Frédéric Bastiat -A HOMAGE TO “…..THE TRUTH “

8/13/2019 Frdric Bastiat -A HOMAGE TO ..THE TRUTH

1/40

Frdric Bastiat

A HOMAGE TO ..THE TRUTH

Not Money but the lies that get floated in circulation that we believe about

money- is at the root of all evils

Aron

That is my own line and you can quote it for free.

This my expression of awe and a homage to this less known Socio-

economist, political analyst and philosopher, who we must make an effort

to study and grasp more than the trashy fakes like Karl Marx for our own

good and society.

The man expired like all good things in life, prematurely and it makes us

wonder what more he could have gifted as insights into the existential

questions that haunt humanity-were he to have had a longer life.


2/40

Whether it is the global economic downturn or Indias halted Growth Story

we can understand clearly how it went awry in those words of Bastiat that

actually were spoken to an audience removed by two centuries earlier.

Here is the compilation from open source wiki and other notes on thisgenius of this man who drew near his friends around his deathbed and

whispered as his last words lest we forget to stand for it.

His public career as an economist began only in 1844 when his first article

was published in the Journal des economistesin October of that year. It

was cut short by his untimely death in 1850. Bastiat had

contractedtuberculosis,probably during his tours throughout France to

promote his ideas, and that illness eventually prevented him from making

further speeches (particularly at the legislative assembly to which he waselected in 1848 and 1849) and took his life. In the fall of 1850, he was sent

to Italy by his doctors. He first traveled to Pisa, then on to Rome.

On 24 December 1850, Bastiat called those with him to approach his bed.

He murmured twice the words "the truth" then passed away.

I have compiled it in two sections- the first as Notes on Bastiat from

wikiencylopedia, and then the words of this prodigious thinker as Thus

Spake Bastiat. I hope you enjoy reading them.

.

.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberculosishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberculosishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberculosishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberculosis


3/40

Frederic Bastiat an introduction

Bastiat was the author of many works on economics and political economy,

generally characterized by their clear organization, forceful argumentation,and acerbic wit. EconomistMurray Rothbardwrote that "Bastiat was indeed

a lucid and superb writer, whose brilliant and witty essays and fables to this

day are remarkable and devastating demolitions ofprotectionismand of all

forms of governmentsubsidyand control. He was a truly scintillating

advocate of an unrestrictedfree market."[1]On the other hand, Bastiat

himself declared that subsidy should be available, but limited: "under

extraordinary circumstances, for urgent cases, the State should set aside

some resources to assist certain unfortunate people, to help them adjust tochanging conditions."[5]Among his better known works isEconomic

Sophisms,[6]which contains many strongly worded attacks

onstatistpolicies. Bastiat wrote the work while living in England to advise

the shapers of the French Republic on pitfalls to avoid.

Economic Sophismsand the "Candlemakers' Petition"

Contained within Economic Sophismsis thesatiricalparable known as the"Candlemakers' petition" in which candlemakers and tallow producers lobbytheChamber of Deputiesof the FrenchJuly Monarchy(18301848) toblock out the Sun to prevent its unfair competition with theirproducts.[7]Also included in the Sophismsis a facetious petition to the kingasking for a law forbidding the usage of everyone's right hand, based on apresumption by some of his contemporaries that more difficulty meansmore work and more work means more wealth.[8]

Bastiat's most famous work, however, is The Law, originally published as apamphlet in 1850. It defines, through development,[clarification needed]a justsystem of laws and then demonstrates how such law facilitates a freesociety.

In The Law, he wrote that everyone has a right to protect "his person, hisliberty, and his property". The State should be only a "substitution of a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_markethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_markethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_markethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-Great-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-Great-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-Great-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satirehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satirehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satirehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamber_of_Deputies_(France)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamber_of_Deputies_(France)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamber_of_Deputies_(France)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Monarchyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Monarchyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Monarchyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_clarifyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_clarifyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_clarifyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_clarifyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Monarchyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamber_of_Deputies_(France)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satirehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-Great-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_markethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard


4/40

common force for individual forces" to defend this right. "Justice" (defenseof one's life, liberty, property) has precise limits, but if government powerextends further, into philanthropic endeavors, government becomes solimitless that it can grow endlessly. The resulting statism is "based on thistriple hypothesis: the total inertness of mankind, the omnipotence of thelaw, and the infallibility of the legislator." The public then becomessocially-engineeredby the legislator and must bend to the legislators' will "like theclay to the potter":

"I do not dispute their right to invent social combinations, to advertise them,

to advocate them, and to try them upon themselves, at their own expense

and risk. But I do dispute their right to impose these plans upon us by law

by forceand to compel us to pay for them with our taxes".

Bastiat posits that the law becomes perverted when it punishes one's right

to self-defense (of his life, liberty, and property) in favor of another's right to"legalized plunder," which he defines as: "if the law takes from somepersons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom itdoes not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense ofanother by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing acrime."[9]Bastiat was thus againstredistribution.

"What is Seen and What is Unseen"

In his 1850 essay "Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas" ("What is Seenand What is Unseen"),[10]through theparable of the broken window,heintroduced the concept ofopportunity costin all but name; this term wasnot coined until over 50 years after his death in 1914 byFriedrich vonWieser.

Interestingly the Leftist rivals seem to be of the same mind set as today-which is to flare up faced with facts that contradict their socialist ideas and

to ad hominem attack the messenger instead of the message.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(political_science)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(political_science)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(political_science)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(political_science)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_(economics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_(economics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_(economics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_is_seen_and_what_is_not_seenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_is_seen_and_what_is_not_seenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_is_seen_and_what_is_not_seenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_is_seen_and_what_is_not_seenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_windowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_windowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_windowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_costhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_costhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_costhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_von_Wieserhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_von_Wieserhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_von_Wieserhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_von_Wieserhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_von_Wieserhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_von_Wieserhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_costhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_windowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_is_seen_and_what_is_not_seenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_is_seen_and_what_is_not_seenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_(economics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(political_science)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(political_science)


5/40

Debate with Proudhon[edit]

He also famously engaged in a debate, between 1849 and 1850,withPierre-Joseph Proudhonabout the legitimacy of interest.[11]AsRobert

Lerouxargued, Bastiat had the conviction that Proudhon's doctrine "wasthe complete antithesis of any serious approach".[12]Proudhon famously losthis temper and declared to Bastiat: "Your intelligence sleeps, or rather ithas never been awake...You are a man for whom logic does not exist...Youdo not hear anything, you do not understand anything...Your are withoutphilosophy, without science, without humanity...Your ability to reason, likeyour ability to pay attention and make comparisons is zero...Scientifically,Mr. Bastiat, you are a dead man."[13]

Bastiat asserted that the sole purpose of government is to protect the right

of an individual to life, liberty, and property, and why it is dangerous andmorally wrong for government to interfere with an individual's otherpersonal matters. From this, Bastiat concluded that the law cannot defendlife, liberty, and property if it promotes "legal [or legalized] plunder," whichhe defined as using government force and laws to take something from oneindividual and give it to others (as opposed to a transfer of property viamutually-agreed contracts, without using fraud nor violent threats againstthe other party, which Bastiat considered a legitimate transfer ofproperty).[14]

