Bastiat Frédéric
The satirical essay "Petition of the Manufacturers of Candles, Waxlights, Lamps, Candlelights, Street Lamps, Snuffers, Extinguishers, and the Producers of Oil, Tallow, Resin, Alcohol, and, Generally, of Everything Connected with Lighting" by Frédéric Bastiat questions the notion of economic intervention by the government. In the essay, Bastiat imagines a group of candle manufacturers asking the government for protection from the recently found technology of sunlight, which is posing a threat to their business. The candle manufacturers look for the government to put a tax on windows to protect their industry, claiming that sunlight is a "free good" that is hurting their business and eliminating jobs. Bastiat effectively refutes government involvement in the economy with the help of this ridiculous scenario. He demonstrates how shielding some businesses from rivalry by the government merely protects inefficiency and stifles innovation. He also emphasizes the crazy premise that wealth is a set pie and that the only way for some to become wealthy is for others to become poorer, which is the foundation of the candle makers' argument. Bastiat asserts that the contrary is actually true. I am in agreement with Bastiat’s argument, as the poor of the 21st century are far better off than the poor of the 19th century. Think about what being poor meant to a person during the industrial revolution. Being poor meant that each person worked 12 hours a day 6-7 days a week in horrid conditions. Now the poor have access to the internet, which arguably has made success more egalitarian, and the worst job is flipping burgers and handing out overpriced coffees for 5 days a week. Based on my experience working at Starbucks, I did not risk having my hand chopped off daily like many workers did in the textile industry. I also leveraged the internet to create my own business, which now has clients all over the world. Steve Jobs created a product that allowed me to escape the already improving low-income job force. I will gladly spend $1,000 to have access to the greatest library in all of human history combined. Apple benefits from my purchase and I benefit from the value that I willingly choose to extrapolate from the product. It is a win-win scenario and not a win-lose scenario like the absurd pie comparison implies. Furthermore, the role of government should be to defend people's rights to engage in free exchange and competition, not to shield particular industries from competition, as these factors stimulate economic progress and create new wealth. Using comedy and satire, Bastiat's essay is a famous example of his sarcastic writing style, which he frequently employed to criticize government meddling in the economy. An example of this in Bastiat Frédéric. (2011) is when he says "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." Basically, the government meddling in society and the economy is mocked for frequently causing money to be redistributed from one group to another. According to Bastiat, people and organizations aim to exploit others and live off their labor by using the power of the state. Bastiat's "Petition of the Manufacturers of Candles, Waxlights, Lamps, Candlelights, Street Lamps, Snuffers, Extinguishers, and the Producers of Oil, Tallow, Resin, Alcohol, and, Generally, of Everything Connected with Lighting" is a clever essay that challenges the notion of government intervention in the economy. Bastiat uses his ridiculous scenario to make a clear-cut case for free markets, competition, and innovation while highlighting the perils of protectionism.
Frédéric Bastiat makes an argument for limited government and criticizes the notion of government involvement in the economy in his essay "Government." He contends that rather than meeting citizens' needs, the primary role of the government should be to safeguard individual rights and stop the use of force and coercion against people. He even makes the bold claim “(Government p8) The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!" He is basically explaining how power structures become corrupt over time as they attempt to adhere to the desires of the people. In reality, this just gives those in power more power. People in power should not involve themselves in a variety of matters to stray away from this. He also claims that the production of new commodities and services as a result of the free trade of goods and services in a market economy is the real source of wealth. According to Bastiat, government interference in the economy through policies like protectionism and subsidies is detrimental since it distorts the market and causes the misallocation of resources. This is evident in the current economic landscape, as the Fed has pumped trillions of dollars worth of liquidity in the economy, via QE. This will have detrimental consequences in the future, since they created a large asset bubble that will eventually be popped. It is best to let recessions occur naturally instead of artificially stimulating the economy, as the landing will be even harder in the future. Bastiat contends that protecting specific businesses from competition is not the fundamental function of government, but rather safeguarding peoples' freedoms of exchange and competition. Bails outs from the government should not be commonplace. The banks have had it too easy the past decade as the government will not let them fail, which increases risky behavior. In summary, the essay "Government" makes a strong case for limited government while also criticizing the notion of governmental interference in the economy.
In his article "The Law," Frédéric Bastiat criticized the notion of governmental involvement in society and promoted the value of limited government. According to Bastiat "The Law" (1850 p6), the state is the great fiction by which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." What he is saying here is that the law should not be used to redistribute wealth or to obstruct the market's free trade of goods and services, nor should it be used to advance the interests of some groups at the detriment of others. He says the importance of free markets is competition. According to Bastiat, all citizens should be treated equally under the law, which should be unbiased, impartial, and fair. He also contends that rather than meeting citizens' needs, the government's job should be to safeguard individual rights. The assumption that the government should meet the needs of its people, according to him, is founded on the absurd notion that wealth is a set pie, and that the only way for some to become wealthy is for others to become poorer, as stated earlier in this paper. According to Bastiat, the development of new goods and services as a result of the division of labor and the free interchange of goods and services in a market economy is the actual source of wealth. He contends that economic interventions by the government, such as protectionism and subsidies, are detrimental because they distort markets and cause resource allocation to be inefficient. This distortion of markets will have terrible effects later on, once markets come back to reality. In contrast to meeting its citizens' wants, he contends that the job of government should be to safeguard individual rights and forbid the use of force or coercion against them. To sum up, "The Law" is a potent essay that challenges the notion of governmental involvement in society and promotes the value of limited government. According to Bastiat, the purpose of the law should be restricted to defending the rights of citizens to life, liberty, and property while also discouraging the use of compulsion and force against them. He asserts that rather than meeting the needs of its people, the government's responsibility should be to safeguard individual rights and permit the free trade of commodities and services in the market.
