home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
CD ROM Paradise Collection 4
/
CD ROM Paradise Collection 4 1995 Nov.iso
/
edu
/
law21.zip
/
02.DOC
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1995-05-11
|
81KB
|
1,358 lines
PART II
THE LAW
THE SOCIALISTS DESPISE MANKIND
According to these writers, it is indeed fortunate that
Heaven has bestowed upon certain men--governors and legisla-
tors--the exact opposite inclinations, not only for their
own sake but also for the sake of the rest of the world!
While mankind tends toward evil, the legislators yearn for
the good; while mankind advances toward darkness, the
legislators aspire for enlightenment; while mankind is drawn
toward vice, the legislators are attracted toward virtue.
Since they have decided that this is the true state of
affairs, they then demand the use of force in order to
substitute their own inclinations for those of the human
race.
Open at random any book on philosophy, politics, or
history, and you will probably see how deeply rooted in our
country is this idea--the child of classical studies, the
mother of socialism. In all of them, you will probably will
find that this idea of mankind is merely inert matter,
receiving life, organization, morality, and prosperity from
the power of the state. And even worse, it will be stated
that mankind tends toward degeneration, and is stopped from
this downward course only by the mysterious hand of the
legislator. Conventional classical thought everywhere says
that behind passive society there is a concealed power
called LAW or LEGISLATOR (or called by some other
terminology that designates some unnamed person or persons
of undisputed influence and authority) which moves,
controls, benefits, and improves mankind.
A DEFENSE OF COMPULSORY LABOR
Let us first consider a quotation from Bossuet [tutor to the
Dauphin in the Court of Louis XIV] [Translator's note: The
parenthetical expressions and the italicized words through-
out this book were supplied by Mr. Bastiat. All subheads and
backed material were supplied by the translator.]:
One of the most strongly impressed (by whom?)
upon the minds of the Egyptians was patriotism
. . . . NO ONE WAS PERMITTED to be useless to the
state. The law assigned to each one his work,
which was handed down from father to son. No one
was permitted to have two professions. Nor could
a person change from one job to another. . . .
But there was one task to which all were FORCED to
conform: the study of the laws and of wisdom.
Ignorance of religion and of the political
regulations of the country WAS NOT EXCUSED under
any circumstances. Moreover, each occupation WAS
ASSIGNED (by whom?) to a certain district. . . .
Among the good laws, one of the best was that
everyone WAS TRAINED (by whom?) to obey them. As a
result of this, Egypt was filled with wonderful
inventions, and nothing was neglected that could
make life easy and quiet.
Thus, according to Bossuet, persons derive nothing from
themselves. Patriotism, prosperity, inventions, husbandry,
science--all of these are given to the people by the
operation of the laws, the rulers. All that the people have
to do is to bow to leadership.
A DEFENSE OF PATERNAL GOVERNMENT
Bossuet carries this idea of the state as the source of
all progress even so far as to defend the Egyptians against
the charge that they rejected wrestling and music. He said:
How is that possible? These arts were invent-
ed by Trismegistus [who was alleged to have been
Chancellor to the Egyptian god Osiris].
And again among the Persians, Bossuet claims that all
comes from above:
One of the first responsibilities OF THE
PRINCE was to encourage agriculture. . . . Just
as there were offices established for the
regulation of armies, just so were there offices
for the direction of farm work. . . . The Persian
people WERE INSPIRED with an overwhelming respect
for royal authority.
And according to Bossuet, the Greek people, although
exceedingly intelligent, had no sense of personal responsi-
bility; like dogs and horses, they themselves could not have
invented the most simple games:
The Greeks, naturally intelligent and
courageous, HAD BEEN EARLY CULTIVATED by the kings
and settlers who had come from Egypt. From these
Egyptian rulers, the Greek people had learned
bodily exercises, FOOT RACES, and horse and
chariot races. . . . But the best thing that the
Egyptians had taught the Greeks was to become
docile, and to permit themselves to be formed by
the law for the public good.
THE IDEA OF PASSIVE MANKIND
It cannot be disputed that these classical theories
[advanced by these latter-day teachers, writers, legisla-
tors, economists, and philosophers] held that everything
came to the people from a source outside themselves. As
another example, take Fenelon [archbishop, author, and
instructor to the Duke of Burgundy].
He was a witness to the power of Louis XIV. This plus
the fact that he was nurtured in the classical studies and
the admiration of antiquity, naturally caused Fenelon to
accept the idea that mankind should be passive; that the
misfortunes and the prosperity-- vices and virtues-- of
people are caused by the external influences exercised upon
them by the law and the legislators. Thus, in his UTOPIA OF
SALENTUM, he puts men-- with all their interests, faculties,
desires, and possessions-- under the absolute discretion of
the legislator. Whatever the issue may be, persons do not
decide it for themselves; the prince decides for them. The
prince is depicted as the SOUL of this shapeless mass of
people who form the nation. In the prince resides the
thought, the foresight, all progress, and the principle of
all organization. Thus all responsibility rests with him.
The whole of the tenth book of Fenelon's TELEMACHUS
proves this. I refer the reader to it, and content myself
with quoting at random from this celebrated work to which,
in every other respect, I am the first to pay homage.
SOCIALISTS IGNORE REASON AND FACTS
With the amazing credulity which is typical of the
classicists, Fenelon ignores the authority of reason and
facts when he attributes the general happiness of the
Egyptians, not to their own wisdom but to the wisdom of
their kings:
We could not turn our eyes to either shore
without seeing rich towns and country estates most
agreeably located; fields, never fallowed, covered
with golden crops every year; meadow full of
flocks; workers bending under the weight of the
fruit which the earth lavished upon its cultiva-
tors; shepherds who made the echoes resound with
the soft notes from their pipes and flutes.
"Happy," said Mentor, "is the people governed by a
wise king." . . . .
Later, Mentor desired that I observe the
contentment and abundance which covered all Egypt,
where twenty-two-thousand cities could be counted.
He admired the good police regulations in the
cities; the justice rendered in favor of the poor
AGAINST rich; the sound education of the children
in obedience, labor, sobriety, and the love of the
arts and letters; the exactness with which all
religious ceremonies were performed; the unself-
ishness, the high regard for honor, the faith-
fulness to men, and the fear of the gods which
every father taught his children. He never stopped
admiring the prosperity of the country. "Happy,"
said he, "is the people ruled by a wise king in
such a manner."
