21 Solidarity
Man in isolation has no arbitrary restrictions. He is responsible for himself - meaning he may do as he pleases and that he will be the only person to suffer the consequences of his actions. But when he chooses to live in proximity to others and interact with them, he then takes on obligations to consider the impact his actions have on others - to refrain from harming them, and to expect the same in return.
He mentions the solidarity that exists within each household. Man and wife are responsible for seeing to one another's welfare, and are responsible for the welfare of other members of their family who are within the same house. Each has certain obligations and enjoys certain privileges - ad their actions impact one another.
We see that a man who becomes wealthy because he is industrious and thrifty, and his behavior impacts his whole house. They benefit from sharing in his work product, his children benefit from learning his virtues, and they often inherit his tools and his savings to capitalize their own endeavors. His actions have benefitted his house. Meanwhile, we see that a wretched man is often shiftless and wasteful, and his behavior also impacts his own house. The family is deprived, and learn nothing of how to make a living in the world. They inherit nothing but debt and misery. His actions have damaged his house.
In the broader sense, the character of a house impacts the village. People benefit from having industrious neighbors, who contribute the product of their work to the community as well as becoming a customer to purchase the work of others. A village of industrious men thrives. And likewise, a village of unproductive and wasteful men fails to prosper. And so it is, up to the level of the nation.
Bastiat calls attention to the method by which this functions: all efforts begin with the individual, and the consequences extend to the community. It is not the other way around.
The obligation to society is this: to refrain from doing harm. So long as a man does no harm to others, he ought to be allowed to do as he pleases. This same obligation exists on every level: one house must refrain from harming another, one nation must refrain from harming another. That is their sole obligation to one another.
An attempt has been made to suggest that a man is obligated to be productive, but this is not so. If he fails to produce, he has done no harm. The argument supposes that he has harmed others by not producing goods for them to consume - but this is invalid. Failure to gain something that never existed is not the same as losing something that exists.
This failure to distinguish between "doing harm" and "failing to render a benefit" is the premise of a great deal of misguided law and public policy, particularly in the area of economic policy.
Another fleet of bad arguments has been made on the premise that man needs to be provided an incentive to be productive. The fruit of his labor is the only incentive a man needs. In order to provide an incentive or bonus for being productive, then others must be penalized for their productivity by denying them the reward of their own labor. This is discouraging those who are already productive in order to attempt (with no guarantee of success) of making others productive. Thus, politics and law cannot contribute to progress in any meaningful way - the state merely transfers from one hand to another, adding nothing (and often taking a bit for itself as it passes it along).