Should Teen-agers Vote?

Extension of the voting franchise has been a feature of popular clamor ever since the appearance of democratic institutions. Why? Why do citizens put more emphasis on voting than on jury duty, for instance? Why is voting thought of as a privilege to be sought rather than a duty to be performed? The real reason is rarely advanced in our times. So, let’s turn back to the troubled France of 1848 and reflect with that brilliant analyst and exposure of political sham, Frederic Bastiat. As if writing for us today, he supplies the answers with crystal clarity.

Since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain—and since labor is pain in itself—it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. His­tory shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither re­ligion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the meas­ures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate with­out the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must he entrusted to those who make the laws.

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, ex­plains the almost universal per­version of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the in­vincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.

Victims of Lawful Plunder

Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are vic­tims. Thus, when plunder is or­ganized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter—by peaceful or revolution­ary means—into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two en­tirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws!

Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes uni­versal. And then, men seek to bal­ance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of root­ing out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This ob­jective would demand more en­lightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.

It is as if it were necessary, be­fore a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribu­tion—some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understand­ing.

The Results of Legal Plunder

It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conver­sion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would re­quire volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most strik­ing.

In the first place, it erases from everyone’s conscience the distinc­tion between justice and injustice.

No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality con­tradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" be­cause law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them….

Another effect of this tragic perversion of the law is that it gives an exaggerated importance to political passions and conflicts, and to politics in general.

I could prove this assertion in a thousand ways. But, by way of illustration, I shall limit myself to a subject that has lately occupied the minds of everyone: universal suffrage.

Who Shall Judge?

The followers of Rousseau’s school of thought—who consider themselves far advanced, but whom I consider twenty centuries behind the times—will not agree with me on this. But universal suffrage—using the word in its strictest sense—is not one of those sacred dogmas which it is a crime to examine or doubt. In fact, serious objections may be made to universal suffrage.

In the first place, the word uni­versal conceals a gross fallacy. For example, there are 36 million people in Franc. Thus, to make the right of suffrage universal, there should be 36 million voters. But the most extended system per­mits only 9 million people to vote. Three persons out of four are excluded. And more than this, they are excluded by the fourth. This fourth person advances the principle of incapacity as his rea­son for excluding the others.

Universal suffrage means, then, universal suffrage for those who are capable. But there remains this question of fact: Who is capable? Are minors, females, in­sane persons, and persons who have committed certain major crimes the only ones to be de­termined incapable?

A closer examination of the sub­ject shows us the motive which causes the right of suffrage to be based upon the supposition of in­capacity. The motive is that the elector or voter does not exercise this right for himself alone, but for everybody.

The most extended elective sys­tem and the most restricted elec­tive system are alike in this re­spect. They differ only in respect to what constitutes incapacity. It is not a difference of principle, but merely a difference of degree.

If, as the republicans of our present-day Greek and Roman schools of thought pretend, the right of suffrage arrives with one’s birth, it would be an in­justice for adults to prevent wom­en and children from voting. Why are they prevented? Because they are presumed to be incapable. And why is incapacity a motive for exclusion? Because it is not the voter alone who suffers the conse­quences of his vote; because each vote touches and affects everyone in the entire community; because the people in the community have a right to demand some safe­guards concerning the acts upon which their welfare and existence depend.

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

In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liber­ties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the or­ganized combination of the indi­vidual’s right to self-defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder—is it likely that we citi­zens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?

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

If the law were confined to its proper functions, everyone’s in­terest in the law would be the same. Is it not clear that, under these circumstances, those who voted could not inconvenience those who did not vote?

The Fatal Idea of Legal Plunder

But on the other hand, imagine that this fatal principle has been introduced: Under the pretense of organization, regulation, protec­tion, or encouragement, the law takes property from one person and gives it to another; the law takes the wealth of all and gives it to a few—whether farmers, manufacturers, ship-owners, art­ists, or comedians. Under these circumstances, then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so.

The excluded classes will furi­ously demand their right to vote—and will overthrow society rather than not to obtain it. Even beggars and vagabonds will then prove to you that they also have an incontestable title to vote. They will say to you:

"We cannot buy wine, tobacco, or salt without paying the tax. And a part of the tax that we pay is given by law—in privileges and subsidies—to men who are richer than we are. Others use the law to raise the prices of bread, meat, iron, or cloth. Thus, since everyone else uses the law for his own profit, we also would like to use the law for our own profit. We demand from the law the right to relief, which is the poor man’s plunder. To obtain this right, we also should be voters and legis­lators in order that we may organ­ize Beggary on a grand scale for our own class, as you have or­ganized Protection on a grand scale for your class. Now don’t tell us beggars that you will act for us, and then toss us… [a few] francs to keep us quiet, like throw­ing us a bone to gnaw. We have other claims. And anyway, we wish to bargain for ourselves as other classes have bargained for themselves!"

And what can you say to an­swer that argument!

As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose—that it may violate property instead of protecting it—then everyone will want to par­ticipate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be preju­dicial, dominant, and all-absorb­ing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious….

How to Identify Legal Plunder

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of an­other by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without com­mitting a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil it­self, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law—which may be an isolated case—is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, de­fending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obli­gated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this pro­cedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pre­tense of organizing it….

The Choice Before Us

This question of legal plunder must be settled once and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:

1.                   The few plunder the many.

2.                   Everybody plunders every­body.

3.                   Nobody plunders anybody.

We must make our choice among limited plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder. The law can fol­low only one of these three.

Limited legal plunder: This sys­tem prevailed when the right to vote was restricted. One would turn back to this system to pre­vent the invasion of socialism.

Universal legal plunder: We have been threatened with this system since the franchise was made universal. The newly en­franchised majority has decided to formulate law on the same prin­ciple of legal plunder that was used by their predecessors when the vote was limited.

No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic….

The Proper Function of the Law

And, in all sincerity, can any­thing more than the absence of plunder be required of the law? Can the law—which necessarily requires the use of force—ration­ally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social per­version that can possibly be imag­ined. It must be admitted that the true solution—so long searched for in the area of social relation­ships—is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice.

Now this must be said: When justice is organized by law—that is, by force—this excludes the idea of using law (force) to or­ganize any human activity what­ever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or religion. The or­ganizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy the essential organization—justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being used against the liber­ty of citizens without its also being used against justice, and thus act­ing against its proper purpose?

Here I encounter the most pop­ular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philan­thropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citi­zen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intel­lectual, and moral self-improve­ment. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend wel­fare, education, and morality throughout the nation.

This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again: these two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.

Bastiat’s The Law, from which the above paragraphs are ex­cerpted, is available from the Foundation for Economic Educa­tion, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York 10533.