SOCIALISTS WANT TO REGIMENT PEOPLE
Fenelon's idyl on Crete is even more alluring. Mentor
is made to say:
All that you see in this wonderful island
results from the laws of Minos. The education
which he ordained for the children makes their
bodies strong and robust. From the very begin-
ning, one accustoms the children to a life of
frugality and labor, because one assumes that all
pleasures of the senses weaken both body and mind.
Thus one allows them no pleasure except that of
becoming invincible by virtue, and of acquiring
glory. . . . Here one punishes three vices that
go unpunished among other people; ingratitude,
hypocrisy, and greed. There is no need to punish
persons for pomp and dissipation, for they are
unknown in Crete. . . . No costly furniture, no
magnificent clothing, no delicious feasts, no
gilded palaces are permitted.
Thus does Mentor prepare his student to mold and to
manipulate--doubtless with the best of intentions--the
people of Ithaca. And to convince the student of the wisdom
of these ideas, Mentor recites to him the example of
Salentum.
It is from this sort of philosophy that we receive our
first political ideas! We are taught to treat persons much
as an instructor in agriculture teaches farmers to prepare
and tend the soil.
A FAMOUS NAME AND AN EVIL IDEA
Now listen to the great Montesquieu on this same
subject:
To maintain the spirit of commerce, it is
necessary that all laws must favor it. These laws,
by proportionately dividing up the fortunes as
they are made in commerce, should provide every
poor citizen with sufficiently easy circumstances
to enable him to work like the others. These same
laws should put every rich citizen in such lower-
ed circumstances as to force him to work in order
to keep or gain.
Thus the laws are to dispose of all fortunes!
Although real equality is the soul of the state in a
democracy, yet this is so difficult to establish
that an extreme precision in this matter would not
always be desirable. It is sufficient that there
be established a census to reduce or fix these
differences in wealth within a certain limit.
After this is done, it remains for specific laws
to equalize inequality by imposing burdens upon
the rich and granting relief to the poor.
Here again we find the idea of equalizing fortunes by
law, by force.
In Greece, there were two kinds of republics. One,
Sparta, was military; the other, Athens, was
commercial. In the former, IT WAS DESIRED that the
citizens be idle; in the latter, love of labor WAS
ENCOURAGED.
Note the marvelous genius of these legisla-
tors: By debasing all established customs--by
mixing the usual concepts of all virtues--they
knew in advance that the world would admire their
wisdom.
Lycurgus gave stability to his city of Sparta
by combining petty thievery with the soul of
justice; by combining the most complete bondage
with the most extreme liberty; by combining the
most atrocious beliefs with the greatest modera-
tion. He appeared to deprive his city of all its
resources, arts, commerce, money, and defenses.
In Sparta, ambition went without the hope of
material reward. Natural affection found no outlet
because a man was neither son, husband, nor
father. Even chastity was no longer considered
becoming. BY THIS ROAD, LYCURGUS LED SPARTA ON TO
GREATNESS AND GLORY.
This boldness which was to be found in the
institutions of Greece has been repeated in the
midst of THE DEGENERACY AND CORRUPTION OF OUR
MODERN TIMES. An occasional honest legislator has
molded a people in whom integrity appears as
natural as courage in the Spartans.
Mr. William Penn, for example, is a true
Lycurgus. Even though Mr. Penn had peace as his
objective--while Lycurgus had war as his objec-
tive--they resemble each other in that their moral
prestige over free men allowed them to overcome
prejudices, to subdue passions, and to lead THEIR
respective peoples into new paths.
The country of Paraguay furnishes us with
another example [of a people who, for their own
good, are molded by their legislators]. [Trans-
lator's note: What was then known as Paraguay was
a much larger area than it is today. It was
colonized by the Jesuits who settled the Indians
into villages, and generally saved them from
further brutalities by the avid conquerors.]
Now it is true that if one considers the
sheer pleasure of commanding to be the greatest
joy in life, he contemplates a crime against
society: it will, however, always be a noble ideal
to govern men in a manner that will make them
happier.
THOSE WHO DESIRE TO ESTABLISH SIMILAR INSTI-
TUTIONS must do as follows: Establish common
ownership of property as in the republic of Plato;
revere the gods as Plato commanded; prevent
foreigners from mingling with the people, in order
to preserve the customs; let the state, instead of
the citizens, establish commerce. The legislators
should supply arts instead of luxuries: they
should satisfy needs instead of desires.
A FRIGHTFUL IDEA
Those who are subject to vulgar infatuation may
exclaim: "Montesquieu has said this! So it's magnificent!
It's sublime!" As for me, I have the courage of my own
opinion. I say: What! You have the nerve to call that
fine? It is frightful! It is abominable! These random
selections from the writings of Montesquieu show that he
considers persons, liberties, property--mankind itself--to
be nothing but materials for legislators to exercise their
wisdom upon.
THE LEADER OF THE DEMOCRATS
Now let us examine Rousseau on this subject. This
writer on public affairs is the supreme authority of the
democrats. And although he bases the social structure upon
the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, he has, to a greater extent than
anyone else, completely accepted the theory of the total
inertness of mankind in the presence of the legislators:
If it is true that a great prince is rare,
then it is not true that a great legislator is
even more rare? The prince has only to follow the
pattern the legislator creates. THE LEGISLATOR IS
THE MECHANIC WHO INVENTS THE MACHINE; the prince
is merely the workman who sets it in motion.
And what part do persons play in all this? They are
merely the machine that is set in motion. In fact, are they
not merely considered to be the raw material of which the
machine is made?
Thus the same relationship exists between the legisla-
tor and the prince as exists between the agricultural expert
and the farmer; and the relationship between the prince and
his subjects is the same as that between the farmer and his
land. How high above mankind, then, has this writer of
public affairs been placed? Rousseau rules over legislators
themselves, and teaches them their trade in these imperious
terms:
Would you give stability to the state? Then
bring the extremes as closely together as possi-
ble. Tolerate neither wealthy persons nor beg-
gars.
If the soil is poor or barren, or the country
too small for its inhabitants, then turn to
industry and arts, and trade these products for
the foods that you need. . . . On a fertile soil
--if YOU ARE SHORT of inhabitants--devote all your
attention to agriculture, because this multiplies
people; BANISH the arts, because they only serve
to depopulate the nation. . . .
