-Caveat Lector-
MJ:
At the turn of the Century, ALL Government consumed 1% +/- of
an individual's earnings ... in the 1950s it was less than 10
percent. Currently the Government STEALS 50% +/- of an
individual's earnings and utilizes these 'just collections'
for unconstitutional programs.
Edward Britton wrote:
NOLO CONTENDRE!! You'll get no argument from me regarding
the inefficiencies of government revenue generation and/or
spending in any category. The only way in which we differ
are what constitutes necessary spending.
*I* alluded to something earlier but no one 'bit' ...
I. The Broken Window
Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper,
James B., when his careless son happened to break a
square of glass? If you have been present at such a
scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact,
that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty
of them, by common consent apparently, offered the
unfortunate owner this invariable consolation -- "It is
an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live,
and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass
were never broken?"
Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory,
which it will be well to show up in this simple case,
seeing that it is precisely the same as that which,
unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical
institutions.
Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you
say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's
trade -- that it encourages that trade to the amount of
six francs -I grant it; I have not a word to say against
it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his
task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in
his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that
which is seen.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as
is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break
windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the
encouragement of industry in general will be the result
of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! your
theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no
account of that which is not seen."
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs
upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is
not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he
would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added
another book to his library. In short, he would have
employed his six francs in some way, which this accident
has prevented.
Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected
by this circumstance. The window being broken, the
glazier's trade is encouraged to the amount of six
francs; this is that which is seen. If the window had
not been broken, the shoemaker's trade (or some other)
would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs;
this is that which is not seen.
And if that which is not seen is taken into
consideration, because it is a negative fact, as well
as that which is seen, because it is a positive fact,
it will be understood that neither industry in general,
nor the sum total of national labour, is affected,
whether windows are broken or not.
Now let us consider James B. himself. In the former
supposition, that of the window being broken, he spends
six francs, and has neither more nor less than he had
before, the enjoyment of a window.
In the second, where we suppose the window not to have
been broken, he would have spent six francs on shoes,
and would have had at the same time the enjoyment of a
pair of shoes and of a window.
Now, as James B. forms a part of society, we must come
to the conclusion, that, taking it altogether, and making
an estimate of its enjoyments and its labours, it has
lost the value of the broken window.
When we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: "Society
loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed;"
and we must assent to a maxim which will make the hair
of protectionists stand on end -- To break, to spoil,
to waste, is not to encourage national labour; nor,
more briefly, "destruction is not profit."
What will you say, Monsieur Industriel --what will you
say, disciples of good M. F. Chamans, who has calculated
with so much precision how much trade would gain by the
burning of Paris, from the number of houses it would be
necessary to rebuild?
I am sorry to disturb these ingenious calculations, as
far as their spirit has been introduced into our
legislation; but I beg him to begin them again, by
taking into the account that which is not seen, and
placing it alongside of that which is seen. The reader
must take care to remember that there are not two persons
only, but three concerned in the little scene which I
have submitted to his attention. One of them, James
B., represents the consumer, reduced, by an act of
destruction, to one enjoyment instead of two. Another
under the title of the glazier, shows us the producer,
whose trade is encouraged by the accident. The third
is the shoemaker (or some other tradesman), whose
labour suffers proportionably by the same cause. It
is this third person who is always kept in the shade,
and who, personating that which is not seen, is a
necessary element of the problem. It is he who shows
us how absurd it is to think we see a profit in an
act of destruction. It is he who will soon teach us
that it is not less absurd to see a profit in a
restriction, which is, after all, nothing else than
a partial destruction. Therefore, if you will only
go to the root of all the arguments which are adduced
in its favour, all you will find will be the paraphrase
of this vulgar saying -- What would become of the glaziers,
if nobody ever broke windows?
Frederic Bastiat 'That Which Is Seen and That Which Is NOT Seen
Regard$,
--MJ
Frederic Bastiat _That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Not Seen
http://www.bomis.com/cgi-bin/ring.cgi?page=5&ring=bastiat
Frederic Bastiat _The Law_
http://www.bomis.com/cgi-bin/ring.cgi?page=2&ring=bastiat
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
