Overall, I found Frédéric Bastiat’s writings to be compelling and thought-provoking in both positive and negative ways. Taking the historical context into account, Bastiat’s strong will could definitely be a product of the high stakes at hand. However, I did find some of his logic to be flawed and disagreed with his some of his opinions. All in all, I do appreciate his passion for personal freedoms and belief in protecting the rights of every citizen. Most interestingly though, his perspective goes to such lengths that it makes the reader question, is there such thing as too much freedom?
Within this piece, Bastiat voices a strong mockery of the idea that the government could behave as a caretaker. When he lists every little possible thing people need as something people expect the government to take care of, I believe he is taking an extreme prospective. Although I am sure some people do truly believe the government should take care of everything, I doubt this is the prospective of the average person. A government responsible for everything he listed would surely be too powerful and dangerous, comparable to a monopoly. This certainly contributes to his point against socialism; however, he argues against the most extreme form of socialism which I find to be somewhat unrealistic. Likewise, his inverse perspective that the government should be responsible for extremely little just seems illogical and unrealistic. For example, he mentions several times that he is against taxation because when the government takes, keeps, and give money there is a net loss to society; however, if the government is using the money towards benefitting society, how do we measure if it is really a loss? Obviously there are varying opinions about what government money should be used for, but I believe that taxation is just a necessary evil as long as those being taxed have a say on how their money is spent. Lastly, I thought it was interesting that he was frequently bringing up the government possibly being responsible for the morality, enlightenment, and wellbeing of its citizens. Although Bastiat appears to be a Christian, as I am as well, I still believe in and agree with the United States’ stance to separate church and state. Therefore, the government should leave enlightenment of its citizens to more qualified parties. As for morality, obviously much can go hand in hand with religion, so instead I think it is more proper to say justice. Therefore, after thinking as prompted by reading this piece, I formed the opinion that the government should be responsible for enforcing justice and protecting the wellbeing of its citizens.
Out of the three pieces I read by Bastiat, I resonated with the passion behind this one the most yet struggled with his logic just as much. Bastiat identifies personhood, liberty, private property, and self-defense as fundamental aspects of life that should in no way be impaired by the government. However, he loses me when he states that the law should protect everyone’s right to having prosperity, yet also says the government should have minimal control over our lives and extending the government’s responsibilities would result in corruption. I think Bastiat’s claims are just so general that they end up sounding illogical at times. He expects the government to protect everyone’s personhood and prosperity, yet thinks they should have very restricted legal power and the inability to tax citizens. Although I agree with the sentiment behind Basitat’s arguments, I just fail to follow how he thinks his ideal government would get by. If we weren’t giving to the government at all, how is it they could be of any service to society. Another logical fallacy within his writings is how he does not want the government to have the opportunity to be a weaponized monopoly, but he at the end of this piece states he thinks the ideal government would not even have a voting system. He argues that if his ideal government was in place, votes would not matter. No matter how minimally involved a government system is, I still believe the right to vote is fundamental and taking that away just opens the doors to more corruption. Lastly, Bastiat states that if the law interfered with labor, education, and/or religion, justice will be destroyed. I do believe in the right to pursue your own religion, but as for the other points, labor and education, I believe the law interfering with these sectors often serves justice to many.
I think I found this to be my favorite piece out of the three I read by Bastiat. Bastiat definitely conveys a lot of drama in all of his pieces, however, I like that here he uses the dramatics to the point of satire. The tone and wit behind this piece make it very digestible to the reader and almost enjoyable to read, which is not something I say often as someone typically uninterested in political history. I agree with his point that blocking imports will cause a net loss to society, but I think he could have gone further to demonstrate a logical argument as to why that was true. That being said, maybe that level of reasoning might have taken away from the lightheartedness of this piece in comparison to his others. Regardless, the piece left me wondering why he did not further develop the argument, especially as that would be so vital to a true petition. One main point I was surprised never came up was the fact that the government taking a position against a foreign competitor could result in another country following suit. Essentially, if you block a country from importing, who’s to say it will not damage the trading relationship and they will likewise ban your exports from coming into their markets. This was one of the first things I thought of as far as cons for blocking imports and I think it would have been a good addition to this piece.
Frederic Bastiat overall conveys the importance of personal rights and property that I agree with, however, his dramatic antagonistic view of the government, to me, supersedes logic at times. That being said, I acknowledge that the historical context of this piece calls for drastic measures, so his extreme viewpoints could be part of his persuasive voice.