If you have extensive and accessible coast
lines, then COVER THE SEA with merchant ships; you
will have a brilliant but short existence. If your
seas wash only inaccessible cliffs, let the people
BE BARBAROUS and eat fish; they will live more
quietly--perhaps better--and, most certainly, they
will live more happily.
In short, and in addition to the maxims that
are common to all, every people has its own par-
ticular circumstances. And this fact in itself
will cause legislation appropriate to the circum-
stances.
This is the reason why the Hebrews formerly--
and more recently, the Arabs--had religion as
their principle objective. The objective of the
Athenians was literature; of Carthage and Tyre,
commerce; of Rhodes, naval affairs; of Sparta,
war; and of Rome, virtue. The author of THE SPIRIT
OF LAWS has shown by what art THE LEGISLATOR
SHOULD DIRECT HIS INSTITUTIONS TOWARD EACH OF
THESE OBJECTIVES. . . . But suppose the legisla-
tor mistakes his proper objective, and acts on a
principle different from that indicated by the
nature of things? Suppose that the selected
principle sometimes creates slavery, and sometimes
liberty; sometimes wealth, and sometimes poverty;
sometimes peace, and sometimes conquest? This con-
fusion of objective will slowly enfeeble the law
and impair the constitution. The state will be
subjected to ceaseless agitations until it is
destroyed or changed, and invincible nature
regains her empire.
But if nature is sufficiently invincible to REGAIN its
empire, why does not Rousseau admit that it did not need the
legislator to GAIN it in the first place? Why does he not
see that men, by obeying their own instincts, would turn to
farming on fertile soil, and to commerce on an extensive and
easily accessible coast, without the interference of a
Lycurgus or a Solon or a Rousseau WHO MIGHT EASILY BE MIS-
TAKEN.
SOCIALISTS WANT FORCED CONFORMITY
Be that as it may, Rousseau invests the creators,
organizers, directors, legislators, and controllers of
society with a terrible responsibility. He is, therefore,
most exacting with them:
He who would dare to undertake the political
creation of a people ought to believe that he can,
in a manner of speaking, transform human nature;
transform each individual--who, by himself, is a
solitary and perfect whole--into a mere part of a
greater whole from which the individual will
henceforth receive his life and being. Thus the
person who would undertake the political creation
of a people should believe in his ability to alter
man's constitution; to strengthen it; to substi-
tute for the physical and independent existence
received from nature, an existence which is par-
tial and moral. [TRANSLATOR'S NOTE: According to
Rousseau, the existence of social man is PARTIAL
in the sense that he is henceforth merely a PART
of society. Knowing himself as such--and thinking
and feeling from the point of view of the whole--
he thereby becomes moral]. In short, the would-
be creator of political man must remove man's own
forces and endow him with others that are natural-
ly alien to him.
Poor human nature! What would become of a person's
dignity if it were entrusted to the followers of Rousseau?
LEGISLATORS DESIRE TO MOLD MANKIND
Now let us examine Raynal on the subject of mankind be-
ing molded by the legislator:
The legislator must first consider the
climate, the air, and the soil. The resources at
HIS disposal determine his duties. He must first
consider HIS locality. A population living on
maritime shores must have laws designed for
navigation. . . . If it is an inland settlement,
the legislator must make his plans according to
the nature and fertility of the soil. . . .
It is especially in the distribution of
property that the genius of the legislator will be
found. As a general rule, when a new colony is
established in any country, sufficient land should
be given to each man to support his family. . . .
On an uncultivated island that YOU are popu-
lating with children, you need do nothing but let
the seeds of truth germinate along with the devel-
opment of reason. . . . But when YOU resettle a
nation with a past into a new country, the skill
of the legislator rest in the policy of PERMITTING
THE PEOPLE to retain no injurious opinions and
customs which can possibly be cured and corrected.
If YOU desire to prevent these opinions and
customs from becoming permanent, you will secure
the second generation by a general system of
public education for the children. A prince or
legislator should never establish a colony without
first arranging to send wise men along to instruct
the youth. . . .
In a new colony, ample opportunity is open to
the careful legislator who desires TO PURIFY THE
CUSTOMS AND MANNERS OF THE PEOPLE. If he has
virtue and genius, the land and the people AT HIS
DISPOSAL will inspire his soul with a plan for
society. A writer can only vaguely trace the plan
in advance because it is necessarily subject to
the instability of all hypotheses; the problem has
many forms, complications, and circumstances that
are difficult to foresee and settle in detail.
LEGISLATORS TOLD HOW TO MANAGE MEN
Raynal's instructions to the legislators on how to
manage people may be compared to a professor of agriculture
lecturing his students: "The climate is the first rule for
the farmer. HIS resources determines his procedure. He must
consider first his locality. If his soil is clay, he must
do so and so. If his soil is sand, he must act in another
manner. Every facility is open to the farmer who wishes to
clear and improve his soil. If he is skilled enough, the
manure AT HIS DISPOSAL will suggest to him a plan of
operation. A professor can only vaguely trace this plan in
advance because it is necessarily subject to the instability
of all hypotheses; the problem has many forms, complica-
tions, and circumstances that are difficult to foresee and
settle in detail."
Oh, sublime writers! Please remember sometimes that
this clay, this sand, and this manure which you so arbitrar-
ily dispose of, are men! They are your equals! They are
intelligent and free human beings like yourselves! As you
have, they too have received from God the faculty to
observe, to plan ahead, to think, and to judge for them-
selves!
A TEMPORARY DICTATORSHIP
Here is Mably on this subject of the law and the
legislator. In the passages preceding the one here quoted,
Mably has supposed the laws, due to a neglect of security,
to be worn out. He continues to address the reader thusly:
Under these circumstances, it is obvious that
the springs of government are slack. GIVE THEM a
new tension, and the evil will be cured. . . .
Think less of punishing faults, and more of
rewarding THAT WHICH YOU NEED. In this manner you
will restore to YOUR REPUBLIC the vigor of youth.
Because free people have been ignorant of this
procedure, they have lost their liberty! But if
the evil has made such headway that ordinary
governmental procedures are unable to cure it,
then RESORT to an extraordinary tribunal with
considerable powers for a short time. The imagi-
nation of the citizens needs to be struck a hard
blow.