In The Law, Bastiat explains that, if the privileged classes orsocialistsusethe government for "legalized plunder," this will encourage the other socio-economic class to also use "legal plunder," and that the correct response toboth the socialists and thecorporatistsis to cease all "legal plunder."Bastiat also explains in The Lawwhy his position is that the law cannotdefend life, liberty, and property if it promotes socialist policies. When usedto obtain "legalized plunder" for any group, he says, the law is pervertedand turned against the only things (life, liberty, and property) it is supposedto defend.[14]

Bastiat was also a strong supporter offree trade.He "was inspired by androutinely corresponded withRichard Cobdenand the EnglishAnti-CornLaw Leagueand worked with free-trade associations in France."[1]

Because of his stress on the role of consumer demand in initiatingeconomic progress (a form ofdemand-sideeconomics), Bastiat has beendescribed byMark Thornton,Thomas DiLorenzo,[2]and other economists as
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bastiat&action=edit&section=6http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bastiat&action=edit&section=6http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bastiat&action=edit&section=6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Leroux_(sociologist)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Leroux_(sociologist)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Leroux_(sociologist)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-13http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-13http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-13http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_plunderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_plunderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-TheLaw-14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-TheLaw-14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-TheLaw-14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-TheLaw-14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-TheLaw-14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-TheLaw-14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_tradehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_tradehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_tradehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cobdenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cobdenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cobdenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Corn_Law_Leaguehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Corn_Law_Leaguehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Corn_Law_Leaguehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Corn_Law_Leaguehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-Great-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-Great-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-Great-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand-sidehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand-sidehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand-sidehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Thorntonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Thorntonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Thorntonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_DiLorenzohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_DiLorenzohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-DiLorenzo-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-DiLorenzo-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-DiLorenzo-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_DiLorenzohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Thorntonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand-sidehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-Great-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Corn_Law_Leaguehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Corn_Law_Leaguehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cobdenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_tradehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-TheLaw-14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-TheLaw-14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_plunderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-13http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Leroux_(sociologist)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Leroux_(sociologist)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bastiat&action=edit&section=6


6/40

a forerunner of theAustrian School.In his Economic Harmonies, Bastiatstates that,

We cannot doubt that self-interest is the mainspring of human nature. It

must be clearly understood that this word is used here to designate a

universal, incontestable fact, resulting from the nature of man, and not anadverse judgment, as would be the word selfishness.

Thornton posits that Bastiat, through taking this position on the motivationsof human action, demonstrates a pronounced "Austrian flavor."[15]

One of Bastiat's most important contributions to the field of economics was

his admonition to the effect that good economic decisions can be made

only by taking into account the "full picture." That is, economic truths should

be arrived at by observing not only the immediate consequencesthat is,

benefits or liabilitiesof an economic decision, but also by examining thelong-term second and third consequences. Additionally, one must examine

the decision's effect not only on a single group of people (say

candlemakers) or a single industry (say candlemaking), but on all people

and all industries in the society as a whole. As Bastiat famously put it, an

economist must take into account both "What is Seen and What is Not

Seen." Bastiat's "rule" was later expounded and developed byHenry

Hazlittin his workEconomics in One Lesson,in which Hazlitt borrowed

Bastiat's trenchant "Broken Window Fallacy"and went on to demonstratehow it applies to a wide variety of economic falsehoods.

Negative railroad

A famous section of Economic Sophismsconcerns the way that tariffs areinherently counterproductive. Bastiat posits a theoretical railway between

Spain and France that is built in order to reduce the costs of trade betweenthe two countries. This is achieved, of course, by making goods move toand from the two nations faster and more easily. Bastiat demonstrates thatthis situation benefits both countries' consumers because it reduces thecost of shipping goods, and therefore reduces the price at market for thosegoods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Schoolhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Schoolhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Schoolhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-Thornton-15http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-Thornton-15http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-Thornton-15http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hazlitthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hazlitthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hazlitthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hazlitthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_in_One_Lessonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_in_One_Lessonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_in_One_Lessonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_windowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_windowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_windowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_windowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_in_One_Lessonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hazlitthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hazlitthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-Thornton-15http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School


7/40


8/40

othereffectsemerge only subsequently; they are not seen;weare fortunate if weforeseethem.

1.2

There is only one difference between a bad economist anda good one: the bad economist confines himself tothe visibleeffect; the good economist takes into account boththe effect that can be seen and those effects that mustbe foreseen.

1.3

Yet this difference is tremendous; for it almost alwayshappens that when the immediate consequence is favorable,the later consequences are disastrous, and vice versa.Whence it follows that the bad economist pursues a smallpresent good that will be followed by a great evil to come,while the good economist pursues a great good to come, atthe risk of a small present evil.

1.4

The same thing, of course, is true of health and morals.Often, the sweeter the first fruit of a habit, the more bitter areits later fruits: for example, debauchery, sloth, prodigality.

When a man is impressed by the effect that is seenand hasnot yet learned to discern the effects that are not seen,heindulges in deplorable habits, not only throughnaturalinclination, but deliberately.

1.5

This explains man's necessarily painfulevolution. Ignorancesurroundshim at his cradle; therefore,he regulates his acts according to their first consequences, the

only ones that, in his infancy, he can see. It is only after along time that he learns to take account of the others.**2Twovery different masters teach him this lesson: experience andforesight. Experience teaches efficaciously but brutally. Itinstructs us in all the effects of an act by making us feel them,and we cannot fail to learn eventually, from having been
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html#nn2http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html#nn2http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html#nn2


9/40

burned ourselves, that fire burns. I should prefer, in so far aspossible, to replace this rude teacher with one more gentle:foresight. For that reason I shall investigate the consequencesof several economic phenomena, contrasting those that are

seenwith those that are not seen.

1.The Broken Window

In the economic sphere an act, a habit, an institution, alaw produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Ofthese effects, the first alone is immediate; it appearssimultaneously with its cause; it is seen.Theothereffectsemerge only subsequently; they are not seen;weare fortunate if weforeseethem.

1.2

There is only one difference between a bad economist anda good one: the bad economist confines himself tothe visibleeffect; the good economist takes into account both

the effect that can be seen and those effects that mustbe foreseen.

1.3

Yet this difference is tremendous; for it almost alwayshappens that when the immediate consequence is favorable,the later consequences are disastrous, and vice versa.Whence it follows that the bad economist pursues a smallpresent good that will be followed by a great evil to come,

while the good economist pursues a great good to come, atthe risk of a small present evil.

1.4

The same thing, of course, is true of health and morals.Often, the sweeter the first fruit of a habit, the more bitter areits later fruits: for example, debauchery, sloth, prodigality.


10/40

When a man is impressed by the effect that is seenand hasnot yet learned to discern the effects that are not seen,heindulges in deplorable habits, not only throughnaturalinclination, but deliberately.

