12 Man and Society
Bastiat considers the two mottoes of "every man for himself" and "one for all and all for one" in considering the conflict between self-interest and serving the good of society. (EN: This becomes rather philosophical and political, so I'm going to cut a lot of the rant and focus on the essence.)
Social organization is, for man, a great convenience. It is possible to exist in isolation, but it is a difficult and hardscrabble existence that is considerably shortened because man alone is ill equipped to deal with disasters and emergencies. So in this sense man seeks the company of others, as his daily life is more convenient and he is able to draw on assistance in unusual situations. But it is an exaggeration to suggest that man cannot exist outside of society at all - and a worse distortion to suggest that society is owed his self-sacrifice in exchange for the conveniences it provides to him.
Man is in the first place an individual, concerned in the first place with his own well-being. And it is clear from the arguments of those who propose otherwise that they are putting their own self-interests above others in making self-serving demands at the expense of others, and implying that they are required in order for social relations to perpetuate.
Man associates with others out of his own self-interest. He unites with them to combine efforts, achieve more efficient outcomes, and receive assistance when it is needed. If it is more efficient for him to act in isolation, he chooses to do so. If the sacrifices he must make to others in order to gain these efficiencies are greater than the benefit he receives, then he seeks to withdraw from society.
Two individuals will enter into business with one another if they are both pleased with the arrangement. If the arrangement is disadvantageous to one or both, they will choose not to associate. And the same is true on the level of society, which itself is merely an abstract concept that represents the sum of all individual exchanges between men. Just as an individual who is harmful to a society is banished from that society, so shall a society that is harmful to the individual be rejected by that individual. The relationship is only acceptable so long as it is mutually beneficial.
The arguments in favor of socialism and individualism tend to the extremes, and more significantly they make an all-or-nothing proposal, suggesting that man must choose between self-interest and self-sacrifice entirely. This is simply not the truth: men may choose to work together when they please, and to avoid one another if they please. And again, it is a matter of choice: doing what is most advantageous at the moment. Seeking a fair deal from others, and being fair with them to obtain their cooperation in return, is the natural inclination of man.
In most instances, the socialists do not agree to those terms: what they demand is an unfair deal, weighted in their own advantage. They are not willing to give fair value in exchange for what they want to take, and wish to compel others by force or deceit to sacrifice for their benefit. It is little wonder few are interested in the kind of society they propose - save for those who are in a position to gain at the expense of others. It is the very charge they level at the individualists who merely wish to be left alone.
He finally arrives at the conclusion that socialism is not a school of economic theory, but a bit of political sophistry: it is the struggle of some men to gain power over others. It is the demand to take without giving in return, to have without undertaking the effort to produce - which is appealing but unrealistic. A society of consumers with no producers is untenable, as there would be no-one to provide for consumption; and a system that demands production without reward is likewise untenable, because there would be no incentive to produce.
This is not to say that an individualistic society would be cold and vicious - only that men would not be compelled to be charitable to one another. Men are quite capable and willing to support one another without force - and it is the voluntary nature of charity that renders it virtuous.