A Defense of Compulsory Labor
Let's look at a quote from from Bossuet [tutor to the Dauphin in the Court of Louis XIV]:*
"One of the things 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 gave everyone a job which was passed down from father to son. No one could have two jobs. And no one was allowed to change jobs either.... But there was one job everyone had to do: study laws and wisdom. There was no excuse for ignorance of religion or the country's political system. Moreover, every job 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. Consequently, Egypt was filled with wonderful inventions, and nothing was neglected that could make life easy and quiet"
*Translator's note: The parenthetical expressions and the italicized words throughout this book were supplied by Mr. Bastiat. All subheads and bracketed material were supplied by the translator.
So according to Bousset, man doesn't make anything for himself. Patriotism, prosperity, inventions, husbandry, science -- all of these were granted to people by the almighty state. All people need to do is bow.
A Defense of Paternal Government
Bossuet takes this idea that the state is the origin of progress so far as to defend the Egyptians against the accusation that they rejected wrestling and music. He said:
"How is that possible? These arts were invented 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 prince's first responsibilities was to promote agriculture....There were offices founded for the purpose of regulating the army and there were offices for regulating farm work....The Persians had an overwhelming respect for royal authority."
Bousset also said that even though the Greeks were brilliant they had no concept of personal responsibility; like dogs and horses, the couldn't have even invented a simple game:
"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 Greeks learned bodily exercises, foot races, and horse and chariot races.... But the best thing that they learned, was to be submissive and allow themselves to be molded by the law for the good of society."
The Idea of Passive Mankind
You can't dispute that these classical theories [advanced by these latter-day teachers, writers, legislators, economists, and philosophers] believed that everything was given to man by some source outside themselves. For example, take Fenelon [archbishop, author, and instructor to the Duke of Burgundy].
He witnessed the power of Louis XIV. This, and the fact that he was taught in classical theories and the admiration of antiquity, naturally led Fenelon to believe that mankind was passive; that man's misfortunes and prosperity -- vices and virtues -- are because of the external influence exerted on them by the law and lawmakers. And so in his Utopia of Salentum, he puts man, along with all of his interests, faculties, desires and belongings under the absolute rule of the legislator. No matter what the issue is, people don't make their own decisions; the prince does. The prince is portrayed as the soul of the unorganized mass of people who make up the country. He alone possesses the thoughts, foresight, progress and principles of organization and as a result he alone is responsible for what happens.
The entire tenth book of Fenelon's Telemachus proves this. I allude to it and pride myself with quoting it at random from this acclaimed work which, in every other respect, I'm the first to pay it homage.
Socialists Ignore Reason and Facts
With the amazing credulity which is typical of the classicists, Fenelon completely ignores reason and facts when he says that the happiness of the Egyptians didn't come from their own wisdom but from their kings:
"We couldn't look at either shore without seeing rich towns and country estates most agreeably located; fields, never hardened, covered with golden crops every year; meadows full of flocks; workers bending under the weight of the fruit which the earth lavished upon its cultivators; 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 asked me to observe the contentment and abundance which saturated 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 the 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 unselfishness, the high regard for honor, the faithfulness 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 idyll on Crete is even more enticing. Mentor says:
"All that you see here is because of the laws of Minos. The education which he ordained for the children makes their bodies strong and robust. From the very beginning, one accustoms the children to a life of frugality and labor, because one assumes that all sensual pleasures weaken the body and the 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, because they don't exist in Crete.... No expensive furniture, no magnificent clothing, no delicious feasts, no gilded palaces are permitted."
And so Mentor readies his mold and to manipulate -- no doubt with the best intentions -- the people of Ithaca. And to convince his student how wise these concepts are, Mentor recites the example of Salentum.
It is from this line of thinking that we get our first political ideas! We're taught to treat people like an agricultural instructor teaches people to prepare and tend 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 the 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 lowered circumstances as to force him to work in order to keep or to gain."
So the law is supposed to get rid of all fortunes!
Even though real equality is the purpose of a democracy, it is so difficult to make that happen that an exact precision wouldn't always be desirable. It's good enough that there is a census to reduce or fix such differences of wealth within certain guidelines. After that's done, you still need specific laws to balance the inequality by burdening the rich while helping the poor.
Once again we see the concept of forced equality by law.
There were two kinds of republics in Greece: Sparta and Athens. Sparta was a military republic while Athens was commercial. In the former, it was ideal for citizens to be idle but in the latter the love of hard work was promoted.
Note these legislator's genius: 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 Sparta by combining petty thievery with the soul of justice; by merging utter bondage with purest liberty; by combining the most horrible beliefs with the utmost moderation. He seemed to deprive the city of all of its resources, arts, commerce, money, and defenses. In Sparta, there was no possibility of reward for ambition. There was no outlet for natural affection since a man wasn't considered son, husband, or father. Chastity wasn't considered becoming either. It was by this road that Lycurgus led Sparta to greatness and glory.