1.5

This explains man's necessarily painfulevolution. Ignorancesurroundshim at his cradle; therefore,he regulates his acts according to their first consequences, theonly ones that, in his infancy, he can see. It is only after along time that he learns to take account of the others.**2Twovery different masters teach him this lesson: experience andforesight. Experience teaches efficaciously but brutally. It

instructs us in all the effects of an act by making us feel them,and we cannot fail to learn eventually, from having beenburned ourselves, that fire burns. I should prefer, in so far aspossible, to replace this rude teacher with one more gentle:foresight. For that reason I shall investigate the consequencesof several economic phenomena, contrasting those that areseenwith those that are not seen.

1.The Broken Window1.6

Have you ever been witness to the fury of thatsolid citizen, James Goodfellow,*1when his incorrigible sonhas happened to break a pane of glass? If you have beenpresent at this spectacle, certainly you must also haveobserved that the onlookers, even if there are as many asthirty of them, seem with one accord to offer the unfortunateowner the selfsame consolation: "It's an ill wind that blowsnobody some good. Such accidents keep industry going.

Everybody has to make a living. What would become of theglaziers if no one ever broke a window?"1.7

Now, this formula of condolence contains a whole theorythat it is a good idea for us to expose, flagrante delicto,in this
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html#nn2http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html#nn2http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html#n1http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html#n1http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html#n1http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html#nn2


11/40

very simple case, since it is exactly the same as that which,unfortunately, underlies most of our economic institutions.

1.8

Suppose that it will cost six francs to repair the damage. Ifyou mean that the accident gives six francs' worth ofencouragement to the aforesaid industry, I agree. I do notcontest it in any way; your reasoning is correct. The glazierwill come, do his job, receive six francs, congratulate himself,and bless in his heart the careless child. That is what is seen.

1.9

But if, by way of deduction, you conclude, as happens onlytoo often, that it is good to break windows, that it helps tocirculate money, that it results in encouraging industry ingeneral, I am obliged to cry out: That will never do! Yourtheory stops at what is seen.It does not take account ofwhatis not seen.

1.10

It is not seenthat, since our citizen has spent six francs for

one thing, he will not be able to spend them for another. It isnot seenthat if he had not had a windowpane to replace, hewould have replaced, for example, his worn-out shoes oradded another book to his library. In brief, he would have puthis six francs to some use or other for which he will not nowhave them.

1.11

Let us next consider industry in general.The windowhaving been broken, the glass industry gets six francs' worthof encouragement; that is what is seen.

1.12


12/40

If the window had not been broken, the shoe industry (orsome other) would have received six francs' worth ofencouragement; that is what is not seen.

1.13

And if we were to take into consideration what is notseen,because it is a negative factor, as well as what isseen,because it is a positive factor, we should understandthat there is no benefit to industry in generalor tonationalemploymentas a whole, whether windows are broken or notbroken.

1.14

Now let us consider James Goodfellow.

1.15

On the first hypothesis, that of the broken window, hespends six francs and has, neither more nor less than before,the enjoyment of one window.

1.16

On the second, that in which the accident did not happen,he would have spent six francs for new shoes and would havehad the enjoyment of a pair of shoes as well as of a window.

1.17

Now, if James Goodfellow is part of society, we mustconclude that society, considering its labors and itsenjoyments, has lost the value of the broken window.

1.18

From which, by generalizing, we arrive at this unexpectedconclusion: "Society loses the value of objects unnecessarilydestroyed," and at this aphorism, which will make the hair ofthe protectionists stand on end: "To break, to destroy, to


13/40

dissipate is not to encourage national employment," or morebriefly: "Destruction is not profitable."

1.19

What will the Moniteur industriel*2say to this, or thedisciples of the estimable M. de Saint-Chamans,*3 who hascalculated with such precision what industry would gain fromthe burning of Paris, because of the houses that would have tobe rebuilt?

1.20

I am sorry to upset his ingenious calculations, especially

since their spirit has passed into our legislation. But I beg himto begin them again, enteringwhat is not seen in the ledgerbeside what is seen.

1.21

The reader must apply himself to observe that there arenot only two people, but three, in the little drama that I havepresented. The one, James Goodfellow, represents theconsumer, reduced by destruction to one enjoyment instead of

two. The other, under the figure of the glazier, shows us theproducer whose industry the accident encourages. The third isthe shoemaker (or any other manufacturer) whose industry iscorrespondingly discouraged by the same cause. It is this thirdperson who is always in the shadow, and who,personifying what is not seen, is an essential element of theproblem. It is he who makes us understand how absurd it is tosee a profit in destruction. It is he who will soon teach us thatit is equally absurd to see a profit in trade restriction, which is,

after all, nothing more nor less than partial destruction. So, ifyou get to the bottom of all the arguments advanced in favorof restrictionist measures, you will find only a paraphrase ofthat common clich: "What would become of the glaziers if noone ever broke any windows?"
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html#n2http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html#n2http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html#n3http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html#n3http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html#n2


14/40

The Demobilization

1.22

A nation is in the same case as a man. When a man wishesto give himself a satisfaction, he has to see whether it is worthwhat it costs. For a nation, security is the greatest ofblessings. If, to acquire it, a hundred thousand men must bemobilized, and a hundred million francs spent, I have nothingto say. It is an enjoyment bought at the price of a sacrifice.

1.23

Let there be no misunderstanding, then, about the point Iwish to make in what I have to say on this subject.

1.24

A legislator proposes to discharge a hundred thousandmen, which will relieve the taxpayers of a hundred millionfrancs in taxes.

1.25

Suppose we confine ourselves to replying to him: "Theseone hundred thousand men and these one hundred millionfrancs are indispensable to our national security. It is asacrifice; but without this sacrifice France would be torn byinternal factions or invaded from without." I have no objectionhere to this argument, which may be true or false as the casemay be, but which theoretically does not constitute anyeconomic heresy. The heresy begins when the sacrifice itself is

represented as an advantage, because it brings profit tosomeone.

1.26


15/40

Now, if I am not mistaken, no sooner will the author of theproposal have descended from the platform, than an oratorwill rush up and say:

Discharge a hundred thousand men! What are you thinkingof? What will become of them? What will they live on? On theirearnings? But do you not know that there is unemploymenteverywhere? That all occupations are oversupplied? Do youwish to throw them on the market to increase the competitionand to depress wage rates? Just at the moment when it isdifficult to earn a meager living, is it not fortunate that thestate is giving bread to a hundred thousand individuals?

Consider further that the army consumes wine, clothes, andweapons, that it thus spreads business to the factories and thegarrison towns, and that it is nothing less than a godsend toits innumerable suppliers. Do you not tremble at the idea ofbringing this immense industrial activity to an end?"

1.28This speech, we see, concludes in favor of maintaining a

hundred thousand soldiers, not because of the nation's need

for the services rendered by the army, but for economicreasons. It is these considerations alone that I propose torefute.

1.29A hundred thousand men, costing the taxpayers a hundred

million francs, live as well and provide as good a living fortheir suppliers as a hundred million francs will allow: that iswhat is seen.

But a hundred million francs, coming from the pockets of the

taxpayers, ceases to provide a living for these taxpayers

and theirsuppliers, to the extent of a hundred million francs: that

is what is not seen.Calculate, figure, and tell me where there is

any profit for the mass of the people.


