Pnewtext-04. qxd

which are contrary to liberty, to property, and to justice). That, in
government-endowed teaching positions, the professor rigor-
ously refrain from endangering in the slightest degree the
respect due to the laws now in force.”* 
Thus, if there exists a law which sanctions slavery or
monopoly, oppression or robbery, in any form whatever, it must
not ever be mentioned. For how can it be mentioned without
damaging the respect which it inspires? Still further, morality
and political economy must be taught from the point of view of
this law; from the supposition that it must be a just law merely
because it is a law.
Another effect of this tragic perversion of the law is that it
gives an exaggerated importance to political passions and con-
flicts, and to politics in general.
I could prove this assertion in a thousand ways. But, by way
of illustration, I shall limit myself to a subject that has lately
occupied the minds of everyone: universal suffrage.
Who Shall Judge?
The followers of Rousseau’s school of thought—who con-
sider themselves far advanced, but whom I consider twenty cen-
turies behind the times—will not agree with me on this. But uni-
versal suffrage—using the word in its strictest sense—is not one
10
*General Council of Manufacturers, Agriculture, and Commerce, May
6, 1850. 
pNEWTEXT-04.qxd  7/13/2004  11:34 AM  Page 10

---

of those sacred dogmas which it is a crime to examine or doubt.
In fact, serious objections may be made to universal suffrage.
In the first place, the word universal conceals a gross fal-
lacy. For example, there are 36 million people in France. Thus,
to make the right of suffrage universal, there should be 36 mil-
lion voters. But the most extended system permits only 9 million
people to vote. Three persons out of four are excluded. And
more than this, they are excluded by the fourth. This fourth per-
son advances the principle of incapacity as his reason for exclud-
ing the others. Universal suffrage means, then, universal suf-
frage for those who are capable. But there remains this question
of fact: Who is capable? Are minors, females, insane persons,
and persons who have committed certain major crimes the only
ones to be determined incapable?
The Reason Why Voting Is Restricted
A closer examination of the subject shows us the motive
which causes the right of suffrage to be based upon the supposi-
tion of incapacity. The motive is that the elector or voter does
not exercise this right for himself alone, but for everybody.
The most extended elective system and the most restricted
elective system are alike in this respect. They differ only in
respect to what constitutes incapacity. It is not a difference of
principle, but merely a difference of degree.
If, as the republicans of our present-day Greek and Roman
schools of thought pretend, the right of suffrage arrives with
11
pNEWTEXT-04.qxd  7/13/2004  11:34 AM  Page 11

---

one’s birth, it would be an injustice for adults to prevent women
and children from voting. Why are they prevented? Because
they are presumed to be incapable. And why is incapacity a
motive for exclusion? Because it is not the voter alone who suf-
fers the consequences of his vote; because each vote touches
and affects everyone in the entire community; because the peo-
ple in the community have a right to demand some safeguards
concerning the acts upon which their welfare and existence
depend.
The Answer Is to Restrict the Law
I know what might be said in answer to this; what the objec-
tions might be. But this is not the place to exhaust a controversy
of this nature. I wish merely to observe here that this contro-
versy over universal suffrage (as well as most other political
questions) which agitates, excites, and overthrows nations,
would lose nearly all of its importance if the law had always been
what it ought to be.
In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all
liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the
organized combination of the individual’s right to self defense; if
law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression
and plunder—is it likely that we citizens would then argue much
about the extent of the franchise?
Under these circumstances, is it likely that the extent of the
right to vote would endanger that supreme good, the public
peace? Is it likely that the excluded classes would refuse to
12
pNEWTEXT-04.qxd  7/13/2004  11:34 AM  Page 12

---

peaceably await the coming of their right to vote? Is it likely that
those who had the right to vote would jealously defend their
privilege?
If the law were confined to its proper functions, everyone’s
interest in the law would be the same. Is it not clear that, under
these circumstances, those who voted could not inconvenience
those who did not vote?
The Fatal Idea of Legal Plunder
But on the other hand, imagine that this fatal principle has
been introduced: Under the pretense of organization, regula-
tion, protection, or encouragement, the law takes property from
one person and gives it to another; the law takes the wealth of all
and gives it to a few—whether farmers, manufacturers,
shipowners, artists, or comedians. Under these circumstances,
then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logi-
cally so.
The excluded classes will furiously demand their right to
vote—and will overthrow society rather than not to obtain it.
Even beggars and vagabonds will then prove to you that they
also have an incontestable title to vote. They will say to you:
“We cannot buy wine, tobacco, or salt without paying the
tax. And a part of the tax that we pay is given by law—in privi-
leges and subsidies—to men who are richer than we are. Others
use the law to raise the prices of bread, meat, iron, or cloth.
Thus, since everyone else uses the law for his own profit, we also
would like to use the law for our own profit. We demand from
13
pNEWTEXT-04.qxd  7/13/2004  11:34 AM  Page 13

---