The French Revolution. A real mess.

SUMMARY OF FREDERIC BASTIAT’S THE LAW

Bastiat’s overriding thought was that, for freedom (liberty) to mean anything, every man (or woman) is entitled to self defense. Three things are justly defended: person, movement, and property.

In other words, we are all justified in defending ourselves against physical harm, restraint, and theft. Use of force is only to be used in our defense (not offense), or to punish transgressions against us.

For the purpose of our defense, we may form groups of mutual assistance, and we may write down specific actions that are allowed to be taken in our defense (either individually or collectively). These writings are known as LAW. Punishment for acts against persons, their free movement, and their property are also subject to LAW.

No other use of law is moral. Law permits use of force. Law should not be used to force the transfer of wealth from one person to another(egalitè). Law should not be used to force the association(fraternitè) of one person with another (or a group). Law should not be used to favor religion or to prevent the practice of religion. Law should not promote or hamper trade.

At its root, law relies on collective force. If you injure someone, and refuse to make restitution according to law, a policeman will take you to jail. If you resist, you risk physical harm. In jail your freedom of movement will be restricted. To obtain release you must surrender property to the injured party. The policeman, judge, jailer are all empowered by the community via law.

Consensus of a group to “gang up” on an individual or a weaker group changes nothing. The fact that more than one person is involved does not create a right. The actions of a group against an individual, or against a weaker group, are under the same moral stricture as individual versus individual. Might does not create a right.

In short, law should not be used in any instance where the actions of a group are substituted for the actions of an individual. Proper laws do nothing more than promote safety and security. Theft and violence are made less appealing when punished. Laws for any other purpose will, without fail, be corrupted to favor special interests.

Law should not be made to further any philanthropic effort. This is the beginning of a slippery slope. Whose philanthropy are we going to favor? Mine? Yours? Theirs? Who will be punished by this proposed philanthropy? The same applies to forced association. The same applies to regulation. The same applies to education.

Taxes for defense are moral. Taxes for offense are immoral. City taxes are moral in that when you decide to reside in the city you know what the taxes are used for, and you agree to such an arrangement. State taxes are moral to the extent that they do not cause personal injury, do not cause unjust restraint, and do not transfer wealth. Wages paid to judges, and the panoply of functionaries within the judicial system are justly paid (with our taxes), only if the recipients restrict themselves to properly applied justice.

=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=


In reading the Bastiat pamphlet, it helps to be aware of some French history. The start of the French Revolution began when an infamous Paris prison, the Bastille, was attacked by citizens armed with pitchforks, knives, and clubs. After a brief period of celebration and euphoria, a series of leaders (as heads of factions, or committees) stepped in to wreak revenge on the old regime, and to force their particular brand of “liberty” on the populace. Revenge consisted of executions, beatings, seizure of property. Children were not spared. About 50,000 people were executed, mostly commoners. Many who were executed, originally supported the revolution. Eventually, many members of the early revolutionary committees were put to death by later committees. All committees were based on a socialist model. One group denominated themselves as communists. Among the most prominent groups were the Jacobin clubs -- eventually headed by Maximilien Robespierre. Characteristically, even Robespierre was swallowed by the violence. Each committee thought its form of socialism was better than that of other committees.

Finally, a military strong man emerged: Napoleon Bonaparte. He provided stability within France at the expense of liberty within France, and at the expense of the general peace in Europe. Napoleon was finally put out of action with the battle of Waterloo (1815). Collateral damage of the entire episode including wars and widespread starvation (due to a collapsed economy and social system) is in the neighborhood of 2 million human lives.

These actions are identical, except as to names, places, dates, and numbers, to what occurred in Russia (1917-1953), China (1948-1976), Cuba (1959-1968), and Cambodia (1975-1985). The French version even included a price control system with guarantees of cheap bread.

Some dates in French history:

1789 Bastille prison is taken by rioters
1792 Executions begin
1793 Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette beheaded
1794 Robespierre beheaded
1799 Napoleon takes power
1804 Napoleon becomes Emperor

It always turns out the same: The revolution is for the “people,” but a strong-man ends up in control.

France Napoleon
Russia Lenin, Stalin
Germany Hitler
China Mao
Cuba Castro
Cambodia Pol Pot


=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=

The irony is that very little has changed in the succeeding years. All of Europe continues seeking liberty within a stifling social structure. Even though they don’t have a monarch, they accept a top/down structure. The will of the legislator replaces the will of the individual. They think that, by being voted into office, a legislator is transformed immediately into an all-seeing, wise leader. They wrongly suppose that by selecting a new leader, via elections, every so often that they are free.

We Americans, who acquired freedom across a large ocean, after having mostly governed ourselves for many years, look at things differently. We reject the top/down structure. We enjoy the chaos of individual actions. The original American concept of liberty is very similar to that described by Bastiat. The problem is that we Americans are losing our memory of our concept of liberty due to an education system that is consciously and fervently trying to erase the American idea of liberty and replace it with the fraudulent European variety. This is why our intellectuals favor European culture.

We are often told that change is inevitable and tends toward improved conditions. From Bastiat's pamphlet, we can see that today's move toward the left is really a repeat of social experiments that were tried and proved failures in recent history in China, Russia, Cuba, Cambodia, etc. It is remarkable how these failures were also promulgated by intellectual writers, lawyers and politicians of the French revolution. These, really despicable, approaches were also tried by the Spartans in the fourth century B.C. Here are the words of the French intellectual Condillac as quoted by Bastiat:

Impartiality in law consists of two things: the establishing of equality in wealth ... and [equality] in dignity among the citizens ... What you have learned about the republic of Sparta should enlighten you on this question. No other state has had laws more in accord with the order of nature; of equality.

So here we have it. The ultra-modern idea of wealth redistribution is nothing but a worn-out, hackneyed idea thousands of years old.

In the end, all the fine, lofty concepts of the French revolutionaries were as old as dirt, and as salubrious as cyanide.

It is clear Frederic Bastiat was very moved by injustice. He was also very perceptive about the great injustice caused by brigands pretending to be seeking good, and using lawyerly obfuscations.


Thumbnail sketch of Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)
He was born in Bayonne, France. His father was a prominent merchant. After his mother died in 1808, his father moved to the small town of Mugron. Shortly thereafter his father died (1810) and young Frederic was taken in by his paternal grandfather and his maiden aunt. He attended college, but did not graduate. Instead he returned to Bayonne to work with his uncle in the same firm in which his father had been a partner. This firm had been associated with foreign trade for at least two decades and Frederic had a good view of how whims of politicians could affect lives of merchants and consumers.

In 1824 Bastiat returned to Mugron to help his ailing grandfather on the grandfather’s estate. The estate was Bastiat’s home for the rest of his life, even though he moved to Paris as a politician representing his district in Mugron. The early years on the estate at Mugron rounded out Bastiat’s political and economic educations. During his life, he was a firsthand observer of three French revolutions.

Bastiat was literate in English and was able to read Adam Smith. He was also conversant with his fellow countrymen J. B. Say and Alexis de Toqueville. He was a prolific writer and was widely published in England as well as France. In his time, he was known as an economist, journalist, politician and merchant.

Bastiat died in 1850 after having suffered from tuberculosis for several years.