16/40

Have you ever heard anyone say: "Taxes are the bestinvestment; they are a life-giving dew. See how many familiesthey keep alive, and follow in imagination their indirect effectson industry; they are infinite, as extensive as life itself."

1.38To combat this doctrine, I am obliged to repeat the

preceding refutation. Political economy knows very well thatits arguments are not diverting enough for anyone to sayabout them: Repetita placent;repetition pleases. So, likeBasile,*4 political economy has "arranged" the proverb for itsown use, quite convinced that, from its mouth, Repetitadocent;repetition teaches.

1.39The advantages that government officials enjoy in drawing

their salaries are what is seen.The benefits that result fortheir suppliers are also what is seen.They are right underyour nose.

1.40But the disadvantage that the taxpayers try to free

themselves from iswhat is not seen,and the distress that

results from it for the merchants who supply themis something further that is not seen,although it should standout plainly enough to be seen intellectually.

1.41When a government official spends on his own behalf one

hundred sous more, this implies that a taxpayer spends on hisown behalf one hundred sous the less. But the spending of thegovernment official is seen, because it is done; while that of

the taxpayer is not seen,because

alas!

he is preventedfrom doing it.

1.42You compare the nation to a parched piece of land and the

tax to a life-giving rain. So be it. But you should also askyourself where this rain comes from, and whether it is not
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html#n4http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html#n4


17/40

precisely the tax that draws the moisture from the soil anddries it up.

1.43You should ask yourself further whether the soil receives

more of this precious water from the rain than it loses by theevaporation?

1.44What is quite certain is that, when James Goodfellow

counts out a hundred sous to the tax collector, he receivesnothing in return. When, then, a government official, inspending these hundred sous, returns them to JamesGoodfellow, it is for an equivalent value in wheat or in labor.

The final result is a loss of five francs for James Goodfellow.

1.45It is quite true that often, nearly always if you will, the

government official renders an equivalent service to JamesGoodfellow. In this case there is no loss on either side; thereis only an exchange. Therefore, my argument is not in anyway concerned with useful functions. I say this: If you wish tocreate a government office, prove its usefulness. Demonstrate

that to James Goodfellow it is worth the equivalent of what itcosts him by virtue of the services it renders him. But apartfrom this intrinsic utility, do not cite, as an argument in favorof opening the new bureau, the advantage that it constitutesfor the bureaucrat, his family, and those who supply hisneeds; do not allege that it encourages employment.

1.46When James Goodfellow gives a hundred sous to a

government official for a really useful service, this is exactlythe same as when he gives a hundred sous to a shoemaker fora pair of shoes. It's a case of give-and-take, and the score iseven. But when James Goodfellow hands over a hundred sousto a government official to receive no service for it or even tobe subjected to inconveniences, it is as if he were to give hismoney to a thief. It serves no purpose to say that the official


18/40

will spend these hundred sous for the great profit ofour national industry; the more the thief can do with them,the more James Goodfellow could have done with them if hehad not met on his way either the extralegal or the legal

parasite.

1.47Let us accustom ourselves, then, not to judge things solely

by what is seen,but rather by what is not seen.

On Protectionism and Communism

No, sir, it is not the heat of the struggle that has made me see

the protectionist doctrine in this light; on the contrary, it is

because I saw the doctrine in this light in the first place, before

the struggle, that I committed myself to engage in it.**48 Please

believe me, the motive that induced me to do so was never the

hope of increasing our foreign trade a little, although this

collateral result is surely not to be scorned. I believed and still

believe that this is a question of property rights. I believed and

still believe that our protective tariff, by virtue of the mentality

that has brought it into being and the arguments by which it is

defended, has opened a breach in the right to property through

which all the rest of our legislation threatens to pass. In the

existing state of public opinion, it seemed to me that a form of

communism (unconscious of itself and of its extent, I must admit)

was on the point of overwhelming us. It seemed to me that thisform of communism (for there are several kinds) was availing

itself of protectionist reasoning and doing no more than carrying

it to its logical conclusion. Hence, it was on this ground that it

seemed to me useful to fight communism; for, since it had armed

itself with sophisms circulated by the Mimerel
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss7.html#nn48http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss7.html#nn48


19/40

Committee,*77 there was no hope of overcoming it so long as

these sophisms held sway in the public mind.

No doubt it will be asked why, having in mind a general

question of this importance, we have restricted the struggle tothe area of a particular question.

7.28The reason for this is simple. We had to pit organization

against organization, to enlist support and soldiers for ourarmy. We knew well that the debate between protectionistsand freetraders could not be prolonged without raising andultimately resolving all the questions, moral, political,philosophical, and economic, that are connected withproperty; and, since the Mimerel Committee, in concerningitself with a particular goal, had jeopardized the right toproperty, we hoped to reinstate it in principle by ourselvesaiming directly at the opposite goal.

In the first place, what must we understandby communism?There are several ways, if not of bringingabout, at least of trying to bring about, the commonownership of goods. M. de Lamartine knows of four. You think

that there are a thousand ways, and I agree with you.However, I think that all of them can be put into three generalcategories, of which only one, as I see it, constitutes a realdanger.

7.42First, two or more men can plan to work and live in

common. As long as they do not try to disturb the security orrestrict the liberty or encroach upon the property of others,

directly or indirectly, then, if they do any harm at all, they doit only to themselves. The tendency of such men will alwaysbe to go into distant uninhabited places to make their dreamcome true. Whoever has reflected on these matters knowsthat these poor fellows will die of hardship, the victims of theirillusions. In our day, communists of this kind have given to


20/40

their fantastic Elysium the name of Icaria, as if they had had asad forboding of the dreadful catastrophe toward which theywere headed. We should lament their blindness; we should beobliged to warn them if they were prepared to listen to us; but

society has nothing to fear from their fantasies.

Another form of communism, and certainly the mostbrutal, consists in putting all existing property into one heapand parceling it out ex aequo. This is plunder erected into auniversal rule of law. It involves the destruction not only ofproperty, but also of labor and of the very motive that impelsa man to work. This kind of communism is so violent, so

absurd, and so monstrous that I cannot really believe it to bedangerous. This is what I said some time ago before aconsiderable gathering of voters, the great majority of whombelonged to the suffering classes. An outburst of murmursgreeted my words.

7.44I indicated my surprise at this. "What!" they said. "M.

Bastiat dares to say that communism is not dangerous? Then

he is a communist! Oh, well, we suspected as much, forcommunists, socialists, and economists are birds of a feather."I had some difficulty in getting myself out of this predicament.But the interruption itself proved the truth of my thesis. No,communism is not dangerous when it appears in its mostnaive form, that of pure and simple plunder. It is notdangerous, because it inspires horror.

hasten to add that if protectionism can be and should be

compared to communism, it is not to this form of communismthat I have just described.

7.46But communism assumes a third form.

