Intro to Bastiat
Frédéric Bastiat believed in "natural law", which comes with individual life, liberty and property; and therefore the right to defend those things. His ultimate goal was to reach the "absence of plunder", something that would bring peace, justice, and order. That being said, he believed law, as it was functioning, was corrupt and that all law would end in corruption, with the legal plunder being rooted in either (or both) human greed or "misconceived philanthropy" (fraternity). He has said "just because an action is legal, does not make it just".
image source
Plunder (pg. 49-60)
Bastiat's belief was that the government's intervention in human affairs causes an imbalance of necessities, such as literacy over food. Corruption in politics is not new. And it is my true belief that the government does need a lot of reform to be less corrupt, so the idea that the government is causing an imbalance in priorities is a fair critique. The fact that I favor academics over my own mental health is an example of the imbalance of my priorities which has been pushed onto me by society, and therefore, according to Bastiat- the government. The corruption of government or "perversion of law" is said by Bastiat to be because of two main factors- greed and misconceived philanthropy. The misconceived philanthropy part, Bastiat says, explains fraud and slavery. Plunder, in this case, and from what I've gathered is just deception, fraud, and general wrongdoings. It is also when something hurts one person in order to benefit the other. The problem Bastiat presents us with is that because laws (which are meant to prevent plunder) are written by only a certain class of people, those people upkeep plunder because it only benefits them. To me this is obvious. I think I talk about it often enough, the "old white man" who writes the laws. One of the ethical theories I actually learned in business law recently is the idea that if you make a rule, you have to assume yourself in the lowest class. Obviously you can't, but the idea of corruption happening because the people who are in charge haven't experienced poverty or oppression makes a lot of sense to me.
Bastiat on Socialism (pg. 60-74)
Here we are again on socialism. Bastiat's general view is that socialists want the same power that any other politician wants under the pretense that they have power over all of your individual property (or you don't have any at all). His belief was that socialism is plunder, explaining that when someone's property is taken away without proper compensation, that is unjust. I completely agree with that. In fact, a week before I got into a huge socialism debate in my honors course, my business law professor had asked, "is it okay for someone's property to be taken away for the better of the community" (i.e. turning a house into a strip mall), and I answered, "not without proper compensation". That's just how I feel. I think the idea that an individual's property is an extension of "their faculty" is something that I resonate with. My property is me, and it wouldn't be fair for it to be taken without at least compensation. Bastiat's vehemently against the idea that a government should control labor, education, and religion (under socialism), because that would immediately cause injustice. This is another fair critique. I don't think these are ever ways that I have heard socialism spoken about, but it's interesting, because it makes me turn away from it. I want my individual property, and I want to be able to choose my religion, education, and job. These are things I should be able to choose as a human being. No one should choose these things for me. Bastiat says that socialism is "not natural organization, but forced organization". Another thing to think about. I guess that because I think everyone should have equal opportunities, I have leaned toward socialism, because that's what it promises. Maybe instead, there should be a less corrupt system that provides an equal ground for everyone, therefore giving everyone actual freedom. I don't have the answer right now for how to achieve that, however.
Legislator vs. Human (pg. 75-83)
Bastiat tells us that under government, humans are passive. The problem he points out is that legislators see themselves/hold themselves at a higher ground than other humans (basically making themselves gods (my interpretation of what Bastiat is saying)). This is an issue according to him, because then those in charge will force their own morals and principles onto their citizens, and they will accomplish that through making law. *Bastiat took us through a bunch of excerpts to get across the fact that socialists and dictators see us as nothing but "social experiments", or puppets, basically. This is an interesting take, as I have never thought of a socialist society as one that imposes specific morals and principles; but according to Bastiat, that is something that will inevitably happen in socialist societies. I wouldn't want that. I wouldn't want to be a puppet or experiment, so I think it's smart of Bastiat to talk about it in this way if I'm supposed to be being swayed in a certain direction from this. I spent a whole bunch of time sort of defending socialism in my last paper too. Not to bring it back or disagree necessarily, but if socialism is defined as "production, distribution, and exchange" being "owned or regulated by the community as a whole", where does the imposing of principles come in? I still want "community" to be established, because if community is actually government, then this all ties in. I like the idea of government and the idea of being protected and provided with the things I need, so I still really don't know if I get where Bastiat is going exactly, but for me, I really think it should be up to the government to provide us with shelter, food, etc., but I completely understand the idea of the government being corrupt, because it is in a lot of ways helping only certain people. For example, the disproportionately affected minorities in any community.
"What is Liberty?" and Stance on Education (Pg. 83-94)
According to Bastiat, liberty is the power in "possessing education and tools of labor". Also, simply put, it is "competition". However, Bastiat tells us that socialists do not believe in competition and therefore cannot supply liberty.* He also believes that education, banking, and religion should not be government owned, because therefore it would be an injustice against liberty. Education not being government owned may be a hot topic, but I can see where Bastiat is coming from. A conversation I had with my professor earlier gave me a different perspective on these things. Education, as it functions now, does not give opportunity to everyone, but it gives opportunity to some. The goal should be that everyone gets equal opportunity, and unfortunately, schools that are available to the poorer classes of people do not offer the best education. What was explained to me is that education should be in competition, because they would then compete to be the best and give the best education to everyone. In my professor's view, the way to start that competition is through a universal basic income (with paid schooling). I think that is one of probably many other solutions in the goal of making education as equal as possible. I truly believe that education is what has taken me this far, and it is what helps us progress as a society, so maybe schools shouldn’t be government run.
Final Thoughts
My biggest takeaway is that just because it is a law does not mean it is just and vice versa. Funnily enough, this is also something I learned in my business law class. Another thing Bastiat wanted to get across is that socialism creates a space for plunder and injustice, especially since they see themselves as higher beings. It makes sense to think of it this way. I don’t like politicians and I don’t trust them, so why would I trust a socialist politician? Any one person is going to perpetuate plunder or try to fix it, and it would be hard to differentiate the two. Lawmakers should be on the same sized pedestal as me or anyone else. However, I don’t see how a society could function without government, and Bastiat really doesn’t get into it. He tells us how terribly it currently functions with one, but did not tell us how it would function without one. I just want to know, because all I know is government, and my idea for a better society has included a lot of government programs in the past, so what is his solution? I find it hard to agree with the whole “away, then, with quacks and organizers!” when we aren’t told what will happen when the “quacks” are gone.
