The Seen and the Unseen
Either Frédéric Bastiat saw the socialistic Biden regime coming in his crystal ball, or socialists have learned nothing in the past 173 years. My vote goes for the latter.
I spoke to a great group of folks from Park City this morning via Zoom.
Called La Société Deux Magots, they define themselves as: “...the rightful heirs of a group of intellectuals who met daily at Café Deux Magots, in Paris, France in the 1930's. In the 1930's this area and cafe were the center of the existentialist movement associated with Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir. They, along with Hemingway, Camus and others would meet at Les Deux Magots, cogitating on the issues of the day.
They are “a non-partisan ROMEO (retired old men eating out) group.”
It was a great discussion, and I want to again say thank you to the group, especially my friend J.C. DeYoung, my partner in crime with the Summit County GOP and a conservative stalwart in her own right.
I spoke about the absolute and critical importance of maintaining our First Amendment rights to freedom of expression (i.e., speech), and in that conversation, I mentioned two things – 1) that in the world of speech, we have had some great advances through the internet and social media, but on the other hand, as we have seen, we also have opened the opportunity for our government to pressure private companies to censor us at the flip of a switch and 2) I quoted Frederic Bastiat’s definition of government in my closing remarks.
Those two things have been marinating in my head for the rest of the day and late this afternoon, when I finally got around to reading the Wall Street Journal, I saw an article that brought those two ideas together – the fact that often when something is created, something is destroyed and that government truly is the great fiction where everybody tries to live at the expense of everybody else.
The WSJ editorial written by the editorial board is titled: “Bidenomics and the New Political-Subsidy Economy”, in which they note that the massive economic meddling of the Biden Regime “produces effects that can be immediately seen—such as new factories—as well as harm that isn’t visible.” This is from Bastiat’s 1850 essay, titled: That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen.
Bastiat described the outcome of such a subsidized economy in an analogy about a plow:
This granted, what advantage is there in institutions of credit? It is, that they facilitate, between borrowers and lenders, the means of finding and treating with each other; but it is not in their power to cause an instantaneous increase of the things to be borrowed and lent. And yet they ought to be able to do so, if the aim of the reformers is to be attained, since they aspire to nothing less than to place ploughs, houses, tools, and provisions in the hands of all those who desire them.
And how do they intend to effect this?
By making the State security for the loan.
Let us try and fathom the subject, for it contains something which is seen, and also something which is not seen. We must endeavour to look at both.
We will suppose that there is but one plough in the world, and that two farmers apply for it.
Peter is the possessor of the only plough which is to be had in France; John and James wish to borrow it. John, by his honesty, his property, and good reputation, offers security. He inspires confidence; he has credit. James inspires little or no confidence. It naturally happens that Peter lends his plough to John.
But now, according to the Socialist plan, the State interferes, and says to Peter, "Lend your plough to James, I will be security for its return, and this security will be better than that of John, for he has no one to be responsible for him but himself; and I, although it is true that I have nothing, dispose of the fortune of the taxpayers, and it is with their money that, in case of need, I shall pay you the principal and interest." Consequently, Peter lends his plough to James: this is what is seen.
And the Socialists rub their hands, and say, "See how well our plan has answered. Thanks to the intervention of the State, poor James has a plough. He will no longer be obliged to dig the ground; he is on the road to make a fortune. It is a good thing for him, and an advantage to the nation as a whole."
Indeed, gentlemen, it is no such thing; it is no advantage to the nation, for there is something behind which is not seen.
It is not seen that the plough is in the hands of James, only because it is not in those of John.
It is not seen, that if James farms instead of digging, John will be reduced to the necessity of digging instead of farming.
Consequently, what was considered an increase of loan, is nothing but a displacement of loan. Besides, it is not seen that this displacement implies two acts of deep injustice.
It is an injustice to John, who, after having deserved and obtained credit by his honesty and activity, sees himself robbed of it.
It is an injustice to the tax-payers, who are made to pay a debt which is no concern of theirs.
The WSJ concludes:
“The IRA is the heart of Bidenomics, which is about creating a new political-subsidy economy. Perhaps all of this will effloresce into a brilliant green future. More likely hundreds of billions in misallocated investment will reduce future productivity gains and translate into slower economic and income growth. Let’s hope President Biden’s subsidies don’t boomerang like pandemic transfer payments, leaving all Americans poorer.”
Bastiat knew this 173 years ago. Democrats haven’t figured it out yet.
Socialism, as Bastiat and the writer both acknowledge, seeks to control the populace via unseen subtle measures which appear to be equitable, when in totality, they are not.
This observation by America’s most famous economist seems directly on point:
"The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both." – Milton Freidman
An "equal distribution of poverty".