In this manner, Mably continues through twenty volumes.
Under the influence of teaching like this--which stems
from classical education--there came a time when everyone
wished to place himself above mankind in order to arrange,
organize, and regulate it in his own way.
SOCIALISTS WANT EQUALITY OF WEALTH
Now let us examine Condillac on this subject of the
legislators and mankind:
My Lord, assume the character of Lycurgus or
of Solon. And before you finish reading this
essay, amuse yourself by giving laws to some
savages in America or Africa. Confine these
nomads to fixed dwellings; teach them to tend
flocks. . . . Attempt to develop the social con-
sciousness that nature has planted in them. . . .
Force them to begin to practice the duties of
humanity. . . . Use punishment to cause sensual
pleasures to become distasteful to them. Them you
will see that every point of your legislation will
cause these savages to lose a vice and gain a
virtue.
All people have had laws. But few people have
been happy. Why is this so? Because the legisla-
tors themselves have almost always been ignorant
of the purpose of society, which is the uniting of
families by a common interest.
Impartiality in law consist of two things:
the establishing of equality in wealth and equal-
ity in dignity among the citizens. . . . As the
laws establish greater equality, they become pro-
portionately more precious to every citizen. . . .
When all men are equal in wealth and dignity--and
when the laws leave no hope of disturbing this
equality--how can men then be agitated by greed,
ambition, dissipation, idleness, sloth, envy,
hatred, or jealously?
What you have learned about the republic of
Sparta should enlighten you on this question. No
other state has ever had laws more in accord with
the order of nature; of equality.
THE ERROR OF THE SOCIALIST WRITERS
Actuality, it is NOT strange that during the seven-
teenth and eighteenth centuries the human race was regarded
as inert matter, ready to receive everything--form, face,
energy, movement, life--from a great prince or a great leg-
islator or a great genius. These centuries were nourished
on the study of antiquity. And Antiquity presents every-
where--in Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome--the spectacle of a
few men molding mankind according to their whims, thanks to
the prestige of force and of fraud. But this does not prove
that this situation is desirable. It proves only that since
men and society are capable of improvement, it is naturally
to be expected that error, ignorance, despotism, slavery,
and superstition should be greatest towards the origins of
history. The writers quoted above were not in error when
they found ancient institutions to be such, but they were in
error when they offered them for the admiration and
imitation of future generations. Uncritical and childish
conformists, they took for granted the grandeur, dignity,
morality, and happiness of the artificial societies of the
ancient world. They did not understand that knowledge
appears and grows with the passage of time; and that in
proportion to this growth of knowledge, MIGHT takes the side
of RIGHT, and society regains possession of itself.
WHAT IS LIBERTY?
Actually, what is the political struggle that we
witness? It is the instinctive struggle of all people
toward liberty. And what is this liberty, whose very name
makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world? Is it not
the union of all liberties--liberty of conscience, of
education, of association, of the press, of travel, of
labor, of trade? In short, is not liberty, the freedom of
every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as
he does not harm other persons while doing so? Is not
liberty the destruction of all despotism--including, of
course, legal despotism? Finally, is not liberty the
restricting of the law only to its rational sphere of
organizing the right of the individual to lawful self-
defense; of punishing injustice?
It must be admitted that the tendency of the human race
toward liberty is largely thwarted, especially in France.
This is greatly due to a fatal desire--learned from the
teachings of antiquity--that our writers on public affairs
have in common: They desire to set themselves above mankind
in order to arrange, organize, and regulate it to their
fancy.
PHILANTHROPIC TYRANNY
While society is struggling toward liberty, these
famous men who put themselves at its head are filled with
the spirit of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
They think only of subjecting mankind to the philanthropic
tyranny of their own social inventions. Like Rousseau, they
desire to force mankind docilely to bear this yoke of the
public welfare that they have dreamed up in their own
imaginations.
This was especially true in 1879. No sooner was the
old regime destroyed than society was subjected to still
other artificial arrangements, always starting from the same
point: the omnipotence of the law.
Listen to the ideas of a few of the writers and
politicians during that period:
SAINT-JUST: The legislator commands the future.
It is for him to WILL the good of mankind. It is
for him to make men what HE WILLS them to be.
ROBESPIERRE: The function of government is to
direct the physical and moral powers of the nation
toward the end for which the commonwealth has come
into being.
BILLAUD-VARENNES: A People who are to be returned
to liberty must be formed anew. A strong force and
vigorous action are necessary to destroy old
prejudices, to change old customs, to correct
depraved affections, to restrict superfluous
wants, and to destroy ingrained vices. . . .
Citizens, the inflexibly austerity of Lycurgus
created the firm foundation of Spartan republic.
The weak and trusting character of Solon plunged
Athens into slavery. This parallel embraces the
whole science of government.
LE PELLETIER: Considering the extent of human
degradation, I am convinced that it is necessary
to effect a total regeneration and, if I may so
express myself, of creating a new people.
THE SOCIALISTS WANT DICTATORSHIP
Again, it is claimed that persons are nothing but raw
material. It is not for them to WILL THEIR OWN IMPROVEMENT;
they are incapable of it. According to Saint-Just, only the
legislator is capable of doing this. Persons are merely to
be what the legislator WILLS them to be. According to
Robespierre, who copies Rousseau literally, the legislator
begins by decreeing the END FOR WHICH THE COMMONWEALTH HAS
COME INTO BEING. Once this is determined, the government
has only to direct THE PHYSICAL AND MORAL FORCES OF THE
NATION toward that end. Meanwhile, the inhabitants of the
nation are to remain completely passive. And according to
the teachings of Billaud-Varennes, the people should have no
prejudices, no affections, and no desires except those
authorized by the legislator. He even goes so far as to say
that the inflexible austerity of one man is the foundation
of a republic.
In cases where the alleged evil is so great that
ordinary governmental procedures cannot cure it, Mably
recommends a dictatorship to promote virtue: "Resort," he
says, "to an extraordinary tribunal with considerable powers
for a short time. The imagination of citizens needs to
struck a hard blow." This doctrine has not been forgotten.
