Image Source
What is Government?
Bastiat Frederic begins his stance on government by first attempting to classify what it is. He says he would offer “a million francs” (quite a bit in today’s dollars) if someone could truly make a definition of what the government is. To me, the government is simply the body which rules over the citizens of a defined nation, providing some common benefit (defense of the country, police, fire, etc.) while taking some of the citizens wealth (taxes). Bastiat says the issue with defining government is that people are trying to make a utopia via the government. The people want to do away with taxes, to make education free and available to everybody, make new farmland, etc. There are so many people crying out with THEIR idea of what the government should be doing, that to an ordinary citizen, it is impossible to have your own thoughts. The government, attempting to appease the people, introduces a small new tax, which is, of course, met with extreme anger from the populace. The people rise, and as Bastiat says “go through two or three governments”, and never satisfy their wants. This is because it is entirely contradictory (read impossible) to satisfy these two opposite needs. You can not have all of this “free” stuff provided to you by the government and not be taxed heavily. The government must provide these services with money, it is not a magician which can simply conjure up a police force, firefighters, mechanics, teachers, workers, etc. out of thin air. These things must come from somewhere.
Enjoying the labor of others.
It is at this point where Bastiat mentions that these two opposite ideals would only be made possible by the labor of others. You COULD enjoy all of these great benefits without getting taxed yourself, but someone else would get the “rough hand” of the government. This is why slavery has always existed, why now there is a poor class which is almost impossible to escape from. For all of human history there have been people at the bottom whose life is a living nightmare to provide for the people in the middle and especially at the top. That is the unfortunate reality of government providing services. During his time, slavery was receding, and thankfully now it is almost entirely nonexistent. He defines government as “that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else”. He is not saying that government is fictitious, as in not existing, but what he is saying is that the idea of what the government does is fictitious.
The Great Chimera
He then harps on the French constitution’s preamble, essentially stating that from the beginning his government is contradictory. I agree that when he says there is no value to an axiom that changes place with no inconvenience. The mother will feed the child makes sense. The child will feed the mother? Obviously not. This is to say that a country will provide for its citizens makes no sense either. As he states in the next part, us Americans had a pretty good idea. We, THE PEOPLE, of the US, form this union. Not the Union formed for the people. It is not abstract; it is simply what it is. The government has two hands, one to give and one to receive, and neither can work without the other. The issue Bastiat decides with the government is that it can not give more value to the citizens than what it takes from them. The government decides that it must promise many benefits and little taxes so not to get overthrown. This, of course, is not sustainable, and eventually the people rise up and overthrow it, only to get replaced by an equally useless government.
The Montagnards promise.
Thus arrives a new party, a BETTER party, one which promises the good hand of the government without the bad. One which “ought to give a great deal to the people and take little from them”. Simply an impossible task, yet people fall for it. The government is bound to do all of these things with its gentle hand. Especially under this new party, that hand will be very active. But not the rough hand? How does one rationalize it? I can’t understand how people continually fall for this garbage. Even though, yes, it is NOT fair under capitalism and our current government, PROPORTIONALLY speaking it is better.
The Law
Again, Bastiat begins by determining what is law and why does it exist. His reasoning is that all human life is entitled to life, liberty, and property. We didn’t make laws to create these things, we made these laws because we wanted to preserve what we are born with. So why would we WILLINGLY give up any of these traits we are BORN with to a government? Socialist regimes constantly take away at least one of them (property) and many times take away all of them! He says that law is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. It is a group of people who recognize these essential traits of humanity and band together to ensure their existence. Founding a nation on these principles will ensure that successful folks don’t thank the government for their success, and unsuccessful folks don’t blame the government. In our current order, it seems increasingly that those who fail blame the government for their circumstances. While that may be partially to blame (redlining etc) why is it not on the individual to try as hard as possible to change their circumstances?
The corruption of the law
Yet, the law is NOT used only for the purposes of protecting life, liberty, and property. In many cases, and especially under authoritarian regimes, the law is used to take away these very things! Bastiat says that this is due to two reasons, greed and false philanthropy. Throughout history, mankind can either reap the fruits of their own labor, or take someone else's. It is easier to take someone else's things than to work for your own, so the law should be there to make it more painful to do so. Whoever holds the power to create the law, therefore, uses it to allow themselves to take from others but not vice versa. Even the US system of “universal suffrage” isn’t universal, it is just our version of it. Bastiat argues that voting itself is an issue, as the class which carries the “right” to vote will defend that privilege, while those waiting for that same “right” may rise up in the meantime. Everybody wants to participate in lawmaking because it is this very thing which protects against plunder, or, for a select few, allows you to use it for plundering. Again, he points to the US as a beacon, although he does mention that two laws (slavery and tariffs) may lead to the destruction of the union as a whole. How does one prevent laws from being passed which are injust, which go against the very foundation of humanity (life, liberty, and property)?
The choice we must make
Do we let the few plunder the many (current society), everybody to plunder everybody (anarchy), or is nobody allowed to plunder everybody (the ultimate goal of humanity)? Seeing as how the last choice is entirely impossible (human greed knows no bounds), and the second one means the end of civilization (essentially no laws), the first choice, which, coincidentally is also the choice that all of human history has used, is the only choice. It sucks, but the reality is that there is always someone on top and always someone on bottom. I can not possibly see any other way. Bastiat goes into how socialism is so alluring, and I get it, it is nice to imagine a world where this isn’t the case. Bastiat continues in talking about how people turn to the law for a variety of reasons that it wasn’t designed for, for the law is not an endless cornucopia. It requires the forceful taking of someone’s wealth and transferring that to the state.
The Candlemakers Plea
Here, Bastiat is, I believe, showing how ridiculous socialism is. He is saying that the candlemakers can’t possibly compete with the sun, so as a result the government should pass laws granting candlemakers supreme control over the light. Windows must be shut, doors closed, and people are to stay indoors, allowing the French candlemaking industry to thrive. All the government must do it allow the candlemakers to have complete control over all industry, and thus, all is better.
