This week’s first assigned reading is a passage from 1848 titled “Government” by Bastiat Frédéric. This passage critiques the concept of government and its many roles and expectations. The author describes it as a mysterious figure constantly pressured by society’s numerous wants and desires. Despite this, the government is often expected to provide solutions without burdening the people with taxes. The author explains that this is a nearly impossible expectation and sarcastically ponders the idea of a perfect government that could solve every problem. He again argues that people instead of addressing the imbalances of labor, turn to the government to mediate these inequalities. He argues that this is often through subsidies, pensions, and other forms of financial support. He further criticizes the government for its role in perpetuating this system and how politicians and officials eagerly expand their influence and wealth at the public’s expense. I find it surprising how relevant this text is considering how long these issues have existed. He also questions why the public naively accepts this arrangement and points out that people are more willing to accept it because of its legal and organized structure. He challenges France’s preamble and claims that a collective entity elevating individual citizens’ well-being and morality is a dangerous illusion. Considering the current nations that have successfully provided public goods including healthcare, education, and infrastructure, I believe his argument has not held up well. He argues that the government acting as a mediator between the public and resources is inherently flawed. This argument doesn’t make much sense to me considering the alternative solutions for this problem. He also argues that the government can’t avoid taxes or negative consequences to provide benefits, which causes revolutions. It’s also important to recognize that revolutions are not always caused by the failure of the government to deliver. He claims that the Provisional Government makes promises of prosperity, free education, and other social programs but the National Assembly struggles to fulfill them leading to more taxes. Bastiat’s critique of unrealistic expectations from a government without taxes still applies today. People want services like healthcare and education but resist the taxes needed to fund them. The author argues that this contradiction where the government is expected to give a lot without taking anything in return is not feasible and ultimately dangerous.
The next reading is titled “The Law” and is also by Bastiat Frédéric. He starts by arguing that the law, intended to protect the natural rights of life, liberty, and property, has been misused by greed and false philanthropy. He states that the law should be a collective force for defending individual rights but it has instead been used to justify “plunder” and limit the freedoms it was meant to protect. The author suggests that when law becomes a tool for exploitation it undermines justice and leads to oppression. He argues that this results from human tendencies to seek personal gain at the expense of others. This creates a system where the law serves the interests of the powerful rather than ensuring fairness and protecting individual rights. I believe this is a much sounder argument than his last one so far as many of the laws today are still exploited by corporations to maximize income over people’s rights. He argues that “legal plunder” is where laws are used to manipulate wealth from the many to the few. He argues that many view laws as inherent simply because they are laws. This makes practices like slavery, monopoly, or oppression harder to challenge as the law sanctions them. He further argues that the law excludes certain groups from voting which suggests that if the law was restricted to protecting individual rights and liberties, then political disputes would be less controversial. He also emphasizes that once the law becomes a tool for plunder, every class seeks to use it to their benefit leading to widespread unrest and demand for political power. So far all of these arguments have represented some of the modern-day issues we face in society which is shocking considering how old this document is. He argues that this legal plunder is often in the forms of tariffs, subsidies, and taxation which redistribute wealth in ways that benefit certain groups at the expense of others. With Donald Trump’s tariffs, this is a noteworthy argument to take a look at. He also criticizes socialism for using the law to legitimize such plunder. He argues that legal plunder is more dangerous because it is sanctioned by law. He emphasizes that the law is to protect liberty and property and that any law that takes from one group to benefit another is unjust. He argues that there should be no plunder over universal plunder or limited plunder as this is the only way to protect rights and avoid societal harm. He also includes that using the law for philanthropic purposes results in legal plunder. Bastiat’s concern about the law being used for philanthropy is relevant in debates such as universal basic income (UBI). Critics argue it may create dependency, while others see it as necessary for addressing inequality. He argues that the law should focus on justice rather than charity or societal welfare as these undermine its core purpose and lead to plunder.
The third and final reading is titled “The Candlemakers’ Petition” and is by Bastiat Frédéric. This is a satirical piece that involves a group of candlemakers who petition the government to pass a law that closes all windows to block out sunlight as they are an unfair competitor to their business. The sun is a free and abundant source of light which causes people to use fewer artificial lights and ultimately reduce their profits. Bastiat argues that government intervention to protect industries from competition is illogical and harmful as it ignores the benefits of free trade. This is a valid point that the government should avoid “protectionist” policies as they can stifle innovation or lead to these kinds of inefficiencies. Again another important topic to discuss at this time because of Trump’s tariffs. This is a creative way to present this argument which aligns with the principles of free-market economics.