7.47


21/40

To make the state intervene, to give it the task ofstabilizing profits and equalizing wealth by taking from some,without their consent, in order to give to others, withoutreceiving anything in return on their part, to make the state

responsible for achieving equality by means of plunder

thisindeed is communism. The procedures employed by the stateto attain this end do not matter, any more than the fancynames with which the idea is tricked out. Whether the stateseeks to realize it by direct or by indirect means, by restrictivemeasures or by taxes, by tariffs or by the right toemployment; whether it goes under the name of equality,solidarity, or fraternity, in no way changes the nature ofthings. The plunder of property is nonetheless plunder

because it is accomplished in a regular, orderly, systematicway, through the action of the law.

I add that in our day this is the truly dangerous form ofcommunism. Why? Because in this form we see it constantlyready to encroach on everything. Just look! Someone asksthat the state furnish tools of productionfree of charge tocraftsmen and farmers. This is tantamount to insisting that itsteal them from other craftsmen and farmers. Another wants

the state to make loans without interest. It could not do sowithout violating property rights. A third calls for gratuitouseducation at all levels. Gratuitous! That means at the expenseof the taxpayers. A fourth demands that the state subsidizeassociations of workers, theatres, artists, etc. But thesesubsidies are just so much wealth taken away from those whohave legitimately earned it. A fifth cannot rest until the statehas artificially raised the price of a product for the advantageof the one who sells it. But this is to the detriment of the one

who buys it. Yes, there are very few persons who, at one timeor another, are not communists in this sense. You are, M.Billault is, and I fear that all of us in France are to somedegree. It seems that the intervention of the state reconcilesus to plunder by shifting the responsibility for it on everybody,that is, on nobody in particular, an arrangement that enablesus to enjoy the property of others with a perfectly good


22/40

conscience. Did not the honorable M. Tourret,*79 one of themost upright men who have ever occupied a ministerial post,begin his statement of the reasons for the proposed law onadvances to agriculture with these words: "It is not enough to

give instruction in order to cultivate the arts; we must, inaddition, furnish the tools of production"? After this preamble,he submitted to the National Assembly a draft of a law ofwhich the first article reads as follows:

Art. 1. A credit of ten million francs is granted to the Minister of Agricultureand Commerce in the budget of 1849, for the purpose of making advancesto the owners and the associations of owners of rural lands.

7.49

Admit that if legislative language plumed itself on itsprecision, the article should have been worded thus:

The Minister of Agriculture and Commerce is authorized, during the year1849, to take ten million francs from the pockets of farmers who have greatneed of them and to whom they belong,in order to deposit them in thepockets of other farmers who are in equal need of them and to whom theydo not belong.

7.50Is this not a communist act; and, if it becomes widespread,

does it not amount to giving legal status to communism itself?

It matters little whether, in order to attain this end, thelegislature makes use of the customs officer or the taxcollector, direct taxation or an indirect levy, restrictivemeasures or subsidies. Does it believe itself authorizedtotakeand to givewithout compensation? Does it believe thatits function is to equalize profits? Does it act in accordancewith this belief? Does most of the public approve and favor

this kind of action? In that case, I say that we are on the roadto communism, whether we are aware of it or not.

7.54And if I am told: "The state does not act thus on behalf of

everyone, but only on behalf of a few classes," I shall reply:


23/40

"Then it has found the means to make even communismworse."

When the citizens, instead of performing a service for

themselves, turn it into a public service, that is, when they judgeit opportune to join together to get work done or to procure a

satisfaction in common,I do not call thiscommunism,because I

do not see here the element that constitutes the hallmark of

communism: leveling by means of plunder.The statetakes, it is

true, by way of taxation, but gives backby way of service. This is

a particular but legitimate form of exchange,the foundation of all

society. I will go further. In entrusting a special service to the

state, the citizens may be performing a good or a bad action.They are performing a good one if, by this means, the service is

done better and more economically; it is bad on the contrary

hypothesis. But in neither case do I see the principle of

communism making its appearance. In the first instance, the

citizens succeeded; in the second, they were mistaken; that is

all; and if communism is an error, it does not follow that all error

is communism.

Political economists are in general quite suspicious ofgovernmental intervention. They see in it inconveniences of allkindsa diminution of individual liberty, energy, prudence,and experience, which constitute the most precious resourcesof any society. Hence, it often happens that they oppose thisintervention. But it is not at all from the same point of viewand for the same reasons that they reject protectionism.Therefore, our predilection, perhaps too pronounced, forliberty should not be cited as an argument against us, norshould it be said: "It is not surprising that these gentlemenoppose the protectionist system, for they oppose every formof state intervention."


24/40

7.60In the first place, it is not true that we oppose it in regard

to everything. We grant that it is the function of the state tomaintain order and security, to protect persons and property,

to repress frauds and acts of violence. As for the serviceswhich have, so to speak, an industrial character, we have noother rule but this: that the state should assume the burden ifit can thereby effect an aggregate saving in resources. But, forHeaven's sake, in making the reckoning, let us take intoaccount all the innumerable inconveniences of a statemonopoly.

Next, I am compelled to repeat, it is one thing to vote against a

new grant of power to the state on the ground that, takingeverything into account, it is disadvantageous and would

constitute a national loss; and it is quite another to vote against

this new grant of power because it is illegitimate and spoliative,

and authorizes the government to do precisely what its rational

function is to prevent and to punish. Now, against the

protectionist system, as it is called, we have these two kinds of

objections, but it is the latter that carries the greater weight in

our determination to wage implacable war against it

by legalmeans, of course.

You say, besides, that society is interested inprotectingproperty.

We are in agreement; only I go much further than you, and if

by societyyou mean the government,I say that its sole function

in regard to property is toprotectit; that if it tries to equalizeit,

by that very fact it violates property rights instead ofguaranteeing them. This point deserves further examination.

When a certain number of men, who cannot live withoutlabor and without property, join together to support


25/40

a common police force, their aim is evidently to work and toenjoy the fruit of their labor in complete security, and not toput their labor and their property at the mercy of that force.Even before the institution of any form of regular government,

I do not believe that the right to self-defense, the right ofindividuals to defend their persons, their freedom of labor, andtheir property, can be contested.

7.76Without pretending to philosophize here on the origin and

extent of the rights of governments, a vast subject quitefrightening to my weak brain, permit me to submit an idea foryour consideration. It seems to me that the rights of the state

can be nothing but the regularizing ofpre-existentpersonalrights. For my part, I cannot conceive a collective rightthatdoes not have its foundation in an individual rightorpresuppose it. Hence, to know whether the state islegitimately invested with a right, we must ask whether theindividual has that right in virtue of his nature and in theabsence of all government. It is on this basis that I rejected afew days ago the right to employment. I said: Since Peterdoes not have the right to require Paul directly to give him

employment, he is not authorized to exercise this pretendedright through the intermediation of the state; for the state isonly the common police forcecreated by Peter and by Paul, attheir expense, for a definite end, which could never be torender just what is not just. It is by this touchstone that I also

judge between theprotectionand theequalizationof propertyby the state. Why does the state have the righttoprotect, even by force, each man's property? Because thatright pre-exists in the individual. One cannot deny to

individuals the right to legitimate self-defense,the right toemploy force, if necessary, in order to repel aggressiondirected against their persons, their freedom of labor, or theirproperty. It is understandable that this individual right, since itbelongs to all the citizens, may assume a collective form andlegitimize the common police force. And why does the statenot have the right to equalize property? Because, in order to


26/40

do so, we must take it away from some and bestow it onothers. Now, since none of the thirty million Frenchmen hasthe right to take property by force under the pretext ofequalizing wealth, we do not see how they could invest

the common police forcewith this right.

