"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else." - Frédéric Bastiat, 1848

Bastiat perfectly summarizes the perverse nature of governance in this quote from his essay, "The State." But it is in his magnum opus, "The Law," in which he systematically and categorically lays out the foundations of just governance, ultimately arriving at the conclusion that "law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle to injustice. In short, law is justice."

Similarities to Anarcho-Capitalism

Although his death was premature and his works largely left incomplete, I believe his conclusions in "The Law" would have ultimately landed him in favor of free market anarchism, as it is, in my opinion, the only political framework which logically follows from his belief that "law is justice." Although Bastiat did not ever condemn the existence of some form of governance in general, many of his positions support the complete abolition of any form of coercive governance. A number of arguments he makes within "The Law" support this claim, albeit they stop short of arriving at privatized law. I will, however, use Bastiat's arguments to defend this view as I believe they are in no way contradictory to the free market anarchist position.

It is fair, upon reading Bastiat's work, to state that any objection on his part to an anarchist solution to the problem of governance would be purely a matter of practicality in the immediate sense. There was simply no such position as anarcho-capitalism, nor had many of its practical aspects been laid out. This, I believe, is the only circumstance that would have prevented Bastiat from embracing the position, as his faith in the prosperity that comes with a free society was immense. One could even argue that Bastiat was aware that privatized solutions to many of the issues of the time were not prevalent nor even theorized, such as schooling and banking, much less a privatized system of governance itself. This is perhaps evidenced through Bastiat's degree of open-endedness in his calls for law to simply equate to "justice." He perhaps did not himself even know what a system arranged in this fashion might look like, although he did describe in great detail the moral foundations upon which the anarcho-capitalist ideology is founded.

A few examples from Bastiat's "The Law" reinforce this claim. Firstly, he describes the role of law in relation to the use of force. He states that "...law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force." Following this logic, and maintaining Bastiat's stance that the "proper functions of force" only entail those which negate injustice and plunder, one can only arrive at a voluntary system of law. This is true, for anything to the contrary would entail acts of injustice and plunder on the part of the very entity aimed at negating such acts. This is perfectly in tune with the anarcho-capitalist belief in a privatized system of voluntary legal protections, although such ideas would not be laid out for many decades to come. Bastiat's work nonetheless serves as a valuable intellectual precursor to the fundamental concepts of the anarcho-capitalist stance.

Bastiat further trends toward anarcho-capitalism, stating "although mankind is not perfect, still, all hope rests upon the free and voluntary actions of persons within the limits of right." This is a fundamental, underlying belief of the anarcho-capitalist ideology. Bastiat continues: "law or force is to be used for nothing except the administration of universal justice." Surely, this must mean that law itself must be rooted in "the free and voluntary actions" of man, meaning privatization, not the coercive forms of government that can only be upheld through taxation and democracy at best and dictatorial confiscation and redistribution of all property at worst. This, of course, is not proposed as a solution by Bastiat. I do hold, however, that he would be logically inclined to agree so long as he could be convinced of the practicality of such a solution.

Bastiat Critiques Socialism

I would also like to touch on the various critiques Bastiat makes regarding the inherent wrongness of socialism. Bastiat attacks socialism for its contradictory logic in attempting to resolve social and economic matters. Speaking of democratic socialists, he states "so far as they are democratic, they place unlimited faith in mankind. But so far as they are social, they regard mankind as little better than mud." Bastiat highlights the irony in upholding democracy as a sort of golden ideal - in ensuring that every voice is heard - and then turning right around and refusing to hear a word of opposition when such a voice is unfavorable to their system and their rule. Further, if mankind is imperfect and self-interested, are elected officials not subject to these same flaws? These criticisms render the socialist ideology entirely logically contradictory.

In what Bastiat refers to as "the seductive lure of socialism," he points out the "philanthropic" nature of those who call themselves socialists (who often claim this philanthropy is sure to uphold freedom and prosperity,) despite the inherent necessity of first violating liberties to then redistribute plundered property. This, of course, is philanthropy only in the same sense as is gifting a man a wheelchair after cutting off his legs. Bastiat summarizes this point as follows: "I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed."

A final point I will highlight that is made by Bastiat is made in defense of a common critique made by those who oppose socialism, and it is still quite relevant to this day. He states "...every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all." Free-market advocates do not oppose the flourishing of society, we merely understand that the best means of achieving such an ideal is through freedom from any form of coercion. We offer private, voluntary solutions to the issues faced by society rather than government solutions inevitably rooted in corruption, plunder, and violence.

In class I will discuss:

1. The similarities between the conclusions reached by Bastiat and the modern anarcho-capitalist position.
2. Bastiat's criticisms of socialist "philanthropy."
3. Bastiat's criticisms of democratic socialism.
4. The idea that opposing government solutions to socioeconomic issues does not mean opposing a solution to the issues whatsoever.