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
Vol 1 Works, Letter 176 to Mme Cheuvreux, 23 June 1850. p. 252.
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
“The Middlemen” in What is Seen and What is Not Seen, p. 33.
(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.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |