The Law of Bastiat
Socialism defends those who are unwilling to assimilate the burden of responsibility
As Bastiat poses, one of the biggest mistakes of previous civilizations that still plague communities today was to expect the governments’ donations to the well-being of citizens. And I agree to categorize it as a mistake because it breeds a society capable of blaming the government for their misfortunes, that has no incentive to thrive or seek better living conditions, and that doesn’t have the competence to apply their natural liberties and choose a path.
When the law limits itself to defend the personhood, freedom, and property of an individual, it leaves people with the power to craft their life and steer it toward their aspirations (within legal parameters). As a result, they inevitably shoulder the risk that comes with making their own decisions, granting themselves the glory of their successes or the torment of their failures.
However, when the law extends beyond protecting people’s naturally occurring rights, it takes away their responsibility to create their desired quality of life and the urgency to find the means to survive because they expect the government to do so. In turn, the government transfers this responsibility to others, who must through legalized plunder or otherwise known as socialism, provide for those who simply think that there are things in the world that are free. I believe nothing in the world is free, and if the law is promising just that, it’s preying on the idleness of people.
To what extent are liberties defended
I find myself conflicted over some of the arguments Bastiat proposes. He opposes the involvement of the law in the “rules of labor”, but I think this intercession is necessary to defend the liberties of a person. In addition, I doubt that in the absence of law, society will find the impulse to create a fair labor domain.
We currently have freedom of labor, yet we have an unlivable wage. Automatically, the law is failing to defend our liberties because it does not support life, our most natural and fundamental right. In fact, I think it does the opposite of what Bastiat defends. Without government intervention, the greedy can profit from undervalued labor, and the workforce might be more pushed to rely on the government to provide healthcare, pensions, education, etc. that they otherwise cannot afford.
Bastiat predicted that slavery would tip the political “balance” of the United States by not defending the liberties of non-white citizens, and I think that without government influence in fair labor rules, they could enslave the low to middle-class. The question relies on what would a livable wage represent, attempting to avoid crossing the line between livable and guaranteeing “well-being” as that shouldn’t be guaranteed by the government.
Taxation as imperfect plunder
Bastiat recognizes that in order for the government to protect the liberties of its people, it must take from its citizens, yet it denominates taxation (without consent or compensation) as legal plunder. After taxations are paid, the government can take the public’s demands into consideration, but it is not obligated to act in such a way, partly because it is impossible. The government can’t feasibly satisfy all the competing interests of their constituents, some of who may prioritize healthcare more than transportation, education over the military, and so on.
The government is in a position to lawfully take the hard-earned money of some constituents to satisfy the interests of others, and in that sense, I do understand why he considers it a form of plunder.
I think it’s important to defend the further privatization of areas like education and transportation because they allow each citizen to choose what they want their efforts to support. However, I don’t think the government should halt taxation altogether. I support them when it comes to caring for infrastructure, roads, or the military, but it’s difficult to draw the line as to where they should stop.
The law defends your liberties and your property, from what?
Healthcare is one of the issues that I battled with the most when reading Bastiat’s ideas. Illness sometimes extends beyond our control, so it’s easy to expect somebody else to take care of us in our most vulnerable moments. Nonetheless, we cannot blame others or the government for disease or aging, therefore I understand why Bastiat does not want to make them responsible for the consequences.
He argues that the law should only be in the business of defending our liberties, but, in a manner, doesn’t illness and old age attack our liberties? Should the law’s defense only stop when the threat comes from other human beings, or should it extend to the ultimatums of our own biology?
The law today does not defend our liberties to education
In my opinion, people don’t have access to quality education because the government has failed to defend people’s natural rights. At its core, liberty signals the existence of options, and therefore, the ability to choose. However, current districting laws leave some children with only one option to choose from, hindering their freedom.* In order for the law to defend the liberties of children, districting laws should encompass several public schools in each district*. The competition amongst each other would increase the quality of education in all areas and therefore promote equality in the nation.