The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread.
Anatole France
Anatole France’s observation was made to underscore the government’s indifference to the plight of the poor. It appeared in his novel Le Lys Rouge (The Red Lily), published in 1894. Today, he might be surprised to find that many American state and local governments encourage the poor to sleep outdoors and to steal a lot more than loaves of bread. On the other hand, he might approve of these policies as he was a committed socialist, so committed that communist might be more appropriate.
Frederich Hayek in his magnum opus The Constitution of Liberty used France’s remark as a launching pad to refute the accusation that classical liberals or conservatives are indifferent to human suffering. Hayek treats this slur as a misrepresentation of his position.
The accusation confuses opposition to central planning with opposition to compassion.
Hayek argues that critics wrongly assume that rejecting state control of the economy implies moral callousness. On the contrary, he insists that a free society can, and should, take steps to prevent extreme deprivation. He explicitly supports a social safety net.
Hayek writes that there is no incompatibility between a free society and government action to secure a basic minimum standard of living. He endorses protection against severe poverty, assistance for those unable to support themselves, a guaranteed minimum income or subsistence level, so long as it does not distort markets or replace personal responsibility. Note the emphasis on the preservation of personal responsibility.
Society may guarantee “a certain minimum income for everyone.” What he opposes is coercive equality or economic planning, not relief of misery. Hayek stresses that forcing outcomes such as equal incomes or centrally determined jobs undermines freedom and prosperity. But preventing destitution is a different matter and morally legitimate.
The “sleep under bridges” jibe is a rhetorical smear. Hayek treats the phrase as propaganda designed to shut down serious discussion by attributing cruelty to advocates of liberty. He insists that defenders of the market order are often more concerned with long-term welfare, because they focus on institutions that actually reduce poverty rather than merely signal virtue. He argues that a free society need not, and should not, leave people to starve or sleep under bridges. What he rejects is not compassion, but the belief that compassion requires comprehensive state control of economic life.
Virtue signalling is as central to human behavior as breathing. It’s the rarest of persons who can keep silent about his own good deeds. You’ll never encounter The Anonymous Professor of Philosophy at any university or The Anonymous School of Medicine. Donors want their names on display to show their enlightened generosity.
The advocates of government control, and eventual societal control, view the economy as a zero-sum game. The economic pie, in their view, is static, and people of limited means can only be helped by dividing the pie into more slices. Thus, income and property must be taken from those who have a bigger slice and given to those who have a smaller one. A loss of liberty is the inevitable consequence of government intervention and forced redistribution of wealth.
In reality, the economy is dynamic. President Kennedy, back in 1963, repurposed a New England maritime aphorism: “A rising tide lifts all boats.” In other words, if people are left to innovate and embrace a free economy it will grow benefiting everyone. Government intervention based on the belief in a static economy will not only prevent growth, but it will likely cause shrinkage.
The crucial distinction lies in whether viewing a situation as zero-sum actually corresponds to reality. Sometimes it does. Consider university admissions. If the entering class of an elite university is fixed at say 1,000 students (any number will do), basing admissions on any criteria other than merit will deny high-achieving applicants entry in favor of a preferred class with lower academic credentials.
Two Nobel Prize laureates with opposite views of the human condition and how to deal with it. France won the prize in literature, Hayek in economics. These two views are still very much with us. A large number of people see the government as the solution to their problems and who, either wittingly or unknowingly, are willing to sacrifice liberty for the dole in all its guises. A solution that governments have resorted to for thousands of years, always with the same lack of success. It hasn’t worked in the past, and there’s no reason to think it will in the future.
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” The quotation is often misattributed to Einstein. It does, however, apply with appalling stickiness to socialism.