It is possible, sir, that you may grant me one concession. You will

perhaps say to me: "The protectionist system is founded on the

principle of communism. It is contrary to justice, to property

rights, to liberty. It diverts the government from its proper path

and invests it with arbitrary prerogatives that have no rational

basis. All this is only too true. But the protectionist system

is useful;without it, the country, succumbing to foreign

competition, would be ruined."

This would lead us to examine restrictions on imports fromthe economic point of view. Setting aside all considerations of

justice, of morality, of equity, of property rights, of freedom,we should have to resolve the question of pure utility, themercenary question, so to speak, and, as you know, that isnot my subject here. Besides, take care lest, in relying onutility to justify your disdain for morality, you seem to besaying: "Communism, or plunder, condemned by justice, cannonetheless be accepted as an expedient." Surely you willagree that such an avowal is full of danger.

7.92Without my seeking to resolve the economic problem here,

permit me one assertion. I affirm that I have made anarithmetical reckoning of the advantages and disadvantages ofprotectionism solely from the economic point of view, apart

from every consideration of a higher order. I affirm, besides,that I have reached the conclusion that every restrictivemeasure produces one advantage and two disadvantages, or,if you will, one gain and two losses, each of these losses equalto the gain; whence there results a clear, net loss, whichserves to confirm in a reassuring way the fact that in this, as


27/40

in many other things, and I dare say in all, utility and justiceare in accord.

7.93This is only an assertion, it is true; but it can be supported

by mathematical proofs.

7.94What misleads public opinion on this point is that the gain

from protectionist measures is visible to the naked eye, whileof the two equal losses that it entails, one is infinitely dividedamong all the citizens, and the other appears only to theinquiring eye of the mind.

Next, I would have you note the inconsistency into which youwould fall if, while opposing communism in theory, you were to

spareand even encouragecommunism in practice.

But unless they are unable to see the connection between one

idea and another, they will undoubtedly be frightened at the

consequences of systematized plunder and iniquity. Shall one

decide to embrace the cause of justice resolutely, whatever the

cost, saying: "I will do what is right, come what may"? This iswhat upright men are inclined to do. But who would want to take

the responsibility of plunging his country and the whole of

mankind into misery, desolation, and death? I defy anyone, if he

is convinced of this antagonism, to make a decision one way or

the other.

I am mistaken. The decision will be made, and the human heart

is so constituted that self-interest will be put before conscience.

This is what the facts demonstrate, since wherever the

protectionist system was believed to be favorable to the welfare

of the people, it was adopted, in spite of all considerations of

justice; but then the inevitable consequences occurred. Respect

for property was destroyed. People said, as did M. Billault: Since


28/40

property rights have been violated by protectionist measures,

why should they not be violated as well by the right to

employment? Others, following M. Billault, will take a third step,

and still others, following these, a fourth, until communism has

triumphed completely.**54

Look at what is happening in England. It would seeem that, if

communism ought to have found any place in the world favorable

to it, that place should have been the soil of Great Britain. Feudal

institutions there, placing extreme poverty and extreme luxury

side by side, should have rendered men's minds susceptible to

infection by false doctrines. And yet, what do we see? While they

throw the Continent into turmoil, such doctrines have not evencaused a ripple on the surface of English society. Chartism has

not been able to take root there. Do you know why? Because the

organization that for ten years has been discussing the

protectionist system has succeeded in throwing a clear light on

the right to property and on the rational functions of the

state.**57

Ah, sir, if you were to arrive at the same conclusions as I;if, thanks to your talent, to your fame, to your influence, youwere to make these conclusions prevail in public opinion; whocan calculate the extent of the service that you would renderto French society? We should see the state restricted to itsproper role, which is to guarantee to each person the right touse his productive capacities and to dispose of his property ashe pleases. We should see it relieved both of its colossalillegitimate prerogatives and of the frightful responsibility that

goes with them. It would confine itself to repressing theabuses of liberty, that is, to establishing liberty itself. It wouldassure justice to all and would no longer promise success toanyone. Citizens would learn to distinguish between what it isreasonable and what it is childish to ask of it. They would nolonger overwhelm it with claims and demands; they would nolonger blame it for their misfortunes; they would no longer
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss7.html#nn54http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss7.html#nn57http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss7.html#nn57http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss7.html#nn54


29/40

base chimerical hopes upon it; and, in the ardent pursuit of agood of which the state is not the bestower, we should not seethem at each disappointment accusing the legislator and thelaw, replacing men and changing the forms of government,

piling institutions on institutions and debris on debris. Weshould see the abatement of the universal fever for reciprocalplunder through the costly and dangerous intervention of thestate. The government, limited in its function and itsresponsibility, simple in its action, inexpensive, not makingthe costs of their own chains weigh down upon the governed,supported by the good sense of the public, would have asolidity that it has never had in our country, and we shouldhave finally solved the great problem of ending forever the

threat of revolution.

Need it be said that we may have been, in this respect,duped by one of the most bizarre illusions that has ever takenpossession of the human mind?

5.16Man is averse to pain and suffering. And yet he is

condemned by nature to the suffering of privation if he doesnot take the pains to work for a living. He has, then, only the

choice between these two evils. How arrange matters so thatboth may be avoided? He has found up to now and will everfind only one means: that is, to enjoy the fruits of other men'slabor;that is, to arrange matters in such a way that the painsand the satisfactions, instead of falling to each according totheir natural proportion, are divided between the exploitedand their exploiters, with all the pain going to the former, andall the satisfactions to the latter. This is the principle on whichslavery is based, as well as plunder of any and every form:wars, acts of violence, restraints of trade, frauds,misrepresentations, etc.monstrous abuses, but consistentwith the idea that gave rise to them. One should hate andcombat oppressors, but one cannot say that they are absurd.

5.17


30/40

Slavery is on its way out, thank Heaven, and our naturalinclination to defend our property makes direct and outrightplunder difficult. One thing, however, has remained. It is theunfortunate primitive tendency which all men have to divide

their complex lot in life into two parts, shifting the pains toothers and keeping the satisfactions for themselves. Itremains to be seen under what new form this deplorabletendency is manifested.

