The Law
Frederic Bastiat
Translated by Dean Russell
“The law perverted! And the police powers of the state along with it!” Bastiat opens with this bold, cutting statement in response to French government swinging increasingly towards socialism following the revolution in 1848. He asserts that man has a natural right to his person, his liberty, and his property given by God to all. Each individual has a right to defend, by force, these rights. Law establishes an organization of these rights into framework that allows societies to exist and maintain rights for the individual.
Plunder, as defined by Bastiat, is when the property of a person or group is violated for the gain of another; as this right has been given by God, the government no more of a claim to an individual’s property than a thief does. He extends this idea to illustrate his belief that any advance by the government on one’s property, no matter the reason, is plunder as well. In establishing laws like protective tariffs, taxes, guaranteed jobs, and welfare programs, governments have perpetrated “legal plunder.” The taking of wealth from some and redistributing to others is analogous to individual thievery.
If plunder has been legalized in this way, it leads to innumerable threats to individual rights. The first of which, is a clash between those with power and those without. This can manifest by means of restricted voting, as with United States with women and slavery. It can also lead to undue pressure by legislators to attempt to accomplish what they think is best for society. If legal plunder is protected by law, it leaves the door open to a myriad of possible infringements on a person’s liberty as well. Bastiat takes aim at contemporaries like Montesquieu, Rousseau, and others, calling them presumptuous. How, he asks, do these men know better than others what is good for society and the individual?
He concludes his thoughts by arguing that once the law has been perverted to infringe on one these three natural, God given rights, the door is open and no clear line delineates where the infringement should stop. He argues that justice is a negative concept, that is to say, justice is achieved only by the absence of injustice. Law should not dictate morals, redistribute wealth, protect certain industries, or provide public welfare. Law’s proper place is to solely ensure the absence of injustice.
Bastiat’s work stands opposite to the Communist Manifesto on the spectrum of political organization. In the work he points to America as the best example of what an ideal body of laws should be, aside from the blemishes of slavery and tariffs. Today, the United States has moved farther away from the minimalist law that Bastiat admired. Social security, welfare, public schools, and health care are all things he vehemently opposed. An America that conformed to his ideals would need to exclude all of these things as well as minimum wage, workers rights laws, and public works projects. I find it hard to imagine an America without any of these things and wonder how our nation would have progressed without any of them. Although I don’t believe in such a strict minimalist law like Bastiat, his warning is very clear, with these types of laws the US is infringing on the rights of one or another groups of people. As he also pointed out, once the law does that, it’s nearly impossible to find where the line should be. A dilemma emerges-how much personal property can be taken away from an individual for the good of society as a whole? Moving forward, we as voters must understand and realize the consequences of our actions and decide just how much we want our government to preside over our daily lives.
Well written, Luke.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that it is hard if not impossible to imagine an America without some kind of government-sponsored healthcare, without Social Security (although that will happen soon enough...), and without some provisions for organized labor. And this I believe is one of the reasons that we have to take Batiat's writings not as a mandate for an overhaul of our socio-political system, but as a call to consider and critique all government programs in regards to how they impact the rights of multiple levels of society.
In our two party system, there is an inherent lack of critical thinking about the rights of the whole. As special interests become more and more powerful in the electoral process thanks to a recent Supreme Court ruling, politicians will increasingly look at policies with a singular focus- that is, how will a policy impact my core of supporters and donors?
I remember seeing signs at the Wisconsin protests this Winter that said in big, bold letters: "TAX THE RICH." While an enormous tax levy in Wisconsin would be an easy way out of the financial predicament of the state, it would also be a massive infringement on the rights of the wealthy.
What we need to move towards as a nation is an understanding that our history has put us on a course in which a libertarian existence, as idealistic and harmonious Bastiat renders it to be, is simply beyond our doing. Instead, we need to be mindful and aware of the rights of all classes and all peoples, and to minimize the legal plunder that is essentially and inherently at the core of our political system, for better and for worse.
The main problem I have with applying Bastiat's thesis to modern America is that he never considers the implicit power of the populous in a democratic society. American tax levels are as high as they are because people elected politicians that promised them things like unemployment benefits, medicare, and so on. People voted for the welfare state. Bastiat describes a case where an individual takes power, and decides to tax based on their own social agenda. That is not what has happened in our country.
ReplyDeleteAmericans & Europeans both are coming to terms with their entitlement complexes. We are reaping what we have sown. We'll see what happens with these debt crises...
Both Ryan and Lars have brought up great points. I think I may not have been entirely clear on my point about not being able to imagine the US without the mentioned government involvement. I do not necessarily believe all those things are good for the country, I simply meant that it would be hard to imagine the US in a different place, as government has steadily expanded since at least the Civil War. One issue I haven't decided on fully is social security. By creating social security, then under funding it during the time period when most were paying in we have essentially borrowed against future generations.
ReplyDeletetest
ReplyDeleteSorry men...The old man took a week to figure out how to reply....Stop laughing!
ReplyDeleteGood thoughts all here.
It's time that WE THE PEOPLE take seriously our roles in all of this. It's too easy to wait for 'utopia' (What the article suggests-I think)or give in to cynicism. (maybe where we are now?) You guys all name that.
We need to see the world (our country) as it is and work with it that way for change. Ghandi said: "Be the change you want to see in the world."
EX: What 'upper middle class' person will be the first one to say: "OK. I have enough. I won't take that check from Social Security. It's not necessary."
It's tough. Maybe that's not where we start but we'll need to start looking at our own roles instead of waiting for perfect laws and perfect systems etc...JJ