Is all truth in Bastiat?
I was thumbing through our new edition of The Law and loving it, of course, especially this passage:
Socialism, like the old policy from which it emanates, confounds Government and society. And so, every time we object to a thing being done by Government, it concludes that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of education by the State — then we are against education altogether. We object to a State religion — then we would have no religion at all. We object to an equality which is brought about by the State then we are against equality, etc., etc. They might as well accuse us of wishing men not to eat, because we object to the cultivation of corn by the State.How is it that the strange idea of making the law produce what it does not contain — prosperity, in a positive sense, wealth, science, religion — should ever have gained ground in the political world? The modern politicians, particularly those of the Socialist school, found their different theories upon one common hypothesis; and surely a more strange, a more presumptuous notion, could never have entered a human brain.
They divide mankind into two parts. Men in general, except one, form the first; the politician himself forms the second, which is by far the most important.
In fact, they begin by supposing that men are devoid of any principle of action, and of any means of discernment in themselves; that they have no moving spring in them; that they are inert matter, passive particles, atoms without impulse; at best a vegetation indifferent to its own mode of existence, susceptible of receiving, from an exterior will and hand, an infinite number of forms, more or less symmetrical, artistic, and perfected.
Moreover, every one of these politicians does not scruple to imagine that he himself is, under the names of organizer, discoverer, legislator, institutor or founder, this will and hand, this universal spring, this creative power, whose sublime mission it is to gather together these scattered materials, that is, men, into society.
Starting from these data, as a gardener according to his caprice, shapes his trees into pyramids, parasols, cubes, cones, vases, espaliers, distaffs, or fans; so the Socialist, following his chimera, shapes poor humanity into groups, series, circles, subcircles, honeycombs, or social workshops, with all kinds of variations. And as the gardener, to bring his trees into shape, wants hatchets, pruning hooks, saws, and shears, so the politician, to bring society into shape, wants the forces which he can only find in the laws; the law of customs, the law of taxation, the law of assistance, and the law of instruction.
Comments (12)
Mathieu Bédard
Great passage!
However, I've always found his previous essay, Property and Law (Journal des Économistes may 15th 1848) to be more interesting and to have more interesting insight into what the law should be. Moreover, I find his critique of now forgotten constructivists somewhat tedious and, obviously, not as up-to-dately as his other work can be.
Published: June 27, 2007 9:20 AM
Matt
My copy of The Law is filled with writing in the margins. If I was a freedom loving politician, I would fill my speeches with Bastiat's words.
Published: June 27, 2007 9:32 AM
George Gaskell
If I was a freedom loving politician, I would fill my speeches with Bastiat's words.
I'm sorry, a what?
Published: June 27, 2007 10:39 AM
Brad
But this merely examines one part of the interweaving of society and the rulers.
I have found that those who wish to rule have a dual "relationship" with the masses. In some general ideal form, the masses are those good salts who deserve nothing but the best. But then, taken individually, they are worms, and force is necessary to get them act and behave properly. They use people in general to fuel their romantic notions, then taken singly as attackers on those notions.
Then there is the aspect that the average person wants to mitigate their oblique fear of everyone else, and the negative happenstances of life, by making sure that there is as much control as possible for everyone else, and whatever controls are in place won't affect them, or that they are savvy enough to steer around them. These laws, happily applied by the would be rulers above, are meant to control everyone else, and don't really apply to ME.
So this symbiotic relationship merely requires a mass of people, individual by individual, vested with oblique fears that demand oblique solutions, along with a small group of self deluded betters who both ideally love the mass, and specifically despise the individual.
This is pretty much the recipe of Statism as far as I can see, and simply requires enough people with a mild grandiose schizophrenic condition to be leaders, and a fearful mass willing to have a system of bad law created based on superstitions.
All that then is needed is bad economic times, and mild forms of force and bahvioral control turn into mass graves and ashy smokestacks.
Published: June 27, 2007 12:01 PM
Kristian Joensen
"I'm sorry, a what?"
A Ron Paul.
Published: June 27, 2007 12:15 PM
TokyoTom
Thanks for this quote, Jeff. As this is the second Bastiat quote I've seen here today, it looks like I will have to study up on him.
Of course, to me it looks like his message runs not only to socialists, but to statists generally, especially the neocons and others we are trying to claim the mantle of philosopher-king:
http://letters.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/25/plato_neocons/view/?show=all
Published: June 27, 2007 1:31 PM
Mathieu Bédard
TokyoTom;
Back then the term 'socialist' was refering to St-Simon followers and such, who were clearly 'right wing', even by today's standard. They even sat on the right in the chamber of congress, which may not seem very significant today, but it was back then. Bastiat was a congressman from 1948 to his death in 1950, and he sat on the left..
Published: June 27, 2007 6:43 PM
Brainpolice
You mean 18, not 19, correct?
Published: June 27, 2007 9:08 PM
Brainpolice
Note: sorry for the triple post, the thing froze up on me.
Published: June 27, 2007 9:11 PM
Mathieu Bédard
doh! yes 1848 to 1850 of course.
Published: June 28, 2007 4:01 AM
Claudia Gaspar
The same way I'm against gardeners creating topiaries (the 'art' of falsifying plants and deforming their growth), I fight socialists for the most unfair ideology in the world : to consider human beings equal in skills and potentialities and granting them the same opportunities. What a waste of resources!
Published: June 28, 2007 11:24 AM
Vanmind
When it comes to writing about political economy, Bastiat remains on the top of the heap.
Published: June 28, 2007 11:03 PM