Frédéric Bastiat’s Distinction between Legal and Illegal Plunder
Yüklə 0,57 Mb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
In the essay “The Physiology of Plunder” which opened Economic Sophisms II Bastiat sketches out the main types of plunder which had emerged in history: war, slavery, theocracy, and monopoly. Historically, societies and their ruling elites which lived from plunder had evolved through alternating periods of conflict, where the elites fought for control of the state, and periods of “truce”, where plunder became regularized until another rivalrous group of plunderers sought control of the state. In a letter to Mme Cheuvreux (23 June 1850) Bastiat observes that: ... our history will be seen as having only two phases, the periods of conflict as to who will take control of the State and the periods of truce, which will be the transitory reign of a triumphant oppression, the harbinger of a fresh conflict. 16 The immediate historical origins of the modern French state were the aristocratic and theological elites which rose to dominance in the Old Regime and which were challenged for control of the state first by socialist-minded reformers under Robespierre during the Terror and then by the military elites under Napoleon. The defeat of Napoleon had led to a temporary return of the aristocratic and theological elites until they were again overthrown in another Revolution, this time one in which Bastiat played an active role as elected politician, journalist, and economic theoretician. Bastiat examines in some detail the part played by the aristocracy in the essay “The Working Class and the Bourgeoisie” (22 May 1847), Sophisms from Le Libre-Échange, and he devotes a surprising amount of space to analyzing “theocratic plunder” in “The Physiology of Plunder”. On the rise of the aristocracy he states: Between a nation and its aristocracy, we clearly see a deep dividing line, an undeniable hostility of interests, which sooner or later can only lead to strife. The aristocracy has come from outside; it has conquered Page 14 16
its place by the sword and dominates through force. Its aim is to turn the work done by the vanquished to its own advantage. It seizes land, has armies at its disposal and arrogates to itself the power to make laws and expedite justice. In order to master all the channels of influence, it has not even disdained the functions, or at least the dignities, of the church. In order not to weaken the esprit de corps that is its lifeblood, it transmits the privileges it has usurped from father to son by way of primogeniture. The aristocracy does not recruit from outside its ranks, or if it does so, it is because it is already on the slippery slope. 17 In the period in which he was living, the modern state had evolved to the point where a large, permanent, professional class of bureaucrats carried out the will of the sovereign power (which was King Louis Philippe during the July Monarchy 1830-1848, and then the “People” in the Second Republic following the Revolution of February 1848) to tax, regulate, and subsidize a growing part of the French economy. Three aspects of the growth of the state on which Bastiat had focussed his opposition in the mid- and late 1840s were protectionist tariffs on imported goods, taxation, and the government subsidization of the unemployed in the National Workshops during 1848. As the state expanded in size and the scope of its activities it began supplying an ever larger number of “public services” which were funded by the taxpayers. Bastiat had a stern view of these developments and viewed any “public service” which went beyond the bare minimum of police and legal services as “a disastrous form of parasitism”. 18 Using his favourite stock figure of Jacques Bonhomme (John Everyman) in order to make his points Bastiat compares the “forced sale” of “public services” - or “legal parasitism” of the French bureaucracy - to the actions of the petty thief who indulges in mere “illegal Page 15
17 “The Working Class and the Bourgeoisie” 22 May 1847, Sophisms from Le Libre-Échange, pp. 11-12. 18
(or extralegal) parasitism” when he takes Jacques’ property by breaking into his house.
19 vi.The “Malthusian” Limits to State Plunder Although the plundering elites were voracious in their appetite for the taxpayers’ property, Bastiat believed there was an upper limit to how much they could take because countervailing forces came into operation to check their growth. Firstly, widespread plunder and regulation of the economy hampered productive growth and made society less productive and prosperous than it might otherwise have been. A good example of this Bastiat thought was evidenced by slave societies where the productivity of slave labour was considerably less than that of free labour. By locking themselves into a slave-based economy the slave owners deprived themselves of further economic gains. This invariable constraint is a marvelous thing. In its absence, provided that there were a stable balance of power between the oppressors and the oppressed, Plunder would have no end. When the constraint obtains, this balance always tends to be broken, either because the Despoilers become aware of the loss of wealth in question, or, where this awareness is lacking, because the ill constantly grows worse and it is in the nature of things that constantly deteriorate to come to an end. In fact, there comes a time when, in its gradual acceleration, the loss of wealth is so great that Despoilers are less rich than they would have been if they had remained honest. 20 Page 16 19 “III. Taxes”, in What is Seen and What is Not Seen, pp. 15-16. 20 “1. The Physiology of Plunder” in Economic Sophisms II, p. 5-6. Yüklə 0,57 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|