Unacceptical Debt Unacceptical Excuses!

national debt

Video Bar

Loading...

God is with us...The Prophecy!

If only the N.Y.T. were this honest.....

If only the N.Y.T. were this honest.....
Read it and Weep Liberals!
Showing posts with label Proper Function of the Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Proper Function of the Law. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Frédéric Bastiat's The Law Part 6

Philanthropic Tyranny
 
 
While society is struggling toward liberty, these famous men who put themselves at its head are filled with the spirit of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. They think only of subjecting mankind to the philanthropic tyranny of their own social inventions. Like Rousseau, they desire to force mankind docilely to bear this yoke of the public welfare that they have dreamed up in their own imaginations.
 



 
This was especially true in 1789. No sooner was the old regime destroyed than society was subjected to still other artificial arrangements, always starting from the same point: the omnipotence of the law.
 
 
Listen to the ideas of a few of the writers and politicians during that period:

SAINT-JUST: The legislator commands the future. It is for him to will the good of mankind. It is for him to make men what he wills them to be.


ROBESPIERRE: The function of government is to direct the physical and moral powers of the nation toward the end for which the commonwealth has come into being.


BILLAUD-VARENNES: A people who are to be returned to liberty must be formed anew. A strong force and vigorous action are necessary to destroy old prejudices, to change old customs, to correct depraved affections, to restrict superfluous wants, and to destroy ingrained vices.... Citizens, the inflexible austerity of Lycurgus created the firm foundation of the Spartan republic. The weak and trusting character of Solon plunged Athens into slavery. This parallel embraces the whole science of government.


LE PELLETIER: Considering the extent of human degradation, I am convinced that it is necessary to effect a total regeneration and, if I may so express myself, of creating a new people.


The Socialists Want Dictatorship
 
 
Again, it is claimed that persons are nothing but raw material. It is not for them to will their own improvement; they are incapable of it. According to Saint-Just, only the legislator is capable of doing this. Persons are merely to be what the legislator wills them to be. According to Robespierre, who copies Rousseau literally, the legislator begins by decreeing theend for which the commonwealth has come into being. Once this is determined, the government has only to directthe physical and moral forces of the nation toward that end.
 
 
 Meanwhile, the inhabitants of the nation are to remain completely passive. And according to the teachings of Billaud-Varennes, the people should have no prejudices, no affections, and no desires except those authorized by the legislator. He even goes so far as to say that the inflexible austerity of one man is the foundation of a republic.
 
 
In cases where the alleged evil is so great that ordinary governmental procedures cannot cure it, Mably recommends a dictatorship to promote virtue: "Resort," he says, "to an extraordinary tribunal with considerable powers for a short time. The imagination of the citizens needs to be struck a hard blow." This doctrine has not been forgotten. Listen to Robespierre:

The principle of the republican government is virtue, and the means required to establish virtue is terror. In our country we desire to substitute morality for selfishness, honesty for honor, principles for customs, duties for manners, the empire of reason for the tyranny of fashion, contempt of vice for contempt of poverty, pride for insolence, greatness of soul for vanity, love of glory for love of money, good people for good companions, merit for intrigue, genius for wit, truth for glitter, the charm of happiness for the boredom of pleasure, the greatness of man for the littleness of the great, a generous, strong, happy people for a good-natured, frivolous, degraded people; in short, we desire to substitute all the virtues and miracles of a republic for all the vices and absurdities of a monarchy.


Dictatorial Arrogance
 
 
At what a tremendous height above the rest of mankind does Robespierre here place himself! And note the arrogance with which he speaks. He is not content to pray for a great reawakening of the human spirit. Nor does he expect such a result from a well-ordered government. No, he himself will remake mankind, and by means of terror.
 
 
This mass of rotten and contradictory statements is extracted from a discourse by Robespierre in which he aims to explain theprinciples of morality which ought to guide a revolutionary government. Note that Robespierre's request for dictatorship is not made merely for the purpose of repelling a foreign invasion or putting down the opposing groups.
 
 
Rather he wants a dictatorship in order that he may use terror to force upon the country his own principles of morality. He says that this act is only to be a temporary measure preceding a new constitution. But in reality, he desires nothing short of using terror to extinguish from Franceselfishness, honor, customs, manners, fashion, vanity, love of money, good companionship, intrigue, wit, sensuousness, and poverty. Not until he, Robespierre, shall have accomplished these miracles, as he so rightly calls them, will he permit the law to reign again.

(At this point in the original French text, Mr. Bastiat pauses and speaks thusly to all do-gooders and would-be rulers of mankind: "Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough.")


