu has said
this! So it's magnificent! It's sublime!" 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 - mankind itself - 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 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 ad 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 the arts, and trade these products for the foods that
you need... On a fertile soil - if you are short of inhabitants - 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 inaccessible cliffs, let the people be barbarous and eat fish; they will
live more quietly - perhaps better - 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 - and more recently, the Arabs - 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 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 - who, by himself, is a solitary and perfect whole - 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'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 creator
of political man must remove man's own forces and endow him with others that are
naturally alien to him. [Translator'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 -- and thinking and feeling from the point of
view of the whole -- he thereby becomes moral.]
Poor human nature! What would become of a person'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 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's instructions to the legislators on how to manage people may be compared
to a professor of agriculture lecturing his students: "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 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."
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 vigour 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 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 - which stems from classical education
- 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.
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 precious to every citizen. When all
men are equal in wealth and dignity - and when the laws leave no hope of
disturbing this equality - how can men then be agitated by greed, ambition,
dissipation, idleness, sloth, envy, hatred, or jealousy?
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 - form,
face, energy, movement, life - from a great prince or a great legislator or a
great genius. These centuries were nourished on the study of antiquity. And
antiquity presents everywhere - in Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome - the spectacle
of a few men molding mankind according to their whims, thanks to the prestige of
force and of 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 - 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 -
including, of course, legal despotism? Finally, is not 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 -
learned from the teachings of antiquity - 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 just 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.
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; the 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
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:
"Resort," he says, "to an extraordinary tribunal with considerable powers for a
short time. The imagination of the citizens needs to be struck a hard blow."
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 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's request 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, sensuousness, 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.
[Translator's note: At this point in the original French text, Mr. Bastiat
pauses and speaks thusly to all the do-gooders and would-be rulers of mankind.]
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think you are so great! You who judge
humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform
yourselves? The task would be sufficient enough." |
|
|
The Indirect Approach to Despotism
Usually, however, these gentlemen- 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 - plus long
extracts from Bossuet and Montesquieu - 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 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 - greatly disillusioned - 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: "To govern is to increase and spread morality, education, and
happiness."
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's book on the organization of labor: "In our plan, society receives
its momentum from power."
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 (Is that all?). Then 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 thi impulse for this power? (Why, the inventor of the machine - 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, 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 - one which will probably astound our
descendants - 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.
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 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 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 - ah! then indeed does the tone of
his speech undergo a radical change. The people are returned to passiveness,
inertness, and unconsciousness; 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 this 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 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 the ideas of Turks or Hindus; whereas, thanks to this legal
despotism over education, our children 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 - and the advocates of protective
tariffs have proved over and over again - 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 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 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 - by force - 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 -
the Proughonists, the Cabetists, the Fourierists, the Universitarists, and the
Protectionists - 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.
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 - 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: "Society receives its
momentum from power." 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 their own energy; so long as they imagine that their relationship to the
state is the same as that of the sheep to the shepherd. |
|
|
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 - 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? 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 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, "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" - and if the government cannot do all of these
things, what then? Is it not certain that after every government failure -
which, alas! is more than probable - there will be an equally inevitable
revolution? |
|
|
Politics and Economics
[Now we return to a subject that was briefly discussed in the opening pages of
this thesis: the relationship of economics and of politics - political economy.]
[Translator'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 lawful 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 self-defense. It is for
this reason that the collective force - which is only the organized combination
of the individual forces - 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 self-defense 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 - 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.
If you exceed this proper limit - if you attempt to make the law religious,
fraternal, equalizing, philanthropic, industrial, literary, or artistic - 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 - and with reason - 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 - even in the
most inaccessible hamlet - luxury, literature, and art.
All of these proposals are the high road to communism; legislation will then be
- in fact, it already is - 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 - and it would be the
most equally distributed. As for the sufferings that are inseparable from
humanity, no one would even think of accusing 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 - proclaim that all good, and
all bad, stem from the law; that the law is responsible for all individual
misfortunes and all social inequalities-then the doors 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 - as it continually is said - 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 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 - under the reign of right;
under the influence of liberty, safety, stability, and responsibility - that
every person will attain his real worth and he true dignity of his being. It is
only under this law of justice that mankind will achieve - slowly, no doubt, but
certainly - God'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 - 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 - 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 is liberty. |
|
|
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 "great" men in the world - legislators,
organizers, do-gooders, leaders of the people, 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: "You yourself are doing this very thing."
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
- armed with rings, hooks, and cords - surrounded it. One said: "This child will
never smell the perfume of a peace-pipe unless I stretch his nostrils." Another
said: "He will never be able to hear unless I draw his earlobes down to his
shoulders." A third said: "He will never see the sunshine unless I slant his
eyes." Another said: "He will never stand upright unless I bend his legs." A
fifth said: "He will never learn to think unless I flatten his skull."
"Stop," cried the traveler. "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." |
|
|
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.
Frederic Bastiat (1801 to 1850) |
|
|
|
|