There is a subject of astonishment. It is the dismayed reaction of most liberals – whether in the realm of ideas or of action – to the events that have been unfolding in our country for some time now, but which have reached a climax over the past year, revealing the true nature of politicians, bureaucrats, and statesmen.
THE PROVERBIAL HONEY JAR
Under the eyes of the French people and the whole world, those who profess to represent the general interest and the common good are putting on a show that can be seen every day – an indigestible mixture composed of one-third betrayal of their professed ideas, another third of abysmal ignorance, and the last third of cynicism and denial that makes the apostle Peter’s denial of Christ seem like a trial run and a prototype for kindergarteners. However, knowing that for Raimu there are “four thirds in three thirds”, one of the most delightful passages in the old French movie Marius, the “fourth third” finds itself to be an unusual addiction to cowardice.
PUBLIC REACTION
The play is considered, quite rightly, to be distressing by most observers, journalists, observers, and, to tell the truth, the French people. This reaction is perfectly understandable, and widely accepted, understood and approved if the sender is an individual who believes in the virtue of the state – a state that “thinks” that its intervention is rather beneficial, who imagines that our representatives, aided by the technicians that are bureaucrats, are the bearers and guarantors of the general interest that they seek and which is the result of universal suffrage, and therefore of elections. In a democracy, since the people are presumed to be sovereign and cannot collectively be wrong, the elected representatives aim to maximize the general interest, the common good, and not some sordid calculation of the utility or disutility of each decision taken based on the number of votes lost or gained….
But if the observer of this boulevard theater is a liberal, he should not only lament what he sees, he should be even less surprised by it, but rather rationally rejoice at the spectacle, which confirms everything he has been saying, writing, and proclaiming for so long. For liberals, what is the nature of those who specialize in the production of public goods, the establishment of law, and the monopoly of legal violence in order to capture a substantial part of the fruits of our labor? (Of course, the men of the state proclaim that this is to finance public services here, redistribution there, and finally interventions of all kinds that increase the welfare of the greatest number at the expense of those who possess far too much, and certainly earned in an illegitimate, even deceptive manner, since fortunes are, as everyone knows, built up fraudulently, either to the detriment of consumers, who should pay less for what they are made to pay more for, or as the distressing result of the exploitation of employees).
LIBERALISM CONFIRMED.
It is quite astonishing, if not downright baffling, to see and observe the reaction of most of the cohort, albeit a small one, of liberal thinkers, “liberals in action”, or “liberals in observation.”
What happens every day before our eyes confirms the Public Choice Theory developed by such prestigious liberal economists and political scientists as James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock. It states that “entrepreneurs in public goods”, i.e., political entrepreneurs, are first and foremost rational individuals who are neither better nor worse than the average of all of us.
Being simply evaluative, rational individuals capable of projecting themselves into the future, they evaluate each of their positions and decisions according to a goal that is quite natural in a democracy, namely that of maximizing the number of votes. This is the same as for each of us in our decisions of all kinds, where we choose, based on the information available to us, the decisions that seem to us to bring more satisfaction than dissatisfaction. What makes the above statement truly revolutionary, unprecedented, and unique to liberals is that it represents a complete reversal of perspective, since liberals claim that political entrepreneurs seek their own utility and satisfaction rather than some hypothetical general interest, which is, moreover, impossible to determine with any certainty. What we call the general interest is simply, at any given moment, the point of view of those who hold power, i.e., coercion.
Whether the political entrepreneur and/or bureaucrat is honestly convinced that they are making the best possible decision is another matter, but it is indeed THEIR decision, i.e., their view of the situation at a given moment, whether or not it is described as the “general interest” or the “common good”.
WHAT SHOULD A CONSISTENT LIBERAL THINK THEN?
Anyone who is truly liberal, i.e., who analyses a situation based on knowledge and understanding, and who believes in the benefits and virtues of freedom, responsibility, and private property, can only rejoice in the hopes, possibilities, and latent potential of the current situation. Liberals can only hope to see their ideas triumph when belief in a providential man and in statist solutions is ousted and discredited in as many minds as possible. The distressing, ridiculous, clownish spectacle offered today by a government that fears a socialist like Olivier Faure, and a palace that has gone from “Bourbon” (the name of the French Parliament is Bourbon Palace) to “bourbier” (quagmire!) reinforces true liberals’ analysis of the role and status of the political entrepreneur. This is by no means cynicism, but rather an understanding that the spectacle currently being offered by those who are supposed to represent the general interest and the common good is a historic opportunity for liberals, who must absolutely take advantage of the demonstration of the fruitfulness and accuracy of their analyses.
These same liberals must not, when expressing these views and ideas, be held back by caution on the pretext that they will be treated as populists here, or even fascists there. Rather, they should see it as vice paying homage to virtue, that is, the doctrinal adversary reduced to the argument of silence, who then has no weapon left but invective and insults for lack of arguments.
This text was originally published in French under the title: Les Libéraux face au chaos politique on partilibertarien.fr.
Translation has been done by Mr EMMANUEL MARTIN.
