The Leader of the Democrats

by Frédéric Bastiat

　　Now let us examine Rousseau on this subject. This writer onpublic affairs is the supreme authority of the democrats. Andalthough he bases the social structure upon the will of the people, hehas, to a greater extent than anyone else, completely accepted thetheory of the total inertness of mankind in the presence of thelegislators:

　　 "If it is true that a great prince is rare, then is it nottrue that a great legislator is even more rare? The prince has only tofollow the pattern that the legislator creates. The legislator is themechanic who invents the machine; the prince is merely the workman whosets it in motion.

　　 And what part do persons play in all this? They are merelythe machine that is set in motion. In fact, are they not merelyconsidered to be the raw material of which the machine is made?"

　　Thus the same relationship exists between the legislator and theprince as exists between the agricultural expert and the farmer; andthe relationship between the prince and his subjects is the same asthat between the farmer and his land. How high above mankind, then,has this writer on public affairs been placed? Rousseau rules overlegislators themselves, and teaches them their trade in theseimperious terms:

　　 "Would you give stability to the state? Then bring theextremes as closely together as possible. Tolerate neither wealthypersons nor beggars.

　　 If the soil is poor or barren, or the country too small forits inhabitants, then turn to industry and arts, and trade theseproducts for the foods that you need.... On a fertile soil -- if youare short of inhabitants -- devote all your attention to agriculture,because this multiplies people; banish the arts, because they onlyserve to depopulate the nation....

　　 If you have extensive and accessible coast lines, then coverthe sea with merchant ships; you will have a brilliant but shortexistence. If your seas wash only inaccessible cliffs, let the peoplebe barbarous and eat fish; they will live more quietly -- perhapsbetter -- and, most certainly, they will live more happily.

　　 In short, and in addition to the maxims that are common toall, every people has its own particular circumstances. And this factin itself will cause legislation appropriate to the circumstances."

　　 This is the reason why the Hebrews formerly -- and, morerecently, the Arabs -- had religion as their principle objective.The objective of the Athenians was literature; of Carthage and Tyre,commerce; of Rhodes, naval affairs; of Sparta, war; and of Rome,virtue. The author of The Spirit of Laws has shown by what art thelegislator should direct his institutions toward each of theseobjectives.... But suppose that the legislator mistakes his properobjective, and acts on a principle different from that indicated bythe nature of things? Suppose that the selected principle sometimescreates slavery, and sometimes liberty; sometimes wealth, andsometimes population; sometimes peace, and sometimes conquest? Thisconfusion of objective will slowly enfeeble the law and impair theconstitution. The state will be subjected to ceaseless agitationsuntil it is destroyed or changed, and invincible nature regains herempire.

　　But if nature is sufficiently invincible to regain its empire, whydoes not Rousseau admit that it did not need the legislator to gain itin the first place? Why does he not see that men, by obeying their owninstincts, would turn to farming on fertile soil, and to commerce onan extensive and easily accessible coast, without the interference ofa Lycurgus or a Solon or a Rousseau who might easily be mistaken.