Listen to Robespierre:
The principle of the republican government is
virtue, and the means required to establish virtue
is terror. In our country we desire to substitute
morality for selfishness, honesty for honor,
principles for customs, duties for manners, the
empire of reason of the tyranny of fashion,
contempt of vice for contempt of poverty, pride
for insolence, greatness of soul for vanity, love
of glory for love of money, good people for good
companions, merit for intrigue, genius for wit,
truth for glitter, the charm of happiness for the
boredom of pleasure, the greatness of man for the
littleness of the great, a generous, strong, happy
people for a good-natured, frivolous, degraded
people; in short, we desire to substitute all the
virtues and miracles of a republic for all the
vices and absurdities of a monarchy.
DICTATORIAL ARROGANCE
At what a tremendous height above the rest of mankind
does Robespierre here place himself! And note the arrogance
with which he speaks. He is not content to pray for a great
reawakening of the human spirit. Nor does he expect such a
result from a well-ordered government. No, he himself will
remake mankind, and by means of terror.
This mass of rotten and contradictory statements is
extracted from a discourse by Robespierre in which he aims
to explain the PRINCIPLES OF MORALITY WHICH OUGHT TO GUIDE A
REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT. Note that Robespierre's request
for dictatorship is not made merely for the purpose of
repelling a foreign invasion or putting down the opposing
groups. Rather he wants a dictatorship in order that he may
use terror to force upon the country his own principles of
morality. He says that this act is only to be a temporary
measure preceding a new constitution. But in reality, he
desires nothing short of using terror to extinguish from
France SELFISHNESS, HONOR, CUSTOMS, MANNERS, FASHION,
VANITY, LOVE OF MONEY, GOOD COMPANIONSHIP, INTRIGUE, WIT,
SENSUOUSNESS, AND POVERTY. Not until he, Robespierre, shall
have accomplished these MIRACLES, as so rightly calls then,
will he permit the law to reign again. [At this point in
the original French text, Mr. Bastiat pauses and speaks
thusly to all do-gooders and would-be-rulers of mankind:
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so
great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish
to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves?
That task would be sufficient enough."]
THE INDIRECT APPROACH TO DESPOTISM
Usually, however, these gentlemen--the reformers, the
legislators, and the writers on public affairs--do not
desire to impose direct despotism upon mankind. Oh no, they
are too moderate and philanthropic for such direct action.
Instead, they turn to the law for this despotism, this
absolutism, this omnipotence. They desire only to make the
laws.
To show the prevalence of this queer idea in France, I
would need to copy not only the entire works of Mably,
Raynal, Rousseau, and Fenelon--plus long extracts from
Bossuet and Montesquieu--but also the entire proceedings of
the Convention. I shall do no such thing; I merely refer
the reader to them.
NAPOLEON WANTED PASSIVE MANKIND
It is, of course, not at all surprising that this same
idea should have greatly appealed to Napoleon. He embraced
it ardently and used it with vigor. Like a chemist, Napoleon
considered all Europe to be material for his experiments.
But, in due course, this material reacted against him.
At St. Helena, Napoleon--greatly disillusioned--seemed
to recognize some initiative in mankind. Recognizing this,
he became less hostile to liberty. Nevertheless, this did
not prevent him from leaving this lesson to his son in his
will: "To govern is to increase and spread morality,
education, and happiness."
After all this, it is hardly necessary to quote the
same opinions for Morelly, Babeuf, Owen, Saint-Simon, and
Fourier. Here are, however, a few extracts from Louis
Blanc's book on the organization of labor: "In our plan,
society receives its momentum from power."
Now consider this: The impulse behind this momentum is
to be supplied by the PLAN of Louis Blanc; his plan is to be
forced upon society; the society referred to is the human
race. Thus the human race is to receive its momentum from
Louis Blanc.
Now it will be said that the people are free to accept
or to reject this plan. Admittedly, people are free to
accept or to reject ADVICE from whomever they wish. But
this is not the way in which Mr. Louis Blanc understands the
matter. He expects that his plan will be legalized, and
thus forcibly imposed upon the people by the power of the
law:
In our plan, the state has only to pass labor
laws (nothing else?) by means of which industrial
progress can and must proceed IN COMPLETE LIBERTY.
The state merely places society on an incline
(that is all?). Then society will slide down this
incline by the mere force of things, and by the
natural working of the ESTABLISHED MECHANISM.
But what is this incline that is indicated by Mr. Louis
Blanc? Does it not lead to an abyss? (No, it leads to
happiness.) If this is true, then why does not society go
there of its own choice? (Because society does not know
what it wants; it must be propelled.) What is to propel it?
(Power.) And who is to supply the impulse for this power?
(Why, the inventor of the machine--in this instance, Mr.
Louis Blanc.)
THE VICIOUS CIRCLE OF SOCIALISM
We shall never escape from this circle: the idea of
passive mankind, and the power of the law being used by a
great man to propel the people.
Once on this incline, will society enjoy some liberty?
(Certainly.) And what is liberty, Mr. Louis Blanc?
Once and for all, liberty is not only a mere
granted right; it is also the power granted to a
person to use and to develop his faculties under a
reign of justice and under the protection of the
law.
And this is no pointless distinction; its
meaning is deep and its consequences are difficult
to estimate. For once it is agreed that a person,
to be truly free, must have the power to use and
develop his faculties, then it follows that every
person has a claim on society for such education
as will PERMIT HIM to develop himself. It also
follows that every person has a claim on society
for tools of production, without which human
activity cannot be fully effective. Now by what
action can society give to every person the
necessary education and the necessary tools of
production, if not by the action of the state?
Thus, again, liberty is power. Of what does this power
consist? (Of being educated and of being given the tools of
production.) Who is to give the education and the tools of
production? (Society, WHICH OWES THEM TO EVERYONE.) By
what action is society to give tools of production to those
who do not own them? (Why, BY THE ACTION OF THE STATE.)
And from whom will the state take them?
Let the reader answer that question. Let him also
notice the direction in which this is taking us.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE DEMOCRATS
The strange phenomenon of our times--one which will
probably astound our descendants--is the doctrine based on
this triple hypothesis: the total inertness of mankind, the
omnipotence of the law, and the infallibility of the
legislator. These three ideas form the sacred symbol of
those who proclaim themselves totally democratic.
The advocates of this doctrine also profess to be
SOCIAL. So far as they are democratic, they place unlimited
faith in mankind. But so far as they are social, they regard
mankind as little better than mud. Let us examine this con-
trast in greater detail.