The Indirect Approach to Despotism
 
 
Usually, however, these gentlemen— the reformers, the legislators, and the writers on public affairs —do not desire to impose direct despotism upon mankind. Oh no, they are too moderate and philanthropic for such direct action. Instead, they turn to the law for this despotism, this absolutism, this omnipotence. They desire only to make the laws.
 
 
To show the prevalence of this queer idea in France, I would need to copy not only the entire works of Mably, Raynal, Rousseau, and Fenelon— plus long extracts from Bossuet and Montesquieu —but also the entire proceedings of the Convention. I shall do no such thing; I merely refer the reader to them.
 
 

Napoleon Wanted Passive Mankind
 
 
It is, of course, not at all surprising that this same idea should have greatly appealed to Napoleon. He embraced it ardently and used it with vigor. Like a chemist, Napoleon considered all Europe to be material for his experiments. But, in due course, this material reacted against him.
 
 
At St. Helena, Napoleon — greatly disillusioned —seemed to recognize some initiative in mankind. Recognizing this, he became less hostile to liberty. Nevertheless, this did not prevent him from leaving this lesson to his son in his will: "To govern is to increase and spread morality, education, and happiness."
 
 
After all this, it is hardly necessary to quote the same opinions from Morelly, Babeuf, Owen, Saint-Simon, and Fourier. Here are, however, a few extracts from Louis Blanc's book on the organization of labor: "In our plan, society receives its momentum from power."
 
 
Now consider this: The impulse behind this momentum is to be supplied by the plan of Louis Blanc; his plan is to be forced upon society; the society referred to is the human race. Thus the human race is to receive its momentum from Louis Blanc.
 
 
Now it will be said that the people are free to accept or to reject this plan. Admittedly, people are free to accept or to reject advice from whomever they wish. But this is not the way in which Mr. Louis Blanc understands the matter. He expects that his plan will be legalized, and thus forcibly imposed upon the people by the power of the law:

In our plan, the state has only to pass labor laws (nothing else?) by means of which industrial progress can and must proceed in complete liberty. The state merely places society on an incline (that is all?). Then society will slide down this incline by the mere force of things, and by the natural workings of the established mechanism.

But what is this incline that is indicated by Mr. Louis Blanc? Does it not lead to an abyss? (No, it leads to happiness.) If this is true, then why does not society go there of its own choice? (Because society does not know what it wants; it must be propelled.) What is to propel it? (Power.) And who is to supply the impulse for this power? (Why, the inventor of the machine — in this instance, Mr. Louis Blanc.)
 
 

The Vicious Circle of Socialism
 
 
We shall never escape from this circle: the idea of passive mankind, and the power of the law being used by a great man to propel the people.
 
 
Once on this incline, will society enjoy some liberty? (Certainly.) And what is liberty, Mr. Louis Blanc?

Once and for all, liberty is not only a mere granted right; it is also the power granted to a person to use and to develop his faculties under a reign of justice and under the protection of the law.


And this is no pointless distinction; its meaning is deep and its consequences are difficult to estimate. For once it is agreed that a person, to be truly free, must have the power to use and develop his faculties, then it follows that every person has a claim on society for such education as will permit him to develop himself. It also follows that every person has a claim on society for tools of production, without which human activity cannot be fully effective.

Now by what action can society give to every person the necessary education and the necessary tools of production, if not by the action of the state?


Thus, again, liberty is power. Of what does this power consist? (Of being educated and of being given the tools of production.) Who is to give the education and the tools of production? (Society, which owes them to everyone.)


By what action is society to give tools of production to those who do not own them? (Why, by the action of the state.) And from whom will the state take them?

Let the reader answer that question. Let him also notice the direction in which this is taking us.
 
 

The Doctrine of the Democrats
 
 
The strange phenomenon of our times— one which will probably astound our descendants —is the doctrine based on this triple hypothesis: the total inertness of mankind, the omnipotence of the law, and the infallibility of the legislator. These three ideas form the sacred symbol of those who proclaim themselves totally democratic.
 
 
The advocates of this doctrine also profess to be social. So far as they are democratic, they place unlimited faith in mankind. But so far as they are social, they regard mankind as little better than mud. Let us examine this contrast in greater detail.
 
 
What is the attitude of the democrat when political rights are under discussion?
 
How does he regard the people when a legislator is to be chosen?
 
Ah, then it is claimed that the people have an instinctive wisdom; they are gifted with the finest perception; their will is always right; the general will cannot err; voting cannot be too universal.
 
