Talk:Frédéric Bastiat/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article rewrite

Okay, I've started reworking this article from the top down adding sources, expanding commentary, etc. Anyone else who can find sourcing for any claims that already exist here would be doing a great service. I'm loathe to wipe the entire unsourced portion, but it is substantial, and must be rewritten and sourced so as to really meet the standards of this project. I would also note that I have not examined sections below those I've edited to determine how sensical they are—that is, whether they can or ought to be salvaged at all. I know that in my initial scan of the text there appeared to be some formatting shenanigans in play, with ALL CAPS, etc. being utilized for effect. Bastiat is important enough to merit a more professional-looking article on Wikipedia. Dick Clark 03:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Liberal?

This seems to me like something of a revisionist attempt to claim Bastiat for classical liberalism, probably as part of the revisionist attempt to claim classical liberalism as proto-libertarianism. I would be very interested to know whether anyone before Hayek and the like ever called him a liberal. - Jmabel | Talk 23:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not really understand, are you claiming that Bastiat was not a liberal? Intangible 22:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying I'm not at all sure he was viewed as one in his own time. Do we have any citations for that? - Jmabel | Talk 05:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel, you seem to be taking issue with the fact that that the article seems to be attempting to "claim" Bastait "for" classical liberalism. However, I think you would be hard pressed to find a source that would not classify Bastiat as either a classical liberal or a proto-Austrian libertarian. Indeed, Bastiat's views were perhaps even more radically libertarian than some "traditional" classical liberals such as Thomas Jefferson. Whether or not the term "classical liberal" or "liberal" was used to describe Bastiat in his own time is outside the scope of this article, as we are no longer living in Bastiat's time and the article does not contemplate contemporary references to Bastiat himself. In our time, Bastiat is considered a classical liberal. Refer to texts in both English and French and you will find that he is referred to by the term "liberal" without exception. RiseAbove 08:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I quite disagree. I believe that libertarians, having found Bastiat to their liking, have retroactively decided that he is part of their history, and therefore part of the history of "classical liberalism". But insofar as "classical liberalism" refers to liberalism as it existing in his (the pre-Mill) period, it is highly relevant whether he was considered part of that movement at the time. Otherwise, we are writing history backwards. - Jmabel | Talk 06:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Liberalism was renamed "classical liberalism" after left-wingers' claim to be liberals. In French we just say liberalism (without "classical"). So Bastiat was no considered classical liberal by his peers. Ancient Greek in Ancient Greece was not called "Ancient Greek". Golden Age of Hollywood was not called "Golden Age" in the 1950's, etc. Arronax50 17:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. What we now call "Classical Liberalism" was just called liberalism prior early 20th century. --Jayson Virissimo 06:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Bastiat has had more influence on Austrian economics than is admitted by the Ludwig Von Mises Institute; and even more than Ludwig Von Mises. Denying that Bastiat is proto-libertarian is like denying that the sun rises and sets. I wonder if these facts could be put into the article.--12.227.237.140 (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the most famous liberals Britain has ever produced, Richard Cobden, admired Bastiat's works and they were both adherents of political economy (Bastiat even wrote a sympathetic book about Cobden's campaign for free trade: Cobden et la Ligue).[1] And when the Free Trade vs. Tariff Reform debate was raging in Britain the Cobden Club reprinted Bastiat's Sophismes Economiques with an introduction by the Liberal Prime Minister H. H. Asquith, who compared it to Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations.--Johnbull 23:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Classic liberals=right wingers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.241.128 (talk) 05:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Highly POV

"In short, Bastiat proves two major points": even the 1911 EB would have blanched at this, and they weren't trying to be neutral. - Jmabel | Talk 05:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I slightly reworked the language to hopefully be less POV and matter-of-fact. RiseAbove 07:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Can someone please add a pronunciation guide for his name? If you use that inscrutable form that Wikipedia endorses, it would be nice if you also included one for us ignorami. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.157.147 (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To hear how the name is pronounced, click on the sound icon just above and to the right of his picture in the Article. The speaker is British but he pronounces the name correctly.--Tvbanfield (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Pure Speculation

I am sorry but that is pure speculation/own opinion/original research:

"he seems to have considered the State as something inevitable as far as an immediate practical matter – something that ought to be taken into account as long as it existed"

I have taken it out of the article. Should anyone have a source for that please feel free to use ist.

