[CTRL] [2] The Law, by Frederick Bastiat

[Kris Millegan]

-Caveat Lector-   <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">
</A> -Cui Bono?-

from:
http://www.zolatimes.com/V4.3/the_law.htm
Click Here: <A HREF="http://www.zolatimes.com/V4.3/the_law.htm">The Law, by
Frederick Bastiat</A>
-----


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 first responsibilities of the prince was to encourage
agriculture.... Just as there were offices established for the regulation of
armies, just so were there offices for the direction of farm work.... The
Persian people were inspired with an overwhelming respect for royal
authority."
And according to Bossuet, the Greek people, although exceedingly intelligent,
had no sense of personal responsibility; like dogs and horses, they
themselves could not have invented the most simple games:
"The Greeks, naturally intelligent and courageous, had been early cultivated
by the kings and settlers who had come from Egypt. From these Egyptian
rulers, the Greek people had learned bodily exercises, foot races, and horse
and chariot races.... But the best thing that the Egyptians had taught the
Greeks was to become docile, and to permit themselves to be formed by the law
for the public good."

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 w
ork 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 full of flocks; workers bending under the
weight of the fruit which the earth lavished upon its cultivators; shepherds
who made the echoes resound with the soft notes from their pipes and flutes.
"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 arts and letters; the
exactness with which all religious ceremonies were performed; the
unselfishness, the high regard for honor, the faithfulness to men, and the
fear of the gods 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 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 the
hope of material reward. Natural affection found no outlet because a man was
neither son, husband, nor father. Even chastity was no longer considered
becoming. By this road, Lycurgus led Sparta on to greatness and glory.
This boldness which was to be found in the institutions of Greece has been
repeated in the midst of 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 Lycurgus 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 as that between the farmer
and his land. How high above mankind, then, has this writer on public affairs
been placed? Rousseau rules over legislators themselves, and teaches them
their trade in these imperious terms:
"Would you give stability to the state? Then bring the extremes as closely
together as possible. Tolerate neither wealthy persons nor beggars.
If the soil is poor or barren, or the country too small for its inhabitants,
then turn to industry and arts, and trade these products for the foods that
you need.... On a fertile soil — 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."
Poor human nature! What would become of a person's dignity if it were
entrusted to the followers of Rousseau?
*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.

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 vigor of youth. Because free people
have been ignorant of this procedure, they have lost their liberty! But if
the evil has made such headway that ordinary 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 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
inexible austerity of Lycurgus created the firm foundation of the Spartan
republic. The weak and trusting character of Solon plunged Athens into
slavery. This parallel embraces the whole science of government."
LE PELLETIER: "Considering the extent of human degradation, I am convinced
that it is necessary to effect a total regeneration and, if I may so express
myself, of creating a new people."

The Socialists Want Dictatorship

Again, it is claimed that persons are nothing but raw material. It is not for
them to will their own improvement; they are incapable of it. According to
Saint- Just, only the legislator is capable of doing this. Persons are merely
to be what the legislator wills them to be. According to Robespierre, who
copies 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 for dictatorship is not made merely for the purpose of
repelling a foreign invasion or putting down the opposing groups. Rather he
wants a dictatorship in order that he may use terror to force upon the
country his own principles of morality. He says that this act is only to be a
temporary measure preceding a new constitution. But in reality, he desires
nothing short of using terror to extinguish from France selfishness, honor,
customs, manners, fashion, vanity, love of money, good companionship,
intrigue, wit, 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.*
*At this point in the original French text, Mr. Bastiat pauses and speaks
thusly to all do-gooders and would-be rulers of mankind: "Ah, you miserable
creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be
so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves?
That 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 (that is 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 the 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 given ample
proof of their intelligence and wisdom? Are they not adults? Are they not
capable of judging for themselves? Do they not know what is best for
themselves? Is there a class or a man who would be so bold as to set himself
above the people, and judge and act for them? No, no, the people are and
should be free. They desire to manage their own affairs, and they shall do
so.
But when the legislator is finally elected — 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 the people be given a little liberty?
But Mr. Considerant has assured us that liberty leads inevitably to monopoly!
We understand that liberty means competition. But according to Mr. Louis
Blanc, competition is a system that ruins the businessmen and exterminates
the people. It is for this reason that free people are ruined and
exterminated in proportion to their degree of freedom. (Possibly Mr. Louis
Blanc should observe the results of competition in, for example, Switzerland,
Holland, England, and the United States.)
Mr. Louis Blanc also tells us that competition leads to monopoly. And by the
same reasoning, he thus informs us that low prices lead to high prices; that
competition drives production to destructive activity; that competition
drains away the sources of purchasing power; that competition forces an
increase in production while, at the same time, it forces a decrease in
consumption. From this, it follows that free people produce for the sake of
not consuming; that liberty means oppression and madness among the people;
and that Mr. Louis Blanc absolutely must attend to it.

Socialists Fear All Liberties

Well, what liberty should the legislators permit people to have? Liberty of
conscience? (But if this were permitted, we would see the people taking this
opportunity to become atheists.)
Then liberty of education? (But parents would pay professors to teach their
children immorality and falsehoods; besides, according to Mr. Thiers, if
education were left to national liberty, it would cease to be national, and
we would be teaching our children the ideas of the Turks or Hindus; whereas,
thanks to this legal despotism over education, our children now have the good
fortune to be taught the noble ideas of the Romans.)
Then liberty of labor? (But that would mean competition which, in turn,
leaves production unconsumed, ruins businessmen, and exterminates the
people.)
Perhaps liberty of trade? (But everyone knows — 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 Proudhonists, 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 expect everything from the
law; in short, so long as they imagine that their relationship to the state
is the same as that of the sheep to the shepherd.

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?
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 protection instead of liberty to the industries for defense, the
government has contracted 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 let us 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 door is open to
an endless succession of complaints, irritations, troubles, and revolutions.

Justice Means Equal Rights

Law is justice. And it would indeed be strange if law could properly be
anything else! Is not justice right? Are not rights equal? By what right does
the law force me to conform to the social plans of Mr. Mimerel, Mr. de Melun,
Mr. Thiers, or Mr. Louis Blanc? If the law has a moral right to do this, why
does it not, then, force these gentlemen to submit to my plans? Is it logical
to suppose that nature has not given me sufficient imagination to dream up a
utopia also? Should the law choose one fantasy among many, and put the
organized force of government at its service only?
Law is justice. And let it not be said — 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 the 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 in 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
ear-lobes 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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
This translation of The Law, by Frederick Bastiat, was done by The Foundation
for Economic Education. Permission to reprint is granted without special
request.
-30-
from The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 4, No 3, January 17, 2000
----
Aloha, He'Ping,
Om, Shalom, Salaam.
Em Hotep, Peace Be,
All My Relations.
Omnia Bona Bonis,
Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
Amen.
Roads End

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing!  These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om