 
When it is time to vote, apparently the voter is not to be asked for any guarantee of his wisdom. His will and capacity to choose wisely are taken for granted. Can the people be mistaken?
 
 Are we not living in an age of enlightenment?
 
What! are the people always to be kept on leashes? Have they not won their rights by great effort and sacrifice?
 
Have they not given ample proof of their intelligence and wisdom?
 
 Are they not adults?
 
 Are they not capable of judging for themselves?
 
Do they not know what is best for themselves?
 
Is there a class or a man who would be so bold as to set himself above the people, and judge and act for them? No, no, the people are and should be free. They desire to manage their own affairs, and they shall do so.
 
But when the legislator is finally elected—
 
ah!
 
 then indeed does the tone of his speech undergo a radical change. The people are returned to passiveness, inertness, and unconsciousness; the legislator enters into omnipotence. Now it is for him to initiate, to direct, to propel, and to organize. Mankind has only to submit; the hour of despotism has struck. We now observe this fatal idea: The people who, during the election, were so wise, so moral, and so perfect, now have no tendencies whatever; or if they have any, they are tendencies that lead downward into degradation.
 
 

The Socialist Concept of Liberty
 
 
But ought not the people be given a little liberty?
 
 
But Mr. Considerant has assured us thatliberty leads inevitably to monopoly!
 
 
We understand that liberty means competition.
 
But according to Mr. Louis Blanc,competition is a system that ruins the businessmen and exterminates the people. It is for this reason that free people are ruined and exterminated in proportion to their degree of freedom. (Possibly Mr. Louis Blanc should observe the results of competition in, for example, Switzerland, Holland, England, and the United States.)
 
 
Mr. Louis Blanc also tells us that competition leads to monopoly. And by the same reasoning, he thus informs us thatlow prices lead to high prices;that competition drives production to destructive activity;that competition drains away the sources of purchasing power;that competition forces an increase in production while, at the same time, it forces a decrease in consumption.
 
 
From this, it follows that free people produce for the sake of not consuming; that liberty means oppression and madness among the people; and that Mr. Louis Blanc absolutely must attend to it.
 
 

Socialists Fear All Liberties
 
 
Well, what liberty should the legislators permit people to have? Liberty of conscience? (But if this were permitted, we would see the people taking this opportunity to become atheists.)
Then liberty of education?
 
 (But parents would pay professors to teach their children immorality and falsehoods; besides, according to Mr. Thiers, if education were left to national liberty, it would cease to be national, and we would be teaching our children the ideas of the Turks or Hindus; whereas, thanks to this legal despotism over education, our children now have the good fortune to be taught the noble ideas of the Romans.)
 
 
Then liberty of labor? (But that would mean competition which, in turn, leaves production unconsumed, ruins businessmen, and exterminates the people.)
 
 
Perhaps liberty of trade? (But everyone knows— and the advocates of protective tariffs have proved over and over again —that freedom of trade ruins every person who engages in it, and that it is necessary to suppress freedom of trade in order to prosper.)
 
 
Possibly then, liberty of association? (But, according to socialist doctrine, true liberty and voluntary association are in contradiction to each other, and the purpose of the socialists is to suppress liberty of association precisely in order to force people to associate together in true liberty.)
 
 
Clearly then, the conscience of the social democrats cannot permit persons to have any liberty because they believe that the nature of mankind tends always toward every kind of degradation and disaster. Thus, of course, the legislators must make plans for the people in order to save them from themselves.
 
 
This line of reasoning brings us to a challenging question: If people are as incapable, as immoral, and as ignorant as the politicians indicate, then why is the right of these same people to vote defended with such passionate insistence?
 
 

The Superman Idea
 
 
The claims of these organizers of humanity raise another question which I have often asked them and which, so far as I know, they have never answered: If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good?
 
 Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race?
 
 Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?
 
The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction.
 
Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority.
 
 
They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority.
 
 

The Socialists Reject Free Choice
 
 
Please understand that I do not dispute their right to invent social combinations, to advertise them, to advocate them, and to try them upon themselves, at their own expense and risk. But I do dispute their right to impose these plans upon us by law — by force — and to compel us to pay for them with our taxes.
 
 
I do not insist that the supporters of these various social schools of thought— the Proudhonists, the Cabetists, the Fourierists, the Universitarists, and the Protectionists —renounce their various ideas. I insist only that they renounce this one idea that they have in common: They need only to give up the idea of forcing us to acquiesce to their groups and series, their socialized projects, their free-credit banks, their Graeco-Roman concept of morality, and their commercial regulations.
 
