Relationships to Society
"The Bastiat Collection" by Frédéric Bastiat is a series of essays and pamphlets that address various economic and political topics. Bastiat writes about advocating for free markets, limited government, and individual freedom. In these essays, Bastiat critiques various economic fallacies, such as protectionism. He argues that the market economy, driven by the pursuit of self-interest, is the best means of promoting prosperity and promoting the well-being of society. Bastiat also addresses the relationship between the state and the individual. He argues that the state's role should be limited to protecting individual rights and maintaining order and that it should not interfere in the workings of the market. He also critiques the idea of government intervention in the economy, arguing that such intervention often leads to unintended consequences and actually harms the people it is intended to help.
As I found myself reading, I genuinely felt myself begin to question what I thought for myself when it came to these ideas. Just how involved should a government be? This is touchy because each individual has such differing opinions or thoughts. I believe the government should play a role in our lives but to a fairly short extent. In the first reading I learned about The Law.
The Law
In Chapter 2, Bastiat offers a compelling argument for the role of the law in society. He says that the law should serve a single purpose: to protect the freedom and property of citizens. By doing so, it enables individuals to pursue their own interests, creating a virtuous cycle of economic growth and prosperity. Bastiat critiques laws that go beyond this purpose, such as those that grant monopolies, regulate commerce, or redistribute wealth. He argues that these laws harm society by taking away individual freedom. For example, monopolies stifle competition and limit innovation, while regulations often impose unnecessary costs on businesses and consumers alike. Bastiat believes that these types of laws serve the interests of special interest groups at the expense of the general public. “It is of the law itself, like monopolists of all kinds, that it wants to make an instrument; and when once it has the law on its side, how will you be able to turn the law against it? How will you place it under the power of your tribunals, your gendarmes, and of your prisons? What will you do then? You wish to prevent it from taking any part in the making of laws. You would keep it outside the Legislative Palace. In this you will not succeed, I venture to prophesy, so long as legal plunder is the basis of the legislation within.” (Bastiat, 2011, pg. 61). Here he is talking about how individuals can use the power of the law to benefit themselves and once they have that power it reaches everywhere. According to Bastiat, the law should be impartial and apply equally to all citizens. This means that the law should not be used to achieve personal or political gains, but rather to ensure that everyone has the freedom to pursue their own interests. This requires the law to be written in a clear and concise manner, so that it can be understood and applied evenly. The law should not be a tool of oppression, but rather a means of ensuring that society operates in a fair and just manner. Should the law be reformed to align with these principles? I find it very hard to say, it’s too difficult to predict the true outcomes. However, the law should have less involvement in our lives without a doubt. This chapter showed that the law should serve a single purpose: to protect the freedom and property of citizens. By doing so, it enables individuals to pursue their own interests and contributes to the overall prosperity of society.
The Government
In chapter three, Government, Bastiat argues that government's primary function is to protect individual rights and property. He asserts that without the protection of rights and property, society would devolve into chaos, as individuals would resort to violence to defend their own interests. Therefore, government must exist to ensure that everyone's rights and property are respected and protected. When government exceeds its mandate to protect individual rights and property, it can become a tool of oppression and injustice. Bastiat points out that this tendency of government to overstep its bounds is rooted in the tendency of individuals to seek benefits at the expense of others. He argues that government officials are not immune to this temptation and that, without proper checks and balances, theywill be prone to abuse their power. This leads to the rise of special interest groups and the concentration of power left to a few. “It is proved that Government cannot satisfy one party without adding to the labor of the others.” (Bastiat, 2011, pg. 99). This chapter continues to be relevant today. A clear and concise defense of the importance of limited government and individual rights, and warns against the dangers of government overreach has been handed to us, we just have to know how to use it.
The Tax on Light
One of my more favorite chapters was “"The 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" because it is a satirical essay. In this essay, Bastiat uses irony and humor to critique the concept of protectionism, the economic policy of shielding a country's domestic industries from foreign competition through tariffs and other restrictions. “What we pray for is that it may please you to pass a law ordering the shutting up of all windows, skylights, dormer-windows, outside and inside shutters, curtains, blinds, bull’s-eyes; in a word, of all openings, holes, chinks, clefts, and fissures, by or through which the light of the sun has been in use to enter houses, to the prejudice of the meritorious manufactures with which we flatter ourselves we have accommodated our country—a country that, in gratitude, ought not to abandon us now to a strife so unequal.” (Bastiat, 2011, p.228) This reference uses humor to clearly demonstrate just how foolish it would be to use protectionism to shield a country from foreign competition. It makes it beyond easy to agree with and understand at the same time.The essay is written in the form of a petition to the French legislative body, in which the candle makers request protection from the competition of the sun. They argue that the sun is a free source of light that is destroying their businesses and ask the government to put up a tax or a law that would force people to use candles instead of the sun. Bastiat uses this absurd request to highlight the flaws of protectionism. He points out that the candle makers are essentially asking the government to limit the freedom of individuals and restrict their choices, in order to benefit their own interests. “You have ceased to have any right to invoke the interest of the consumer; for, whenever his interest is found opposed to that of the producer, you sacrifice the former.” (Bastiat, 2011, pg. 230). To me, protectionism is not a solution to the problem of competition, but rather a barrier to progress and innovation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I’ve provides a clear and insightful analysis of the role of the state & government in society. Its been clear to see that the state is an important entity that has been created by society in order to protect individual rights and maintain order, but that its power must be limited in order to prevent it from becoming a threat to individual rights. These ideas continue to be relevant today and continue to inform college students like myself.