What is the attitude of the democrat when political
rights are under discussion? How does he regard the people
when a legislator is to be chosen? Ah, then it is claimed
that the people have an instinctive wisdom; they are gifted
with the finest perception; THEIR WILL IS ALWAYS RIGHT; the
general will CANNOT ERR; voting cannot be too universal.
When it is time to vote, apparently the voter is not to
be asked for any guarantee of his wisdom. His will and
capacity to choose wisely are taken for granted. Can the
people be mistaken? Are we not living in an age of
enlightenment? What! are the people always to be kept on
leashes? Have they not won their rights by great effort and
sacrifice? Have they not given ample proof of their
intelligence and wisdom? Are they not adults? Are they not
capable of judging for themselves? Do they not know what is
best for themselves? Is there a class or a man who would be
so bold as to set himself above the people, and judge and
act for them? No, no, the people are and should be FREE.
They desire to manage their own affairs, and they shall do
so.
But when the legislator is finally elected--ah! then
indeed does the tone of his speech undergo a radical change.
the people are returned to passiveness, inertness, and
unconsciousness; the legislator enters into omnipotence.
Now it is for him to initiate, to direct, to propel, and to
organize. Mankind has only to submit; the hour of despotism
has struck. We now observe this fatal idea: The people who,
during the election, were so wise, so moral, and so perfect,
now have no tendencies whatever; or if they have any, they
are tendencies that lead downward into degradation.
THE SOCIALIST CONCEPT OF LIBERTY
But ought not the people be given a little liberty?
But Mr. Considerant has assured us that LIBERTY LEADS
INEVITABLY TO MONOPOLY!
We understand that liberty means competition. But
according to Mr. Louis Blanc, COMPETITION IS A SYSTEM THAT
RUINS THE BUSINESSMEN AND EXTERMINATES THE PEOPLE. It is for
this reason that free people are ruined and exterminated in
proportion to their degree of freedom. (Possibly Mr. Louis
Blanc should observe the results of competition in, for
example, Switzerland, Holland, England, and the United
States.)
Mr. Louis Blanc also tells us that COMPETITION LEADS TO
MONOPOLY. And by the same reasoning, he thus informs us
that LOW PRICES LEAD TO HIGH PRICES; that COMPETITION DRIVES
PRODUCTION TO DESTRUCTIVE ACTIVITY; that COMPETITION DRAINS
AWAY THE SOURCES OF PURCHASING POWER; that COMPETITION
FORCES AN INCREASE IN PRODUCTION WHILE, AT THE SAME TIME, IT
FORCES A DECREASE IN CONSUMPTION. From this, it follows
that free people produce for the sake of not consuming; that
liberty means OPPRESSION AND MADNESS among the people; and
that Mr. Louis Blanc absolutely must attend to it.
SOCIALISTS FEAR ALL LIBERTIES
Well, what liberty should the legislators permit people
to have? Liberty of conscience? (But if this were
permitted, we would see the people taking this opportunity
to become atheists.)
Then liberty of education? (But parents would pay
professors to teach their children immorality and false-
hoods; besides, according to Mr. Thiers, if education were
left to national liberty, it would cease to be national, and
we would be teaching our children the ideas of the Turks or
Hindus; whereas, thanks to this legal despotism over
education, our children now have the good fortune to be
taught the noble ideas of the Romans.)
Then liberty of labor? (But that would mean competi-
tion which, in turn, leaves production unconsumed, ruins
businessmen, and exterminates the people.)
Perhaps liberty of trade? (But everyone knows--and the
advocates of protective tariffs have proved over and over
again--that freedom of trade ruins every person who engages
in it, and that it is necessary to suppress freedom of trade
in order to prosper.)
Possibly then, liberty of association? (But, according
to socialist doctrine, true liberty and voluntary associa-
tion are in contradiction to each other, and the purpose of
the socialists is to suppress liberty of association
precisely in order to force people to associate together in
true liberty.)
Clearly then, the conscience of the social democrats
cannot permit persons to have any liberty because they
believe that the nature of mankind tends always toward every
kind of degradation and disaster. Thus, of course, the
legislators must make plans for the people in order to save
them from themselves.
This line of reasoning brings us to a challenging
question: If people are as incapable, as immoral, and as
ignorant as the politicians indicate, then why is the right
of these same people to vote defended with such passionate
insistence?
THE SUPERMAN IDEA
The claims of these organizers of humanity raise
another question which I have often asked them and which, so
far as I know, they have never answered: If the natural
tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to
permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of
these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators
and their appointed agents also belong to the human race?
Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer
clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that
society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its
inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people
are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal
course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then,
the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven
an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above
mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this
superiority.
They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep.
Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are
naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are
fully justified in demanding from the legislators and
organizers proof of this natural superiority.
THE SOCIALISTS REJECT FREE CHOICE
Please understand that 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 force--and to compel us to pay for
them with our taxes.
I do not insist that the supporters of these various
social schools of thought--the Proudhonists, the Cabetists,
the Fourierists, the Universitarists, and the Protection-
ists--renounce their various ideas. I insist only that they
renounce this one idea that they have in common: They need
only to give up the idea of FORCING us to acquiesce to
their groups and series, their socialized projects, their
free-credit banks, their Graeco-Roman concept of morality,
and their commercial regulations. I ask only that we be
permitted to decide upon these plans for ourselves; that we
not be forced to accept them, directly or indirectly, if we
find them to be contrary to our best interests or repugnant
to our consciences.
But these organizers desire access to the tax funds and
to the power of the law in order to carry out their plans.
In addition to being oppressive and unjust, this desire also
implies the fatal supposition that the organizer is in-
fallible and mankind is incompetent. But, again, if persons
are incompetent to judge for themselves, then why all this
talk about universal suffrage?
THE CAUSE OF FRENCH REVOLUTIONS
This contradiction in ideas is, unfortunately but
logically, reflected in events in France. For example,
Frenchmen have led all other Europeans in obtaining their
rights--or, more accurately, their political demands. Yet
this fact has in no respect prevented us from becoming the
most governed, the most regulated, the most imposed upon,
the most harnessed, and the most exploited people in Europe.
France also leads all other nations as the one where
revolutions are constantly to be anticipated. And under the
circumstances, it is quite natural that this should be the
case.
