20 Responsibility
Bastiat makes an ethical argument in favor of laissez-faire capitalism: it is the only moral approach. We recognize that it is unacceptable to meddle in the affairs of others, and to allow them to control their own lives even when we think we have better ideas. Those who would impose their ideas on others, particularly by force, seem to ignore this.
The argument of the economic despots is that man is imperfect and cannot choose the right path, and must be instructed. The arrogance of this statement is obvious - as the despots are themselves men, no better than their fellows, and thus unqualified to dictate to them. The imperfect man who directs only his own actions risks none but himself, but the imperfect man who presumes to control the actions of an entire nation risks many.
He then mentions the "natural scientist" who observes creatures in the wild without interference. They generally get on well enough, except when mankind interferes. It is curious that the politicians fail to take the same approach with human beings, and always assume that mankind requires assistance to get along. Do men deserve less respect than animals? Their answer is self-evident, in their presumption to make plans for all mankind.
>From there, he meanders into the alleged topic of this chapter: responsibility. Each man is responsible for his own survival, and is not bound for others. Responsibility entails having the right to make choices as well as being held responsible for the impact of these choices on others, and taking responsibility for oneself. Responsibility entails privileges as well as obligations.
>Those who propose to control men pretend an interest in shielding them from disasters. But men overcome disaster without assistance. The control-hungry also speak of saving man from his own ignorance. But men learn. They imagine that there are all manner of problems that place mankind in constant peril - and they imagine themselves to be the saviors of all their brothers. But man does not need saving, except from those who wish to meddle in his affairs and prevent him from helping himself.
He strays into religious beliefs, that even the creator has endowed man with free will, and while the scriptures provide guidance there is no formal control. The bloody history of religious organizations represents men's desire to control others' behavior and compel them to accept the advice of scripture. But the creator himself allows me to do as they will - and if they transgress, to suffer the consequences of their own actions. No-one is held responsible for the sins of another person, nor is anyone authorized to interfere with others to prevent them from transgressing.
(EN: This carries on for quite a while, and is more in the nature of a political/philosophical argument.)