Reference:
Bastiat Fred́ eric. The Bastiat Collection. Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 2011 ́ .
Bastiat Image. The Nassau Institute.
I agree that Bastiat makes a strong case for the importance of the law in society. Bastiat's observations on the connection between freedom and the law are still valid today and have significant meaning for how we perceive the function of the state in society. His fundamental concept that the law should only exist to safeguard citizens' freedom and property—is a significant one that offers a framework for assessing the morality of laws and policies. Also important is Bastiat's disdain of laws that serve purposes other than these, such as those that grant monopolies, control trade, or redistribute wealth. His claim that these regulations undermine society by restricting individual freedom is especially true. It draws attention to the reality that regulations that go beyond simply defending individual rights may have unforeseen consequences including hindering competition, restricting innovation, and adding unneeded expenses for customers. I agree when you said > Bastiat points out that this tendency of government to overstep its bounds is rooted in the tendency of individuals to seek benefits at the expense of others." This is especially prevalent today, as politicians are making millions from insider trading in the stock market. These "public workers" are abusing their power to benefit themselves at the expense of others. I made a comment on another post that referenced how institutions are relatively fair concepts, as the employees technically can leave at any time. In regards to the government, most people are stuck and they do not have much of a voice against something as powerful as the US. The very people that have powerful roles in the government are leveraging their own status to benefit themselves at the expense of the taxpayer in this case -- who cannot stop paying taxes! At least in regard to institutions, employees can leave at their own free will and find another job if their skills are valuable. In the case of the government, people will be thrown in prison if they do not comply. There is minimal control over the government, which hurts the citizens in the end, as people in power inevitably abuse it. Overall, I agree with Bastiat that power should be at the will of the majority in society and limit the power held by the government. Unfortunately, the government has obtained more and more power little by little across time, which makes it difficult to stand up against, since there are very few blatant occasions that tyranny was tipped over the edge.
I agree with your point that the role of government should be limited and that that is what it was designed to do. The law is intended to protect citizens against injustice but it is often used to exacerbate injustice against those people it was meant to protect. Through taxation, tariffs, state-funded social programs, etc., the law oversteps its bounds and imposes actions upon its subjects; the very opposite of freedom. This perversion of the law stems from a fundamental drive for power that individuals possess, especially when they find themselves with authority. If government was decentralized then this power would be far from absolute and the law could function as intended. This idea was summed up nicely in the essay:
This idea that the few should rule the many is flawed. In a well-functioning society, the power should be left to the people and the government should be in place only to punish those who harm, or seek to harm, another person. There is a misconception that government is necessary for philanthropic programs that benefit the less fortunate. However, it is my belief that in a society free of legalized plunder, citizens would be more inclined to beneficence than in one with a powerful government. If that were truly the case, society would be better off for it because the less fortunate would be receiving comparable to better assistance, while the rest of the population is free from the tyranny of taxation and government interference. A truly free society would embrace competition in industry, as competition drives innovation. The real winner of this is the consumer, as product quality increases and price decreases. Although the “loser” of the competition may not be so happy, they can use their unused resources to develop another product. This sort of free market cycle provides a utilitarian good to the people that would be asinine to prevent. This sort of protectionism of industry serves to harm the consumer and in turn the entire economy. The less the government has its hands in our day to day lives, the better off and freer we will be.
I found your essay provides a very clear overview after highlighting Bastiat's views on taxation, limited government, and individual freedom. You provided a clear reflection on the content, indicating a good understanding of the reading.
I could not agree more with this statement. We count on the law to protect us and often see it as a real-life shield. However, often these days, we see the law used as unjustified treatment towards others or the power of having control of someone or something in the wrong matter. I also agree with the law only being allowed to protect our freedom and the properties of us citizens. With that being said, I believe there would be a significant shift in how people perceive the law as opposed to how they perceive it now.
When it comes to the government, I stand by Bastiat's arguments and thoughts on them. I find where Bastiat contends that the basic function of government is to protect individual rights and property since, in the absence of such protection, society would disintegrate is very informing. I can understand how the government may be twisted and bent in a variety of ways, allowing individuals to utilize it in their way rather than the correct one. To my understanding, the government can have numerous meanings to citizens, as other personal opinions and misconceptions about it. Our society would undoubtedly become more chaotic if our government did not exist; nonetheless, the government should exist solely to punish those who hurt or seek to harm, another person. I thought you did a good job of summarizing Bastiat's chapter's important points and painting a clear image of his view on government.
In your "Tax on Light" paragraph, you also emphasize Bastiat's primary ideas in the article, which criticizes the concept of protectionism and its influence on individual freedom and the market. The author discusses how Bastiat employs irony and humor to make his case, arguing that protectionism is a barrier to growth and innovation rather than a solution to competition.
Overall, I found that your essay serves as a great introduction to Frédéric Bastiat's theories and gives a brief review of the important issues in "The Bastiat Collection."