The Answer Is to Restrict the Law

by Frédéric Bastiat

　　I know what might be said in answer to this; what the objectionsmight be. But this is not the place to exhaust a controversy of thisnature. I wish merely to observe here that this controversy overuniversal suffrage (as well as most other political questions) whichagitates, excites, and overthrows nations, would lose nearly all ofits importance if the law had always been what it ought to be.

　　In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, allliberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than theorganized combination of the individual's right to self defense; iflaw were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression andplunder -- is it likely that we citizens would then argue much aboutthe extent of the franchise?

　　Under these circumstances, is it likely that the extent of theright to vote would endanger that supreme good, the public peace? Isit likely that the excluded classes would refuse to peaceably awaitthe coming of their right to vote? Is it likely that those who had theright to vote would jealously defend their privilege?

　　If the law were confined to its proper functions, everyone'sinterest in the law would be the same. Is it not clear that, underthese circumstances, those who voted could not inconvenience those whodid not vote?