5.18The oppressor no longer acts directly by his own force on

the oppressed. No, our conscience has become too fastidiousfor that. There are still, to be sure, the oppressor and his

victim, but between them is placed an intermediary, the state,that is, the law itself. What is better fitted to silence ourscruples andwhat is perhaps considered even moreimportantto overcome all resistance? Hence, all of us, withwhatever claim, under one pretext or another, address thestate. We say to it: "I do not find that there is a satisfactoryproportion between my enjoyments and my labor. I shouldlike very much to take a little from the property of others toestablish the desired equilibrium. But that is dangerous. Could

you not make it a little easier? Could you not find me a goodjob in the civil service or hinder the industry of mycompetitors or, still better, give me an interest-free loan ofthe capital you have taken from its rightful owners or educatemy children at the public expense or grant me incentivesubsidies or assure my well-being when I shall be fifty yearsold? By this means I shall reach my goal in all goodconscience, for the law itself will have acted for me, and Ishall have all the advantages of plunder without enduring

either the risks or the odium."As, on the one hand, it is certain that we all address some

such request to the state, and, on the other hand, it is a well-established fact that the state cannot procure satisfaction forsome without adding to the labor of others, while awaitinganother definition of the state, I believe myself entitled to give


31/40

my own here. Who knows if it will not carry off the prize? Hereit is:

5.20The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone

seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.

For, today as in the past, each of us, more or less, wouldlike to profit from the labor of others. One does not dare toproclaim this feeling publicly, one conceals it from oneself, andthen what does one do? One imagines an intermediary; oneaddresses the state,and each class proceeds in turn to say toit: "You, who can take fairly and honorably, take from thepublic and share with us." Alas! The state is only too ready to

follow such diabolical advice; for it is composed of cabinetministers, of bureaucrats, of men, in short, who, like all men,carry in their hearts the desire, and always enthusiasticallyseize the opportunity, to see their wealth and influence grow.The state understands, then, very quickly the use it can makeof the role the public entrusts to it. It will be the arbiter, themaster, of all destinies. It will take a great deal; hence, agreat deal will remain for itself. It will multiply the number ofits agents; it will enlarge the scope of its prerogatives; it will

end by acquiring overwhelming proportions.

5.22But what is most noteworthy is the astonishing blindness

of the public to all this. When victorious soldiers reduced thevanquished to slavery, they were barbarous, but they werenot absurd. Their object was, as ours is, to live at the expenseof others; but, unlike us, they attained it. What are we tothink of a people who apparently do not suspect

that reciprocal pillageis no less pillage because it is reciprocal;that it is no less criminal because it is carried out legally andin an orderly manner; that it adds nothing to the publicwelfare; that, on the contrary, it diminishes it by all that thisspendthrift intermediary that we call the statecosts?


32/40


33/40

The Americans formed another idea of the relations ofcitizens to the state when they placed at the head of theirConstitution these simple words:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the commondefense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty toourselves and our posterity, do ordain, etc.

5.28There is no mythical creation here, no abstractionfrom

which the citizens demand everything. They expect nothingsave from themselves and their own efforts.

If I have permitted myself to criticize the first words of our

Constitution, it is not, as one might think, in order to deal witha mere metaphysical subtlety. I contend thatthispersonification of the statehas been in the past, and willbe in the future, a fertile source of calamities and ofrevolutions.

5.30Here the public, on the one side, the state on the other,

are considered as two distinct entities, the latter intent on

pouring down upon the former, the former having the right toclaim from the latter, a veritable shower of human felicities.What must be the inevitable result?

he fact is, the state does not and cannot have one handonly. It has two hands, one to take and the other to giveinother words, the rough hand and the gentle hand. The activityof the second is necessarily subordinated to the activity of thefirst. Strictly speaking, the state can take and not give. We

have seen this happen, and it is to be explained by the porousand absorbent nature of its hands, which always retain a part,and sometimes the whole, of what they touch. But what hasnever been seen, what will never be seen and cannot even beconceived, is the state giving the public more than it hastaken from it. It is therefore foolish for us to take the humbleattitude of beggars when we ask anything of the state. It is


34/40

fundamentally impossible for it to confer a particularadvantage on some of the individuals who constitute thecommunity without inflicting a greater damage on the entirecommunity.

5.32It finds itself, then, placed by our demands in an obviously

vicious circle.

If it withholds the boon that is demanded of it, it isaccused of impotence, of ill will, of incapacity. If it tries tomeet the demand, it is reduced to levying increased taxes onthe people, to doing more harm than good, and to incurring,on another account, general disaffection.

5.34Thus, we find two expectations on the part of the public,

two promises on the part of the government: many benefitsand no taxes.Such expectations and promises, beingcontradictory, are never fulfilled.

5.35Is this not the cause of all our revolutions? For between

the state, which is lavish with impossible promises, and thepublic, which has conceived unrealizable expectations, twoclasses of men intervene: the ambitious and the utopian. Theirrole is completely prescribed for them by the situation. Itsuffices for these demagogues to cry into the ears of thepeople: "Those in power are deceiving you; if we were in theirplace, we would overwhelm you with benefits and free youfrom taxes."

s friends are no sooner in charge of things than they arecalled on to make good their promises: "Give me a job, then,bread, relief, credit, education, and colonies," say the people,"and at the same time, in keeping with your promises, deliverme from the burden of taxation."


35/40

5.38The new stateis no less embarrassed than the old, for,

when it comes to the impossible, one can, indeed, makepromises, but one cannot keep them. It tries to gain time,

which it needs to bring its vast projects to fruition. At first itmakes a few timid attempts; on the one hand, it extendsprimary education a little; on the other, it reduces somewhatthe tax on beverages (1830). But it is always confronted withthe same contradiction: if it wishes to be philanthropic, it mustcontinue to levy taxes; and if it renounces taxation, it mustalso renounce philanthropy.

These two promises always and necessarily conflict with

each other. To have recourse to borrowing, that is, to eat intothe future, is indeed a means of reconciling them in thepresent; one tries to do a little good in the present at theexpense of a great deal of harm in the future. But thisprocedure raises the specter of bankruptcy, which destroyscredit. What is to be done, then? The new state then takes afirm stand against its critics: it regroups its forces to maintainitself, it stifles opinion, it has recourse to arbitrary decrees, itridicules its former maxims, it declares that one can govern

only on condition of being unpopular; in short, it proclaimsitself the government.

5.40And this is precisely what other demagogues are waiting

for. They exploit the same illusion, take the same road, obtainthe same success, and soon come to be engulfed in the sameabyss.

Read the last Manifesto of the Montagnards*63 which they

issued in connection with the presidential election. It is ratherlong, but can be summed up in a few words: The state shouldgive a great deal to the citizens and take little from them.It isalways the same tactic, or, if you will, the same error.

The state owes instruction and education free of charge to all citizens.


36/40

5.47It owes:

A general and professional education, appropriate as nearly as possible tothe needs, vocations, and capacities of each citizen.

5.48It should:

Teach each citizen his duties toward God, toward men, and toward himself;develop his feelings, his aptitudes, and his faculties; give him, in short,proficiency in his work, understanding of his best interests, and knowledgeof his rights.

5.49It should:

Put within everyone's reach literature and the arts, the heritage of humanthought, the treasures of the mind, all the intellectual enjoyments whichelevate and strengthen the soul.

5.50It should:

Insure against every disaster, fire, flood, etc. [how great are theimplications of this little et cetera!], suffered by a citizen.

5.51It should:

Intervene in the relations between capital and labor and make itself theregulator of credit.

5.52It owes:

Practical encouragement and efficacious protection to agriculture.

5.53It should:

Buy up the railroads, the canals, the mines,

5.54


37/40

and undoubtedly also administer them with that industrialexpertise which is so characteristic of it.

5.55It should:

Stimulate laudable enterprises, and encourage and aid them with all theresources capable of making them succeed. As regulator of credit, it willlargely control the industrial and agricultural associations, in order toassure their success.

5.56The state is to do all this without prejudice to the services

that it performs today; and, for example, it must always adopta threatening attitude toward foreign nations; for, say the

signers of the program,

linked by that holy solidarity and by the precedents of republican France,we extend our commitments and our hopes, beyond the barriers thatdespotism has raised between nations, on behalf of all those whom the yokeof tyranny oppresses; we desire that our glorious army be again, if it must,the army

be again, if it must, the army of liberty.

5.57

You see that the gentle hand of the state, that good handwhich gives and which bestows, will be very busy under thegovernment of the Montagnards. Perhaps you believe that thesame will be true of the rough hand, of the hand that reachesinto our pockets and empties them?

Undeceive yourselves. The demagogues would not knowtheir business if they had not acquired the art of hiding therough hand while showing the gentle hand.

5.59Their reign will surely mean a jubilee for the taxpayer.

5.60"It is on luxuries," they say, "not necessities, that taxes

should be imposed."


38/40

5.61Will it not be a happy day when, in order to load us with

benefits, the public treasury is content to take from us justour superfluous funds?

5.62Nor is this all. The Montagnards intend that "taxation

should lose its oppressive character and should henceforth beno more than an act of fraternity."

Heavenly days! I am well aware of the fact that it is thevogue to get fraternity in everywhere, but I did not suspectthat it could be put into the receipt of the tax collector.

5.64Getting down to details, the signers of the manifesto say:

We demand the immediate abolition of taxes that fall on objects of primarynecessity, such as salt, drinks, et cetera.

Reform of the real estate tax, the octroi, and license fees.

Justice free of charge, that is, the simplification of forms and the reductionof expenses. [This no doubt has to do with official stamps.]

Thus, real estate taxes, the octroi, license fees, taxes onstamps, salt, beverages, mail

all are to be done away with.

These gentlemen have found the secret of keeping the gentlehandof the state energetic and active, while paralyzingits rough hand.

5.66Indeed! I ask the impartial reader, is this not childish and,

what is more, dangerously childish? Why would people notmake one revolution after another, once they had made up

their minds not to stop until this contradiction had been madea reality: "Give nothing to the state, and receive a great dealfrom it"?

5.67


39/40

Does anyone believe that if the Montagnards came topower, they would not themselves become the victims of thevery means that they employed to seize it?

Citizens, throughout history two political systems haveconfronted each other, and both of them can be supported bygood arguments. According to one, the state should do a greatdeal, but also it should take a great deal. According to theother, its double action should be barely perceptible. Betweenthese two systems, one must choose. But as for the thirdsystem, which is a mixture of the two others, and whichconsists in requiring everything from the state without givinganything to it, it is chimerical, absurd, childish, contradictory,

and dangerous. Those who advance it in order to givethemselves the pleasure of accusing all governments ofimpotence and exposing them thus to your violent attacks,flatter and deceive you, or at least they deceive themselves.

5.69As for us, we think that the state is not and should not be

anything else than the common police forceinstituted, not tobe an instrument of oppression and reciprocal plunder, but, onthe contrary, to guarantee to each his own and to make

justice and security prevail.**32

http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss5.html#Chapter 5

1869 (1849).Capital and Interest.Translator unknown.

The following titles were originally published by theFoundation forEconomic Educationin Irvington-on-Hudson, NY, and are made available

online byThe Library of Economics and Liberty.

1996 (1845).Economic Sophisms,trans. and ed. by Arthur Goddard,with introduction byHenry Hazlitt.

1995 (1848).Selected Essays on Political Economy,trans. by SeymourCain; George B. de Huszar, ed., with introduction byFriedrich Hayek.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss5.html#nn32http://bastiat.org/en/capital_and_interest.htmlhttp://bastiat.org/en/capital_and_interest.htmlhttp://bastiat.org/en/capital_and_interest.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Economic_Educationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Economic_Educationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Economic_Educationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Economic_Educationhttp://www.econlib.org/index.htmlhttp://www.econlib.org/index.htmlhttp://www.econlib.org/index.htmlhttp://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph.htmlhttp://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph.htmlhttp://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hazlitthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hazlitthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hazlitthttp://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss.htmlhttp://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss.htmlhttp://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayekhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayekhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayekhttp://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hazlitthttp://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph.htmlhttp://www.econlib.org/index.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Economic_Educationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Economic_Educationhttp://bastiat.org/en/capital_and_interest.htmlhttp://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss5.html#nn32


40/40

1995 (1850).The Law,trans. by Seymour Cain, with introduction byGeorge B. de Huszar.

1998 (1850).The Law,trans. by Dean Russell, with introductionbyWalter E. Williamsand foreword bySheldon Richman.

1996 (1850).Economic Harmonies,trans. by W. Hayden Boyers;George B. de Huszar, ed., with introduction by Dean Russell.

A collection of Bastiat's major works is available from theLudwig von MisesInstitute:

2007. The Bastiat Collection, Volume 1[16]and Volume 2[17]Ludwig vonMises Institute.

The Man and the Statesman, The Correspondence and Articles onPolitics(2009) Jacques de Guenin, General Editor; Introduction byJacques de Guenin and Jean-Claude Paul Dejean; Dennis O'Keeffe,Translation Editor; David M. Hart, Academic Editor. Liberty Fund.Bookoverview

Bastiat, Frdric (1995).Selected Essays on Political Economy.Translated from the French by Seymour Cain, Edited by George B. deHuszar, Introduction by F.A. Hayek. Irvington-on-Hudson: Foundationfor Economic Education.ISBN0-910614-15-6.Retrieved 12 May 2012.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss2.htmlhttp://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss2.htmlhttp://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss2.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_(1849_book)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_(1849_book)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_(1849_book)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williamshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williamshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williamshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Richmanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Richmanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Richmanhttp://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basHar.htmlhttp://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basHar.htmlhttp://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basHar.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institutehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institutehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institutehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institutehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-16http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-16http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-17http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-17http://catalog.libertyfund.org/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=1223&vmcchk=1&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=1http://catalog.libertyfund.org/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=1223&vmcchk=1&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=1http://catalog.libertyfund.org/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=1223&vmcchk=1&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=1http://catalog.libertyfund.org/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=1223&vmcchk=1&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=1http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss.htmlhttp://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss.htmlhttp://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Numberhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Numberhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-910614-15-6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-910614-15-6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-910614-15-6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-910614-15-6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Numberhttp://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss.htmlhttp://catalog.libertyfund.org/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=1223&vmcchk=1&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=1http://catalog.libertyfund.org/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=1223&vmcchk=1&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-17http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#cite_note-16http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institutehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institutehttp://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basHar.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Richmanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williamshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_(1849_book)http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss2.html

Frédéric Bastiat -A HOMAGE TO “…..THE TRUTH “

Documents

Transcript of Frédéric Bastiat -A HOMAGE TO “…..THE TRUTH “