Dear Daniela et al.

	I hope you have fun resurrecting anti-Physiocratic writings.
Herewith is an early one for your delectation. It is so outrageous that I
wonder if it was a satire from someone like Voltaire. If so, I hope some
learned scholar will unmask it for us.



Remonstrances of Parlement of Paris against Turgot’s Six Edicts (1776)
In these remonstrances, the magistrates of the Parlement of Paris,recently
restored to their position by Louis XVI after having been "exiled" from
office by Louis XV in 1771, voice their opposition to reforms proposed by
the finance minister, Anne–Robert–Jacques Turgot. In the first, they argue
against Turgot’s idea of raising money by taxing lands owned by nobles. The
magistrates (themselves all noble landowners) cite the tradition whereby
only those subject to the obligatory labor of the corvée (that is, only
peasants) should have to pay taxes to the crown. Note their emphasis on
"justice" over rational reform of royal fiscal policy. In the second, they
oppose Turgot’s attempt to suppress the guilds in order to promote commerce
and thus enhance royal revenues. The magistrates draw on the traditional
argument that society is made up not of individuals, but of groups of people
bound into corporations.


"The desire to ease the burdens placed on the people is too praiseworthy in
a sovereign and conforms so much with the wishes of your parlement, that the
latter could never conceive of dissuading Your Majesty from such a noble and
legitimate goal.
But when projects, with such pleasant prospects, lead to real and increased
injustices and even imperil the constitution and the tranquility of the
state, it is our faithful duty, without seeking to place obstacles in the
way of your beneficence, to establish laws against the imprudent efforts
being made to commit Your Majesty to a course of action whose pitfalls and
dangers have been concealed from you. . . .
Your parlement understood that the edict substituting a universal,
indefinite, and perpetual land tax for the corvée, under the guise of the
apparent relief it offers the people, could at first glance have seemed a
beneficent act inspired by love of humanity. But at the same time, Sire,
your parlement was sure that a more careful examination of the edict would
reveal to Your Majesty that it represents a policy burdensome even for those
whom you wish to help, and contrary to the sense of justice that motivates
you.
Justice, Sire, is the first duty of kings. Without it, the rarest of virtue
can produce the most unfortunate of results. It is justice that determines
the true value of royal actions, and once it has left its mark on a reign,
that monarch will forever be revered.
The first rule of justice is to preserve for every man that which belongs to
him. This is the fundamental rule of natural law, as well as of the law of
nations and of civil government. It is a rule that consists not only of
maintaining property rights, but also of preserving personal rights, in
addition to those which derive from the prerogatives of birth and Estate.
From this rule of law and equity it follows that any system designed to
create an equality of duties between men, even under the guise of humanity
and benevolence, would tend to destroy those distinctions that are necessary
to a well-ordered monarchy, and quickly result in disorder. The inevitable
result of absolute equality would be the overthrow of civil society, which
is maintained in harmony only through the hierarchy of power, authority,
precedence, and distinction which keeps each man in his place and protects
all states of being from confusion.
This social order is not only essential to the practice of every sound
governmentÑit has its origin in divine law. The infinite and immutable
wisdom obvious in the universe established an unequal distribution of
strength and character, necessarily resulting in inequality in the
conditions of men within the social order. Despite the best efforts of the
human mind, this 'universal law' is found in every realm, in turn
maintaining the order that preserves it. . . .
In the assembly created by these different orders, all the people of your
kingdom are your subjects, and all must contribute to the needs of the
state. But general order and harmony must be upheld even in this
contribution. The personal responsibility of the clergy is to fulfill all
the functions relating to education and religion and to aid the unfortunate
through alms. The noble devotes his life to the defense of the state and
assists the sovereign by providing council. The last class of the nation,
which cannot render such distinguished service to the state, fulfills its
obligation through taxes, industry and physical labor. . . .
These institutions were not formed by chance, and time cannot change them.
To abolish them, the whole French constitution would have to be overturned.
. . .
In freeing the last class of citizens from the corvée that it has been
subject to until now, the edict transfers the burden to the two orders of
the state which have never had to pay it. There will no longer be any
difference between your subjects. The noble and the cleric become subject to
the corvée or the tax that replaces the corvée, which amounts to the same
thing.
Sire, this is not a struggle between rich and poor, as some have tried to
convince you. It is a governmental question, and a most important one, since
it is a matter of knowing whether all your subjects can or should be treated
identically, and whether differences in conditions, ranks, titles and
precedence should cease to be acknowledged. . . .
It was the descendants of those ancient knights who placed or kept the crown
on the head of Your Majesty's forefathers. It was these noble descendents,
poor and virtuous, who, for so many centuries shed their blood for the
extension and defense of the monarchy, and who, with another kind of
magnanimity, have neglected their own fortunes or spent them in order to
dedication themselves entirely to the public good. The revenues of these
pureblooded nobles are limited to the modest yield of the lands inherited
from their fathers which they cultivate with their own hands, often without
the help of any servants other than their children. Gentlemen such as these
could be exposed to the humiliation of seeing themselves dragged off to the
corvée! . . .
Consequently, in reflecting on the law and the constitution of this state,
Your Majesty will no longer doubt that this plan, against which Your
parlement protests only so that it may fulfill its duty, clearly leads to
the annihilation of the time-honored exemptions for the nobility and the
clergy, to the confusion of Estates, and to the subversion of the monarchy's
constitutional principles.
Parlementary Argument against the Edict Suppressing the Guilds presented to
the King at the lit de justice [seat of justice] of 12 March 1776
Liberty is without doubt the principle of all actions, it lies at the core
of each Estate, and, above all, it is the life force and primary impetus of
commerce. But Sire, this belief, so common today and which is heard from one
end of the kingdom to another, must not be understood to mean unlimited
liberty that knows no other law than its own vagaries, and acknowledges no
rules beyond its own. This kind of liberty is nothing more than a veritable
independence which would soon be transformed into unfettered license,
opening the door to every abuse. This source of wealth would then become a
source of destruction, a source of disorder, an occasion for fraud and
plunderÑthe inevitable result being the total annihilation of the arts and
of artisans, of confidence and of commerce. . . .
Sire, your subjects are divided into as many different bodies as there are
Estates in the kingdom: the clergy, the nobility, the high courts and lower
tribunals, the officers attached to these tribunals, the universities and
academies, the banks and commercial companies. In every part of the state
there are bodies that can be seen as links in a great chain, the first link
of which is in the hands of Your Majesty as head and sovereign administrator
of all that constitutes the body of the nation.
The very idea of destroying this precious chain should be appalling. The
corporations of merchants and artisans form a necessary part of this
indivisible whole which contributes to the general security of the realm.
Sire, because independence is a defect in the political constitution and men
are always tempted to abuse liberty, the law has instituted corporations,
created guilds, and established regulations. The law has wished to prevent
fraud of all kinds and to remedy all abuses. The law watches equally over
the interest of the buyer and the seller; it maintains mutual confidence
between the two; it is, so to speak, under the guarantee of the public trust
that allows the merchant to display his merchandise before the customer and
for the customer to receive it with confidence from the merchant. Guilds can
be considered as so many small republics occupied solely with the general
interest of all its members. And if it is true that the general interest
results from the merging of the interests of each individual, it is equally
true then that each member, in working for his own personal advantage, works
necessarily, even without wishing to, for the true benefit of the whole
community. To loosen the springs that move this multitude of different
bodies, to annihilate the guilds, to abolish the regulations, in a word to
disperse the members of all the corporations, is to destroy all the various
means which commerce itself must want for its own preservation. Every
manufacturer, every artisan, every worker will see himself as an isolated
entity, dependent only upon himself and free to indulge his often disordered
imagination. All subordination will be destroyed, there will be no more
checks and balances, and the desire for profit will drive all the workshops.
Since honesty is not always the surest way to wealth, the entire public,
native and foreign alike, will be the constant dupes of well-prepared secret
schemes designed blind and entice them. Sire, do not believe that in our
constant concern with the public welfare we are yielding to foolish terrors.
Our resolution has been prompted by the most powerful arguments, and Your
Majesty would be within his rights to accuse us one day of prevarication if
we tried to hide them. Our principal motivation is the interest of commerce
in general, not only in the capital but in the entire kingdom, not only in
France, but in all of Europe, in fact, in the entire world."
Source: Jules Flammermont,vol. 3 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 188898),
27592, 34454.