This boldness in the institutions of Greece has been repeated in the midst of the degeneracy and corruption of our modern times. Occasionally an honest legislator has been able to mold a people in whom integrity is as natural as Spartan courage.
Mr. William Penn, for example, is a true Lycurgus. Even though Mr. Penn had peace as his objective -- while Lycurgus had war as his objective -- they're similar because their moral prestige over free men allowed them to overcome prejudices, to subdue passions, and to lead their people into new paths.
The country of Paraguay gives us another example [of a people who, for their own good, are molded by their legislators].*
*Translator'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.
It's true that if someone considers the pleasure of commanding as the greatest joy in life, he contemplates a crime against society; however, it will always be a noble goal to lead men in a way that makes them happier.
Those who wish to found similar institutions must do the following: Establish common ownership of property as in Plato's republic; revere the gods as Plato commanded; prevent foreigners from mingling with the people, in order to preserve the customs; only let the state and not the citizens establish commerce. The legislators should supply arts instead of luxuries; they should satisfy needs instead of desires.
A Frightful Idea
Those inclined to vulgar infatuation may exclaim: "Montesquieu has said this! So it's magnificent! It's sublime!" As for me, I'm blessed with the ability to have my own opinion. I say: What! You dare to say that that's okay? It is frightful! It is abominable! These random selections from the Montesquieu's writings show that he considers persons, liberties, property -- humanity itself -- to be nothing but materials for legislators to exercise their wisdom upon.
The Leader of the Democrats
Let's look at Rousseau on this topic. This writer on public affairs is the supreme authority of the democrats. Even though he bases social structure on the people's will, he has probably more than anyone completely bought into the idea of the utter inertness of mankind in the presence of the legislators:
"If it is true that a great prince is rare, then is it not true that a great legislator is even more rare? The prince has only to follow the pattern that 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?"
And so the same relationship exists between the legislator and prince in the same vein as the agricultural expert and farmer; and the relationship between the prince and his subjects is identical to the farmer and his land. How high above man then has this writer placed himself? Rousseau rules even the legislator and tells them how to do their job in the following terms:
"Would you give stability to the state? Then bring the extremes as closely together as possible. Tolerate neither wealthy persons nor beggars.
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 particular circumstances. And this fact in itself will cause legislation appropriate to the circumstances."
This is why originally the Hebrews -- and, more recently, the Arabs -- had religion as their main objective. The Athenian's objective was literature; Carthage and Tyre, commerce; Rhodes, naval affairs; Sparta, war; and 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 what if the legislator gets the wrong objective and acts on the wrong principle? What if the selected principle results in slavery and sometimes liberty; sometimes wealth and sometimes population; sometimes peace and other times conquest? Such confusion of objective would cripple the law and constitution. The state would suffer so many problems it would be either destroyed or changed, and invincible nature regains her empire.
But if nature is more than invincible enough to regain control, then why doesn't Rousseau just admit that the legislator was unnecessary in the first place? Why doesn't he realize that men, by following their instinct, would choose to farm on fertile ground, and to do business on an extensive, easily accessible coast without the interference from someone like Lycurgus, Solon or a Rousseau who could very well make a mistake?
Socialists Want Forced Conformity
Regardless, Rousseau burdens the creators, organizers, directors, legislators, and rulers of society with an enormous responsibility. As a result he is very 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 substitute for the physical and independent existence received from nature, an existence which is partial and moral.* In short, the would- be creator of political man must remove man's own forces and endow him with others that are naturally alien to him."
Poor human nature! What would happen to someone's dignity if it were in the hands of Rousseau's followers?
*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.
Legislators Desire to Mold Mankind
Let's look at what Raynal had to say on the topic of mankind being 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 populating with children, you need do nothing but let the seeds of truth germinate along with the development of reason.... But when you resettle a nation with a past into a new country, the skill of the legislator rests 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 a legislator should never establish a colony without first arranging to send wise men along to instruct the youth...."
In a new colony, there is a lot of opportunity for a careful legislator who wants to purify the customs and ways if his citizens. If he has virtue and genius, the land and the people at his disposal will inspire his soul with a plan for society. Authors can only speculate what that plan will be because it's just as unstable as any hypotheses; it's impossible to foresee every complication, circumstance, or problem that could occur.
Legislators Told How to Manage Men
Raynal's instructions to the legislators on how to manage people is similar to a professor of agriculture lecturing his students: "The climate is the first rule for the farmer. His resources determine his procedure. He must first consider location. If his soil is clay, he must do one thing and if the soil is sand does something else. Every facility is open to the farmer who wishes to clear and improve his soil. If he is good enough, the manure at his disposal will suggest to him a plan of operation. A professor can only speculate what that plan will be because it's just as instable as any hypotheses; it's impossible to foresee every complication, circumstance, or problem that could occur."