And this will remain the case so long as our
politicians continue to accept this idea that has been so
well expressed by Mr. Louis Blanc: "Society receives its
momentum from power." This will remain the case so long as
human beings with feelings continue to remain passive; so
long as they consider themselves incapable of bettering
their prosperity and happiness by their own intelligence and
their own energy; so long as they expect everything from the
law; in short, so long as they imagine that their
relationship to the state is the same as that of the sheep
to the shepherd.
THE ENORMOUS POWER OF GOVERNMENT
As long as these ideas prevail, it is clear that the
responsibility of government is enormous. Good fortune and
bad fortune, wealth and destitution, equality and
inequality, virtue and vice--all them depend upon political
administration. It is burdened with everything, it under-
takes everything, it does everything; therefore it is
responsible for everything.
If we are fortunate, then government has a claim to our
gratitude; but if we are unfortunate, then government must
bear the blame. Far are not our persons and property now at
the disposal of government? Is not the law omnipotent?
In creating a monopoly of education, the government
must answer to the hopes of the fathers of families who have
thus been deprived of their liberty; and if these hopes are
shattered, whose fault is it?
In regulating industry, the government has contracted
to make it prosper; otherwise it is absurd to deprive
industry of its liberty. And if industry now suffers, whose
fault is it?
In meddling with the balance of trade by playing with
tariffs, the government thereby contracts to make trade
prosper; and if this results in destruction instead of
prosperity, whose fault is it?
In giving protection instead of liberty to the
industries for defense, the government has contracted to
make them profitable; and if they become a burden to the
taxpayers, whose fault is it?
Thus there is not a grievance in the nation for which
the government does not voluntarily make itself responsible.
Is it surprising, then, that every failure increases the
threat of another revolution in France?
And what remedy is proposed for this? To extend
indefinitely the domain of the law; that is, the responsi-
bility of government.
But if the government undertakes to control and to
raise wages, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes
to care for all who may be in want, and cannot do it; if the
if the government undertakes to support all unemployed
workers, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to
lend interest-free money to all borrowers, and cannot do it;
if, in these words that we regret to say escaped from the
pen of Mr. de Lamartine, "The state considers that its
purpose is to enlighten, to develop, to enlarge, to
strengthen, to spiritualize, and to sanctify the soul of the
people"--and if the government cannot do all of these
things, what then? Is it not certain that after every
government failure--which, alas! is more than probable--
there will be an equally inevitable revolution?
POLITICS AND ECONOMICS
[Now let us return to a subject that was briefly
discussed in the opening pages of this thesis: the
relationship of economics and politics--political economy.]
[Translators note: Mr. Bastiat has devoted three other
books and several articles to the development of the ideas
contained in the three sentences of the following
paragraph.]
A science of economics must be developed before a
science of politics can be logically formulated. Essential-
ly, economics is the science of determining whether the
interests of human beings are harmonious or antagonistic.
This must be known before a science of politics can be
formulated to determine the proper functions of government.
Immediately following the development of a science of
economics, and at the very beginning of the formulation of a
science of politics, this all-important question must be
answered: What is law? What ought it to be? What is its
scope; its limits? Logically, at what point do the just
powers of the legislator stop?
I do not hesitate to answer: LAW IS THE COMMON FORCE
ORGANIZED TO ACT AS AN OBSTACLE TO INJUSTICE. In short, LAW
IS JUSTICE.
PROPER LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS
It is not true that the legislator has absolute power
over our persons and property. The existence of persons and
property preceded the existence of the legislator, and his
function is only to guarantee their safety.
It is not true that the function of law is to regulate
our consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our
opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or our
pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free
exercise of these rights, and to prevent any person from
interfering with the free exercise of these same rights by
any other person.
Since law necessarily requires the support of force,
its lawful domain is only in the areas where the use of
force is necessary. This is justice.
Every individual has the right to use force for lawful
self-defense. It is for this reason that the collective
force--which is only the organized combination of the
individual forces--may lawfully be used for the same
purpose; and it cannot be used legitimately for any other
purpose.
Law is solely the organization of the individual right
of self-defense which existed before law was formalized.
Law is justice.
LAW AND CHARITY ARE NOT THE SAME
The mission of the law is NOT to oppress persons and
plunder them of their property, even though the law may be
acting in a philanthropic spirit. Its mission is to protect
persons and property.
Furthermore, it must not be said that the law may be
philanthropic if, in the process, it refrains from oppres-
sing persons and plundering them of their property; this
would be a contradiction. The Law cannot avoid having an
effect upon persons and property; and if the law acts in any
manner except to protect them, its actions then necessarily
violate the liberty of persons and their right to own
property.
The law is justice--simple and clear, precise and
bounded. Every eye can see it, and every mind can grasp it;
for justice is measurable, immutable, and unchangeable.
Justice is neither more than this nor less than this.
If you exceed this proper limit--if you attempt to make
the law religious, fraternal, equalizing, philanthropic,
industrial, literary, or artistic--you will then be lost in
an uncharted territory, in vagueness and uncertainty, in a
forced utopia, or, even worse, in a multitude of utopias,
each striving to seize the law and impose it upon you. This
is true because fraternity and philanthropy, unlike justice,
do not have precise limits. Once started, where will you
stop? And where will the law stop itself?
THE HIGH ROAD TO COMMUNISM
Mr. de Saint-Cricq would extend his philanthropy only
to some of the industrial groups; he would demand that the
law CONTROL THE CONSUMERS TO BENEFIT THE PRODUCERS.
Mr. Considerant would sponsor the cause of the labor
groups; he would use the law to secure for them A GUARANTEED
MINIMUM OF CLOTHING, HOUSING, FOOD, AND ALL OTHER NECESSI-
TIES OF LIFE.
Mr. Louis Blanc would say--and with reason--that these
minimum guarantees are merely the beginning of complete
fraternity; he would say that the law should give tools of
production and free education to all working people.
Another person would observe that this arrangement
would still leave room for inequality; he would claim that
the law should give to everyone--even in the most inaccessi-
ble hamlet--luxury, literature, and art.
All of these proposals are the high road to communism;
legislation will then the be--in fact, it already is--the
battlefield for the fantasies and greed of everyone.
THE BASIS FOR STABLE GOVERNMENT
Law is justice. In this proposition a simple and
enduring government can be conceived. And I defy anyone to
say how even the thought of revolution, of insurrection, of
the slightest uprising could arise against a government
whose organized force was confined only to suppressing
injustice.