88.117.79.145 (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Non Sequitur

The article currently states:

Bastiat concluded that the law cannot defend life, liberty and property if it promotes socialist policies inherently opposed to these very things. In this way, he says, the law is perverted and turned against the thing it is supposed to defend.[7] His position on the non-free market aspects of later schools such as libertarian socialists would have to be inferred based upon his writings.

The last sentence there, which is a Wikipedian's supposition, is contradicted by the preceding sentence, which is presumably a paraphrase of the Bastiat's point of view. His views on the "non-free market aspects" of anything would not have to be inferred, but are stated rather plainly. Bastiat clearly refers to a class of views (socialist policies) which existed in his time, and which are not substantially different for having been renovated after his time. I recommend removal of the last line. I feel it adds nothing and detracts accuracy. Haakondahl (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Bias Projection

Under Views, second sentence, the article currently states:

From this definition, Bastiat concluded that the law cannot defend life, liberty and property if it promotes socialist policies that he claimed in a decidedly biased way opposed to these very things.

The sentence is not grammatically correct, likely because someone decided to edit it to assert that Bastiat's arguments were 'decidedly biased'. How, exactly, is someone 'biased' to their own opinions? Opinions do not require any conditions other than to point out that they are the opinions of the person in question. If this is a critique of Bastiat, then it should be included as a CRITICISM, while making a valid or cited justification for the position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.194.194 (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

other works ?

This article focus on Bastiat views on free trades, a limited state and his opposition to socialist policies. Basically, Bastiat would be a XIXth's Margaret Tatcher.
It forget to mention that Bastiat opposed colonialism, death penalty, and the interdiction of trade unions. For at least the two latter points, he was supported more by the socialists than the right-wing deputies. If you read french, you can his speech in favor of trade unions, in the links of the french articles. Besides, you can read that he was applauded by the left-wing deputies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.48.151.130 (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

On a similar note, I gather he's on the record in What Is Seen And What Is Not Seen as supporting a number of positions that these days might be deemed "socialist", or at least counter to libertarian principles: government support of the arts, public works programs as employment support during economic downturns, and in general action by the state to create civil society through public goods such as criminal and contractual law enforcement and roads. I think expanding a touch on his view of appropriate government policies would be useful David A Spitzley (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd LOVE to see some idiot using TWISAWINS to justify socialist policy. It would be fun dropping the dynamite to get the fish out of that barrel. Got any links?--OBloodyHell (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That Which is Not Seen

How the heck can you have an article about Bastiat and barely mention his That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen?
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
It's one of his most-quoted, most approachable works. What the hey?
--OBloodyHell (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Isn't "that which is not seen" the same thing as the concept of opportunity cost? If so, shouldn't that be mentioned in the same section? Hmmm...just noticed that in the entry on opportunity cost it states that the concept was developed in 1914 by Friedrich von Wieser. From Bastiat's essay...

"It is not seen that, since our citizen has spent six francs for one thing, he will not be able to spend them for another. It is not seen that if he had not had a windowpane to replace, he would have replaced, for example, his worn-out shoes or added another book to his library. In brief, he would have put his six francs to some use or other for which he will not now have them."

Isn't that a pretty textbook definition of opportunity cost? I have no sources but it seems like Bastiat developed the concept before Wieser did. Although I haven't read Wieser...Bastiat's essay primarily addresses the opportunity cost concept. My vote is that he developed the idea to a reasonable enough extent to warrant mention in both articles. Do we need collaborating sources for this or is it common sense enough? --Xerographica (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say that although Bastiat never used the phrase "opportunity cost", he describes the concept quite well. However, his ideas were ahead of the concept of opportunity cost. IMHO it's worth a mention in the main article for this reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.225.1 (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)