Preface
When a
reviewer wishes to give special recognition to a book, he predicts that it will
still be read "a hundred years from now." The Law, first published as
a pamphlet in June, 1850, is already more than a hundred years old. And because
its truths are eternal, it will still be read when another century has passed.
Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) was a French economist, statesman, and author. He
did most of his writing during the years just before--and immediately
following--the Revolution of February 1848. This was the period when
The Law
is here presented again because the same situation exists in
The law
perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law,
I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely
contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of
checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!
If this
is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention
of my fellow-citizens to it.
Life Is a
Gift from God
We hold
from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life--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 cities populated at the expense of rural
districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see the
great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by
legislative decisions.
The sources of our existence are
made uncertain and precarious by these state-created displacements. And,
furthermore, these acts burden the government with increased responsibilities.
The Complete Perversion of the Law
But,
unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And
when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some
inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it
has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to
destroy its own objective: It has been applied to 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, in order to protect
plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish
lawful defense.
How has this
perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results? The law has been perverted by the
influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false
philanthropy. Let us speak of the first.
A Fatal
Tendency of Mankind
Self-preservation
and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone
enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the
fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and
unfailing. But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When
they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no
rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The
annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass
migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce,
and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the 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 by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless
application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin
of property.
But it
is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming
the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.
Now
since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain--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
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 laws. According to their degree of enlightenment,
these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when
they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful
plunder, or they may wish to share in it. Woe to the nation when this latter
purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn,
seize the power to make laws!
Until
that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice
where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few
persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And
then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder.
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."(1)
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
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 for
adults to prevent women and children from voting. Why are they prevented?
Because they are presumed to be incapable. And why is incapacity a motive for
exclusion? Because it is not the voter alone who suffers the consequences of
his vote; because each vote touches and affects everyone in the entire
community; because the people in the community have a right to demand some
safeguards concerning the acts upon which their welfare and existence depend. The Answer Is to Restrict the Law
I know
what might be said in answer to this; what the objections might be. But this is
not the place to exhaust a controversy of this nature. I wish merely to observe
here that this controversy over universal suffrage (as well as most other
political questions) which agitates, excites, and overthrows nations, would
lose nearly all of its importance if the law had always been what it ought to
be.
In
fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all
properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the
individual'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,
shipowners, artists, or comedians. Under these circumstances, then certainly
every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so. The excluded
classes will furiously demand their right to vote--and will overthrow society
rather than not to obtain it. Even beggars and vagabonds will then prove to you
that they also have an incontestable title to vote. They will say to you:
"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
Is
there any need to offer proof that this odious perversion of the law is a
perpetual source of hatred and discord; that it tends to destroy society
itself? If such proof is needed, look at the
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
Slavery
is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protective tariff is a violation, by
law, of property.
Its is
a most remarkable fact that this double legal crime--a sorrowful inheritance of
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 consequences to the
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--
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
The Choice
Before Us
This
question of legal plunder must be settled once and for all, and there are only
three ways to settle it:
1. The
few plunder the many.
2.
Everybody plunders everybody.
3.
Nobody plunders anybody.
We must
make our choice among limited plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder. The
law can follow only one of these three.
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).(2)
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,
or religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy
the essential organization--justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being
used against the liberty of citizens without it also being used against
justice, and thus acting against its proper purpose?
The
Seductive Lure of Socialism
Here I
encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered
sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it
sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and
inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral
self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend
welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.
This is
the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again: These two uses of the law
are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A
citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.
Enforced
Fraternity Destroys Liberty
Mr. de
Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: "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.(3)
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 I 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.(4) Thus it follows that, of the three systems, socialism is
the vaguest, the most indecisive, and, consequently, the most sincere stage of
development.
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 wills; the initiative of
the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no
longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for
them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men;
they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.
Try to
imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of
liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of
property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude
that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.
The Political
Approach
When a
politician views society from the seclusion of his office, he is struck by the
spectacle of the inequality that he sees. He deplores the deprivations which
are the lot of so many of our brothers, deprivations which appear to be even
sadder when contrasted with luxury and wealth.
Perhaps
the politician should ask himself whether this state of affairs has not been
caused by old conquests and lootings, and by more recent legal plunder. Perhaps
he should consider this proposition: Since all persons seek well-being and
perfection, would not a condition of justice be sufficient to cause the
greatest efforts toward progress, and the greatest possible equality that is
compatible with individual responsibility? Would not this be in accord with the
concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind
may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and
reward?
But the
politician never gives this a thought. His mind turns to organizations,
combinations, and arrangements--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
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--from 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 toward virtue. Since they have
decided that this is the true state of affairs, they then demand the use of
force in order to substitute their own inclinations for those of the human
race.
Open at
random any book on philosophy, politics, or history, and you will probably see
how deeply rooted in our country is this idea--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,
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 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
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 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
Later,
Socialists
Want to Regiment People
Fenelon's
idyll on
"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
Thus
does
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
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
This
boldness which was to be found in the institutions of
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
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
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
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.(7) 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?
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
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
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
What Is
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
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
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.(8)
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
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
At
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,
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?
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
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
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.(9)]
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.
NOTES
1.
General Council of
Manufacturers, Agriculture, and Commerce,
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.
2. Translator's note: At the time this was
written, Mr. Bastiat knew that he was dying of tuberculosis. Within a year, he
was dead.
3. Translator's note: The French word used
by Mr. Bastiat is spoliation.
4. If the special privilege of government
protection against competition--a monopoly--were granted only to one group in
5. Translator's note: The parenthetical
expressions and the italicized words throughout this book were supplied by Mr.
Bastiat. All subheads and bracketed material were supplied by the translator.
6. Translator's note: What was then known
as
7. 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.
8. 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."
9. 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.