Oh, sublime writers! You should try to, at least occasionally, remember that this clay, sand, and manure you randomly dispose of are men! They are equals! They are your equals! They are rational, free human beings such as yourselves! In the same way you have, they also received from God the faculties of observation, planning ahead, thinking, and judging for themselves!
A Temporary Dictatorship
This is what Mably has to say on the subject of the law and legislator. Prior to the following quote, Mably has supposed that laws, due to a lack of security, are worn out. He continues with this:
"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 imagination of the citizens needs to be struck a hard blow."
This goes on for twenty volumes.
Under the influence of teaching like this -- which stems from classical education -- a time came when everyone wanted to be above the rest of man in order to arrange, organize, and regulate it in his own way.
Socialists Want Equality of Wealth
Now let's see what Condillac has to say:
"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 consciousness 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. Then 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 legislators themselves have almost always been ignorant of the purpose of society, which is the uniting of families by a common interest.
Impartiality in law consists of two things: the establishing of equality in wealth and equality in dignity among the citizens.... As the laws establish greater equality, they become proportionately 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 jealousy?
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
It really isn't that surprising that during the seventeenth and eighteenth century, man was considered inert matter, ready to receive everything -- form, face, energy, movement, life -- from either a great prince, legislator, or genius. These centuries were nourished on the study of antiquity. And antiquity displays everywhere -- in Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome -- the spectacle of a few men molding the rest of society according to their wills, thanks to the prestige of force and fraud. But that doesn't prove that that is what is ideal. It only shows that man and society are capable of improvement. It should naturally be expected that error, ignorance, despotism, slavery, and superstition be more prevalent nearer the start of history. The authors I quoted weren't wrong when they found ancient institutions to be that way, but they were wrong in stating that they should be a model for 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 didn't grasp that knowledge appears and grows throughout time; and that proportionately, might takes the side of right, and society reclaims possession of itself.
What Is Liberty?
So what political struggle are we looking at? It is the natural drive of man for liberty. And what is this liberty that shakes the world and makes the heart beat faster? Isn't it the union of all liberties -- conscience, education, association, the press, travel, labor, and trade? Basically, isn't liberty the freedom of everyone to fully use their abilities so long as they don't harm someone else? Isn't liberty the destruction of all despotism -- including legal despotism? Finally, isn't liberty the limiting of government to it's only rational task of allowing people the right to legal self-defense; of punishing injustice?
It has to be confessed that the drive of man towards liberty is thwarted a lot of the time, especially in France. This is due to a major mistake -- learned from antiquated teachings -- that our writers have in common: They desire to exalt themselves over society so that they can arrange, organize, and regulate man according to their whim.
Philanthropic Tyranny
While society is striving for liberty, these famous men who put themselves in charge are filled with the spirit of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. They only think about subjecting everyone to their tyrannical philanthropy as a result of their social creations. Like Rousseau, they want to force men to casually bear the burden of the public welfare that they pulled out of thin air.
This was especially true in 1789. 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 just a few of these writers and politicians of the era:
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 inflexible austerity of Lycurgus created the firm foundation of the 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's professed that people are nothing but raw material. It's not their responsibility to desire their own improvement; they couldn't possibly do so. According to Saint-Just, only the legislator can do that. People can only be what their legislator wants them to be. According to Robespierre, who literally copies Rousseau, the legislator says why the commonwealth was created. Once that is decided, the legislator only has to tell everyone and everything what to do to accomplish that purpose. And in the meantime people are supposed to be completely passive. And according to Billaud-Varennes, the people shouldn't have any prejudices, affections or desires unless the legislator tells them to. He evn says that the inflexible austerity of one man is the foundation of a republic.
And in the event where the supposed evil is too great for even governmental procedures to remedy, Mably suggests that there should be a dictatorship to promote virtue: "Resort," he says, "to an extraordinary tribunal with considerable powers for a short time. The imagination of the citizens needs to be 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 for 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
Look at how extraordinarily high Robespierre places himself above everyone! And listen to how arrogant he sounds. He isn't satisfied with just praying for a great reawakening of the human spirit. He doesn't even think a well ordered government could accomplish this. No, only he can do it and it can only be done through terror.
This mass of rotten and contradictory statements is taken from a discourse by Robespierre where he tries to lay out what principles of morality should guide a revolutionary government. And notice that he isn't just recommending a dictatorship for defending against foreign invasion or silencing opposition. No, he wants a dictatorship so he can terrorize in order to force his own view of morality on the people. He says that it would only be temporary until a new constitution is created but in reality, he only wishes to use terror to eliminate selfishness, honor, customs, manners, fashion, vanity, love of money, good companionship, intrigue, wit, sensuousness, and poverty from France. And not until he, the great Robespierre has accomplished these miracles, which is exactly what they would be if they were fulfilled, will he allow the law to rule 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."
This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.