Under such a regime, there would be the most pros-
perity--and it would be the most equally distributed. As
for the sufferings that are inseparable from humanity, no
one would even think of accusing the government for them.
This is true because, if the force of government were
limited to suppressing injustice, then government would be
as innocent of these sufferings as it is now innocent of
changes in the temperature.
As proof of this statement, consider this question:
Have the people ever been known to rise against the Court of
Appeals, or mob a Justice of the Peace, in order to get
higher wages, free credit, tools of production, favorable
tariffs, or government-created jobs? Everyone knows
perfectly well that such matters are not within the
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals or a Justice of the
Peace. And if government were limited to its proper
functions, everyone would soon learn that these matters are
not within the jurisdiction of the law itself.
But make the laws upon the principle of fraternity--
proclaim that all good, and all bad, stem from the law; that
the law is responsible for all individual misfortunes and
all social inequalities--then the door is open to an endless
succession of complaints, irritations, troubles, and revolu-
tions.
JUSTICE MEANS EQUAL RIGHTS
Law is justice. And it would indeed be strange if law
could properly be anything else! Is not justice right? Are
not rights equal? By what right does the law force me to
conform to the social plans of Mr. Mimerel, Mr. de Melun,
Mr. Thiers, or Mr. Louis Blanc? If the law has a moral
right to do this, why does it not, then, force these
gentlemen to submit to MY PLANS? Is it logical to suppose
that nature has not given ME sufficient imagination to dream
up a utopia also? should the law choose one fantasy among
many, and put the organized force of government at its
service only?
Law is justice. And let it not be said--as it
continually is said--that under this concept, the law would
be atheistic, individualistic, and heartless; that it would
make mankind in its own image. This is an absurd conclu-
sion, worthy only of those worshippers of government who
believe that the law IS mankind.
Nonsense! Do those worshippers of government believe
that free persons will cease to act? Does it follow that if
we receive no energy from the law, we shall receive no
energy at all? Does it follow that if the law is restricted
to the functions of protecting the free use of our
faculties, we will be unable to use our faculties? Suppose
that the law does not force us to follow certain forms of
religion, or systems of association, or methods of
education, or regulations of labor, or regulations of trade,
or plans for charity; does it them follow that we shall
eagerly plunge into atheism, hermitary, ignorance, misery,
and greed? If we are free, does it follow that we shall no
longer recognize the power and goodness of God? Does it
follow that we shall then cease to associate with each
other, to help each other, to love and succor our
unfortunate brothers, to study the secrets of nature, and to
strive to improve ourselves to the best of our abilities?
THE PATH TO DIGNITY AND PROGRESS
Law is justice. And it is under the law of justice--
under the reign of right; under the influence of liberty,
safety, stability, and responsibility--that every person
will attain his real worth and the true dignity of his
being. It is only under this law of justice that mankind
will achieve--slowly, no doubt, but certainly--God's design
for the orderly and peaceful progress of humanity.
It seems to me that this is theoretically right, for
whatever the question under discussion--whether religious,
philosophical, political, or economic; whether it concerns
prosperity, morality, equality, right, justice, progress,
responsibility, cooperation, property, labor, trade,
capital, wages, taxes, population, finance, or government--
at whatever point on the scientific horizon I begin my
researches, I invariably reach this one conclusion: The
solution to the problems of human relationships is to be
found in liberty.
PROOF OF AN IDEA
And does not experience prove this? Look at the entire
world. Which countries contain the most peaceful, the most
moral, and the happiest people? Those people are found in
the countries where the law least interferes with private
affairs; where government is least felt; where the
individual has the greatest scope, and free opinion the
greatest influence; where administrative powers are fewest
and simplest; where taxes are lightest and most nearly
equal, and popular discontent the least excited and the
least justifiable; where individuals and groups most
actively assume their responsibilities, and, consequently,
where the morals of admittedly imperfect human beings are
constantly improving; where trade, assemblies, and
associations are the least restricted; where labor, capital,
and populations suffer the fewest forced displacements;
where mankind most nearly follows its own natural
inclinations; where the inventions of men are most nearly in
harmony with the laws of God; in short, the happiest, most
moral, and most peaceful people are those who most nearly
follow this principle: Although mankind is not perfect,
still, all hope rests upon the free and voluntary actions of
persons within the limits of right; law or force is to be
used for nothing except the administration of universal
justice.
THE DESIRE TO RULE OVER OTHERS
This must be said: There are too many "great" men in
the world--legislators, organizers, do-gooders, leaders of
the people, fathers of nations, and so on, and so on. Too
many persons place themselves above mankind; they make a
career of organizing it, patronizing it, and ruling it.
Now someone will say: "You yourself are doing this very
thing."
True. But it must be admitted that I act in an
entirely different sense; if I have joined the ranks of the
reformers, it is solely for the purpose of persuading them
to leave people alone. I do not look upon people as
Vancauson looked upon his automaton. Rather, just as the
physiologist accepts the human body as it is, so do I accept
people as they are. I desire only to study and admire.
My attitude toward all other persons is well
illustrated by this story from a celebrated traveler: He
arrived one day in the midst of a tribe of savages, where a
child had just been born. A crowd of soothsayer, magicians,
and quacks--armed with rings, hooks, and cords--surrounded
it. One said: "This child will never smell the perfume of a
peace-pipe unless I stretch his nostrils." Another said:
"He will never be able to hear unless I draw his ear-lobes
down to his shoulders." A third said: "He will never see
the sunshine unless I slant his eyes." Another said: "He
will never stand upright unless I bend his legs." A fifth
said: "He will never learn to think unless I flatten his
skull."
"Stop," cried the traveler. "What God does is well
done. Do not claim to know more than He. God has given
organs to this frail creature; let them develop and grow
strong by exercise, use, experience, and liberty."
LET US NOW TRY LIBERTY
God has given to men all that is necessary for them to
accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form
as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons
are so constituted that they will develop themselves
harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with
quacks and organizers! Away with their rings, chains,
hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems!
Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their
socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs,
their government schools, their state religions, their free
credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their
restrictions, their equalizations by taxation, and their
pious moralizations!
And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so
futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they
finally end where they should have begun: May they reject
all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an
acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
END
