The Role of Physiocracy in the Birth of Human Rights

Abstract

What place does physiocracy occupy in the genealogy of human rights? Dan Edelstein attempts to answer this important question in his book On the Spirit of Rights.1 Physiocracy has long been reduced to a strictly economic trend or to a sort of embryonic version of 19th-century liberalism . However, the physiocrats also propose a rich political and legal project based on the recognition of natural rights . Born from the association of the Greek words physis (φυσισ) which means „nature“, and kratos (κρατοσ) which refers to power, physiocracy is etymologically defined as the „government of nature“ . It stems from the founding meeting which took place in Versailles in 1757 between Dr . François Quesnay, personal physician and protégé of Madame de Pompadour, and the Marquis de Mirabeau, crowned with literary glory following the success of L’Ami des hommes . In a manner equivalent to the discovery of the laws of physics, Quesnay and his disciples believe they have brought to light the natural laws which govern the functioning of human societies . These laws relate to law, politics and economics . As Du Pont de Nemours reproaches Jean-Baptiste Say in 1815: „You have narrowed the career of political economy too much by treating it only as the science of wealth . It is the science of natural law applied, as it should be, to civilized societies . It is the science of constitutions“ and „that of enlightened justice in all internal and external social relations“2 . In a most salutary way, Edelstein’s book is part of a recent historiographical trend which contributes to the rehabilitation of the importance of physiocracy in the Western history of political and legal ideas . As Anthony Mergey had already shown in his work of reference3, physiocrats played a major role in the development and recognition of „natural human rights“ („droits naturels de l ’homme“) . However, it seems regrettable from a bibliographical point of view that works which form part of this trend are not mobilized by the author . While the book cites with great interest the studies by Michel Villey, Stéphane Rials, François Quastana or Arnault Skornicki, those by Anthony Mergey and Éric Gojosso – which, however, are specifically concerned with physiocracy – are surprisingly absent .4