Sequel;  The Remonstrance succeeded, Turgot's Six Edicts were withdrawn in
1778, and in eleven more years the Bastille fell.

-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Parisi Daniela Fernanda
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:27 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [SHOE] R: [SHOE] "Antiphysiocracy" Conference 2013 - Call for
papers

I am deeply convinced that any 'anti' initiative helps to shed light on
still unknown and, sometimes even deliberately, hidden aspects of a theory.
I am sure that examining the strands of thought which go against a theory
enriches the knowledge of the theory itself; I also believe that it is
indispensable to 'dig' and bring to light all that is 'anti' the thought
which is prevailing and dominant in any historical period, which, precisely
because of its predominance, hides both its deficiencies and any expressions
of thought contrary to it. What I am especially convinced of is that
whatever the age and place there never is a 'single thought'.
I will be glad to participate in the conference: the 'Italian' Galiani is to
be considered an anti-Physiocrats and I evaluate his contribution as a
relevant one, if we want a more complete reconstruction of the history of
economic thought of that period.
daniela parisi

________________________________
Da: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] per conto di
E.Schoorl [[log in to unmask]]
Inviato: lunedì 12 marzo 2012 9.35
A: [log in to unmask]
Oggetto: Re: [SHOE] "Antiphysiocracy" Conference 2013 - Call for papers

 On 11-03-12, mason gaffney <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Nom de Dieu!  This is as unbalanced as a Rush Limbaugh monologue. How about
giving equal time to supporters of Physiocracy
 Hi Mason!
I'm not only looking forward to this conference, but already to its
successors as well: on antiRicardianism, antiKeynesianism (invited keynote
speaker: Steve Kates) etc.
I hope that some questions on the history and sociology of our discipline
will be discussed: How come that some of the falsified ideas of  'defunct
economists' keep influencing ideas and policies long after? (A question not
entirely irrelevant for the 21st century.)
Best regards,
Evert Schoorl