Molinari’s Preface
[p. 1]
Society, according to the Economists of the eighteenth century,[1] is organized on the basis of natural laws, whose essence is Justice and Utility. When these laws are misunderstood, society suffers. When they are fully respected, society enjoys the greatest possible abundance and justice reigns in human relations.[2]
Are these laws of providence respected or unrecognized today? [3] Do the sufferings of the masses have their origin in the economic laws which govern society or in the obstacles placed in the way of their beneficent operation? Such is the question which recent events have raised for us.[4]
To this question the Socialist schools[5] reply, sometimes by denying that the economic world is governed, as is the physical world, by natural laws, and at other times by the affirmation that these laws are imperfect or vicious, and that the ills of society [p. 2] stem from this imperfect or vicious character.
The more timid claim that we must modify these laws; the more intrepid claim we should totally eliminate what are radically imperfect arrangements and replace them with new ones.
The base on which the whole edifice of society rests is property.[6] Socialists therefore strive to alter or replace or destroy the principle of property.
Conservatives defend property; but they defend it badly.
Here is why.
Conservatives are naturally partisans of the status quo.[7] They think the world all right as it is and are terrified by the very idea of changing anything. Consequently, they avoid sounding out the real depths of society, fearful as they are of finding any distress which might require reform of existing institutions.
On the other hand they dislike theories and have little faith in foundational principles. Only reluctantly will they discuss property. It would seem that they are afraid to shine a light on this holy principle. Following the example of those [p. 3] ignorant and savage Christians who used to proscribe heretics rather than refute them, they invoke the law rather than science to get the better of the aberrations of socialism.
I have come to the conclusion that the Socialist heresy demands a different refutation and property a different defense.
Recognizing, with all the Economists,[8] that the natural organization of society rests on property, I have sought to discover whether the ills denounced by the Socialists, ills no one who was not blind, or in bad faith, could deny, do or do not have their origin in property.
The result of my studies and of my research, has been to the effect that society’s sufferings, so far from originating in the principle of property, flow on the contrary from direct or indirect attacks on the property principle.
From this I have reached the conclusion that the way to improve the lot of the working classes lies purely and simply in the emancipation of property.
The substance of these dialogues is that the principle of property is the basis for the natural organization of society, that this core truth has never ceased to be held partly in check or misconstrued, that ills have flowed from the deep wounds inflicted on [p. 4] property, that finally the emancipation of property would restore society’s natural organization, and that such an organization is intrinsically equitable and useful.
The thesis whose defense I am undertaking is not new; all the Economists have defended property, and political economy is only the demonstration of the natural laws based on property. Quesnay,[9] Turgot,[10] Adam Smith,[11] Malthus,[12] Ricardo[13] and J.B. Say[14] devoted their lives to observing these laws in operation and demonstrating them. Their disciples, MacCulloch,[15] Senior,[16] Wilson,[17] Dunoyer,[18] Michel Chevalier,[19] Bastiat,[20] Joseph Garnier[21] etc., are passionately committed to the same task. I have limited myself to following the path they have set.
It may perhaps be thought that I have gone too far, and that by sticking too strictly to the basic principles, I have failed to avoid the pitfalls of chimeras and utopias.[22]This does not matter, however, since I retain the profound conviction that economic truth hides behind what on the surface are chimeras and utopias. It is also my profound conviction that only the complete and absolute emancipation of private property can save society, by making a reality of all the noble and generous hopes held by the friends of justice and humanity.
