Luke Foster
Dr. Trost
EEE 3031
31 January 2024
Reflection Paper 3
https://static.wixstatic.com/media/1cd646_ae7f0376474742e4ac9a0dee2f3f5a5dmv2_d_2508_1672_s_2.jpg/v1/fill/w_640,h_426,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_auto/1cd646_ae7f0376474742e4ac9a0dee2f3f5a5dmv2_d_2508_1672_s_2.jpg
Image Source
Beginning on Law
Bastiat Frederic was a very good writer for his time. Usually, I struggle to read older texts as their “lingo” differs from ours in strange ways; however, I was able to understand through his writing what he was trying to convey. I do not completely agree with everything he stated, and I very much don’t believe every form of government will immediately be plundering ground. A few points, nevertheless, struck me strongly. They were points that I have pondered on myself, if not in the same context. To be more specific, when Frederic wrote, “[i]f you suggest a doubt as to the morality of these institutions, it is boldly said that ‘You are a dangerous innovator, a utopian, a theorist, a subversive; you would shatter the foundation upon which society rests,’” (Frederic 7) he caught my attention. Up until this point I was merely skimming through The Law, but I started to lock onto what he was explaining.
A Slight Rant
This quote caught my attention likely because it reminded me of political issues nowadays. Offending someone politically or disagreeing in politics is a major issue. It results in fights, massive outbreaks by the media, sometimes even riots. It’s truly depressing to see people get so riled up over their political beliefs that they lash out and act irresponsibly. It’s seen most when there is a disagreement with people’s views. People lash out at one another and berate them by calling them misogynists, fascists, racist, or even just a deviation of fool. Most people don’t try to listen to differing opinions, and while not everyone out there is “most people” the immense amount of people who act like this truly do exist. Fredric’s quote also points out the fact that people in power tend to ridicule what might be a hinderance or a problem to them. This unjust use of power truly makes me mad, as I believe the point of a politician’s job is to serve the desires and request of the people who elected them to the best of their ability. I think somehow affecting their pay or the total amount of influence they have on certain matters could make the job “less desirable” and would entice people who want to see change instead of those who want to profit from others. Alas, I’m not educated in the field of politics at all, and I truly believe my plan wouldn’t work at all. If power and some money were removed the job would truly be undesirable, and there would also be no incentive to obtain the role.
My Conundrum
I veered off topic there, back to Frederic and his writings. Like I said before, a few of his words truly did click in my head and made perfect sense. Once I got through the old English (French?) of course. I did not agree with everything he said though. He stated that every form of government was susceptible to man’s natural, behavioral desires. I understand how it’s a problem for government to be so susceptible to greed and can very easily be made unjust to benefit those in control. I do not have a solution for this issue, but I don’t consider it truly the government’s fault. It falls back on the quality of man. Those elected to the positions are to blame for their exploits, but if I kept going on this it could be argued that it was those who elected the official into this position who are truly at fault. It isn’t though. The official could have been deceptive and lied their way through the entire process of election. Blame shouldn’t be thrown onto those who have been lied to, but instead back to the one who exploited their position. The blame could also be thrust on society, however, for “failing” the elected individual as the individual was raised in a society where they learned to be deceptive. I am not enlightened enough to come up with a solution for these issues as of now. I will credit this matter to something I believe it to be like though, smoking. People who smoke cigarettes are known to have an increased risk of death. Is the cigarette to blame though? It is full of deadly chemicals which shouldn’t be ingested the way they are, yet the person who smokes the cigarette has a choice. In most cases, they chose to begin smoking, so would it not be their fault for consuming the product? That could be true, or is it the fault of the company who produces the cigarettes? They made the deadly chemical concoction and are willingly selling it even though they know the risks it poses to human health. People still buy the product, however, knowing the risks it brings. It’s like a circle, any point I make just connects back into another point and until a debate is had or some clear distinctions or faults in the way I think are brought to light for me I’ll never know how to solve this conundrum.
Conclusion
Frederic scarcely touches on socialism in his essay, and I’m in total agreement with him on socialism being a fallacy in the present age. Only under perfect circumstances could socialism potentially work, and yet we do not have perfection in real life. Even though I agreed with him on a matter of subjects, I am confused in what kind of government he aspires to. I don’t know if he wants to limit the power of the government, or to have the government be a collective militia thing which comes together to solve his country’s problems. I believe the discussion in class Thursday might enlighten me, and it will change my perspective once again. I’ll question others as to how they believe government is supposed to work, ask why they believe their views, and try to find any faults to bring to light. I hope somebody has a very passionate opinion on this, and someone else has a passionate opposing opinion. For now, I believe these readings have opened my mind just slightly, and I hope to make a fiery and enlightening debate happen Thursday. Mostly so I can genuinely learn and slightly for the sake of drama.
