Hypocrisy and The Labor Theory of Value - Commentary on Bastiat's Third Sophism

Bastiat uses this third sophism to attack the assumption that value is a creation of labor rather than of the result that the labor produces. It is the idea of the labor theory of value, and trade protectionism is by no means the worst idea that this mistaken concept has birthed. It is at the very roots of Marxism and that ideology's derivatives, such as communism. I plan to write some further posts addressing why the labor theory of value is nonsense, so for this post, I will limit my discussion to Bastiat's talking points on the subject.

Bastiat appears to limit himself, as well, by only discussing the origin of value in the terms that he's previously discussed. He anchors his argument in the societal, moral case between abundance and scarcity.

The sophism opens with Bastiat merely asking the question of whether or not wealth is a product of the "result" (the product created by labor) or the "effort" (the labor itself)? He again returns to the question of what those who proclaim to prefer one side or the other would logically desire.

Those that believe the result is the source of value will favor circumstances that drive greater productive efficiency. They will welcome things like better machinery and unequal distribution of natural resources. These increase abundance within society.

But those who see labor as the source of value will frown upon all of those devices. They instead, would logically welcome circumstances that make production more difficult. They desire restrictions, monopolies, difficulty acquiring natural resources, etc. They favor scarcity.

The argument is built upon Bastiat's moral argument that abundance is better for society than scarcity. But one shouldn't believe something is true just because they wish it to be so. Bastiat dances that line with this argument but makes a stronger case within the rest of the sophism.

Bastiat calls the idea of the labor theory of value "Sisyphism," after the character Sisyphus, from Greek mythology, who, in the afterlife, was given the never-ending task of rolling a large rock up a hill only to have it roll back down every time it reached the top. He argues that there are no consistent Sisyphists. Because in their personal lives, no matter how much they proclaim not to believe it, they often make decisions that increase the productivity of labor as a means of gaining wealth.

From that point, the sophism calls out this hypocrisy among specific protectionist politicians. Bastiat explains that, while they argue one way in the public sphere, their businesses are run from the perspective of value being a product of the result.

The examples he gives are a bit dated for modern ears. They center around agricultural methods of the day. But what I am envious of, is that Bastiat had the chance to call these public figures out on the hypocrisy between their political and business decisions. In today's atmosphere of career politicians, it's hard to do the same. (Except, maybe, in the case of the current President)

Curiously, Bastiat's circumstances show us the error of another argument about politicians that we hear, in particular from the conservatarian wing. The claim is that "if politicians had a real job, they would govern differently." But if we look at what Bastiat is dealing with, we find that to be untrue. Politicians, in any circumstance, are power-mad and have no problem overlooking hypocrisy in pursuit of it. Another fine reason to remove their influence on society altogether.

---

Check out my commentaries on Bastiat's other sophisms:

1st: Abundance-Scarcity
2nd: Obstacle-Cause

---

Photo by Ant Rozetsky on Unsplash