I do believe that humankind, as a whole, is much better off than we were in the 19th century. However, comparing life two centuries ago to life now is similiar to comparing apples and oranges. Technology has advanced astronomically. This has allowed for new machines to be built which replace jobs that previously required manual labor. But that also means that we need people to build and control these machines. New jobs have been created that are equally as difficult to those in the 19th cenutry, they just require a different skill set. It may seem like the poorer population is making more money and they have better benefits, which is true to some degree. Although, it has a lot to do with the state of our economy, which has changed drastically. Minimum wage seems to have risen in comparison to the wages in the 19th century. Inflation plays a huge role in this matter though. For example, in 1870, an acre of land in Washington state usually cost around $5. In January of 2023, it was determined that an acre of land in the same area goes for about $13,000. I would have to disagree with your statement that the poorer now are better off because I believe it is very difficult to compare the two.
I agree with this conclusion completely. The government should not be allowed to control and block manufacturers from taking part in trading with other producers. A smaller and less "involved" government would allow citizens to exercise their individual rights. Manufacturers of all kinds would have the ability to gather goods that they would not have access to otherwise. For example, if France was not allowed to trade with other countries, they would not have coal, corn, petroleum gas, or aircraft parts. It would be nearly impossible to function without some of these materials. It is within each citizen's right to engage in free trade and competition, if the government controls these aspects of their lives, many people will lash out and they will no longer support their government. Bastiat's essay, "Petition of the Manufacturers of Candles, Waxlights, Lamps, Candlelights, Street Lamps, Snuffers, Extinguishers, and the Producers of Oil, Tallow, Resin, Alcohol, and, Generally, of Everything Connected with Lighting", displays a perfect example of how ridiculous it would be for the government to block their citizens from their individual rights. The foreign competitor he portrays is the Sun. Blocking natural light would be absurd, as it is given to us without needing anything in return. Similarly, keeping citizens from engaging in free exchange and competition does not make sense whatsoever.
I agree that the introduction of the internet, and the following advances in technology, have greatly improved the ability to produce one's own wealth. It allows individuals to start a business with nothing required beyond a smartphone or computer, whereas in the past many businesses faced issues purchasing or leasing commercial real estate, had to spend exponentially more to advertise in inefficient and expensive methods, and needed to invest heavily in shipping and logistics when needed. These advances have made commercial success for classes that previously had no access to such opportunities.
I would disagree that this point is "crazy." Throughout the last few years, we have seen corporations reduce their workforce by thousands and continually raise prices on their goods and services, all while leadership grows richer. Unfortunately, there is a finite amount of wealth available in the world, and as corporate greed grows, the divide between the wealthy and the middle class grows as well. If one's only method of gaining wealth is not to take it from another, there would be no professional competition leading to lower prices, higher quality, or faster production times. Companies must push each other forward to continue to profit more, leading to their competitors making less and less. While Bastiat's argument is exaggerated, as no sane government would truly limit the amount of sunlight admitted, it is not based on foolish ideals. When a government truly favors the "corporate ideals" (i.e., the need for sunlight to be limited), they not only create challenges for their citizens (such as the need to cover holes, cracks, and openings in a wall), but they create greater financial burden to overcome those obstacles (such as purchasing more lamps, candles, oils, etc.).
I agree with your stance that the poor in the 21st century is way better off than the century before, illustrating that even the poor and making progress since the beginning of time. On the other hand, this is due to the economy changing. For example, minimal wage might have increased of a few decades but that is due to inflation and the cost of goods increasing. So yes, they may be better off but that does not mean it is any easier then the previous years. As you stated a few lines further than for someone to become rich is for someone to become poorer is a tricky topic. There is the sang that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer which I think is true to some degree. Sure, some of the huge companies get rich by us spending our money; however, there are far more opportunities for poor to get rich without helping the rich. Especially in todays world where it seems like a middle school can become a millionaire. I would have to disagree with you when you stated
Sure it seems more dangerous but the world as a whole back then was more dangerous than it is now. If you look at the poor back then, it is equivalent to the poor now, the only difference is the world has changed drastically. Sure, the poor could have their hands chopped off during work, but most people that are considered poor are taking manual labor jobs that pose just a great of a threat than back then. I would also have to disagree with you stance involving the company Apple. Sure you get endless resources that can help you improve your overall life; however, there is no denying that technology is put a hold on may individuals IQ. I would like to say that more than not, people with iphones are using them in negative ways rather than positive ways. Children are spending hours upon hours on social media which hurts individuals in many way. They use there phones to their advangtage with homework as well. All you have to do is type in the question and the answer appears in less then 3 seconds. I do agree that the government should help citizens get resources rather than shut them off due to it being from a foreign country. I agree that the law is every kind of greed, because laws put a restriction on individuals, and those who make the laws are somehow above the law because they created them. Even though we may had our differences, I loved reading your paper, for it gave me a more open-mind about the article.