I ask only that we be permitted to decide upon these plans for ourselves; that we not be forced to accept them, directly or indirectly, if we find them to be contrary to our best interests or repugnant to our consciences.
 
 
But these organizers desire access to the tax funds and to the power of the law in order to carry out their plans. In addition to being oppressive and unjust, this desire also implies the fatal supposition that the organizer is infallible and mankind is incompetent. But, again, if persons are incompetent to judge for themselves, then why all this talk about universal suffrage?
 
 

The Cause of French Revolutions
 
 
This contradiction in ideas is, unfortunately but logically, reflected in events in France. For example, Frenchmen have led all other Europeans in obtaining their rights— or, more accurately, their political demands.
 
Yet this fact has in no respect prevented us from becoming the most governed, the most regulated, the most imposed upon, the most harnessed, and the most exploited people in Europe. France also leads all other nations as the one where revolutions are constantly to be anticipated. And under the circumstances, it is quite natural that this should be the case.
 
 
And this will remain the case so long as our politicians continue to accept this idea that has been so well expressed by Mr. Louis Blanc: "Society receives its momentum from power." This will remain the case so long as human beings with feelings continue to remain passive; so long as they consider themselves incapable of bettering their prosperity and happiness by their own intelligence and their own energy; so long as they expect everything from the law; in short, so long as they imagine that their relationship to the state is the same as that of the sheep to the shepherd.
 
 

The Enormous Power of Government
 
 
As long as these ideas prevail, it is clear that the responsibility of government is enormous. Good fortune and bad fortune, wealth and destitution, equality and inequality, virtue and vice— all then depend upon political administration. It is burdened with everything, it undertakes everything, it does everything; therefore it is responsible for everything.
If we are fortunate, then government has a claim to our gratitude; but if we are unfortunate, then government must bear the blame.
 
 
For are not our persons and property now at the disposal of government?
 
 Is not the law omnipotent?
 
 
In creating a monopoly of education, the government must answer to the hopes of the fathers of families who have thus been deprived of their liberty; and if these hopes are shattered, whose fault is it? In regulating industry, the government has contracted to make it prosper; otherwise it is absurd to deprive industry of its liberty. And if industry now suffers, whose fault is it?
 
 
In meddling with the balance of trade by playing with tariffs, the government thereby contracts to make trade prosper; and if this results in destruction instead of prosperity, whose fault is it?
 
 
In giving the maritime industries protection in exchange for their liberty, the government undertakes to make them profitable; and if they become a burden to the taxpayers, whose fault is it?
 
 
Thus there is not a grievance in the nation for which the government does not voluntarily make itself responsible. Is it surprising, then, that every failure increases the threat of another revolution in France?
 
 
And what remedy is proposed for this? To extend indefinitely the domain of the law; that is, the responsibility of government.
 
 
But if the government undertakes to control and to raise wages, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to care for all who may be in want, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to support all unemployed workers, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to lend interest-free money to all borrowers, and cannot do it; if, in these words that we regret to say escaped from the pen of Mr. de Lamartine, "The state considers that its purpose is to enlighten, to develop, to enlarge, to strengthen, to spiritualize, and to sanctify the soul of the people"— and if the government cannot do all of these things, what then? Is it not certain that after every government failure— which, alas! is more than probable —there will be an equally inevitable revolution?
 
 

Politics and Economics
 
 
[Now let us return to a subject that was briefly discussed in the opening pages of this thesis: the relationship of economics and of politics —political economy.][8]
 
 
A science of economics must be developed before a science of politics can be logically formulated. Essentially, economics is the science of determining whether the interests of human beings are harmonious or antagonistic. This must be known before a science of politics can be formulated to determine the proper functions of government.
 
 
Immediately following the development of a science of economics, and at the very beginning of the formulation of a science of politics, this all-important question must be answered: What is law? What ought it to be? What is its scope; its limits? Logically, at what point do the just powers of the legislator stop?
 
 
I do not hesitate to answer:Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice. In short, law is justice.
 
 

Proper Legislative Functions
 
 
It is not true that the legislator has absolute power over our persons and property. The existence of persons and property preceded the existence of the legislator, and his function is only to guarantee their safety.
 
 
It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of these same rights by any other person.
 
 
Since law necessarily requires the support of force, its lawful domain is only in the areas where the use of force is necessary.
 
This is justice.
 
 
Every individual has the right to use force for lawful self-defense. It is for this reason that the collective force— which is only the organized combination of the individual forces —may lawfully be used for the same purpose; and it cannot be used legitimately for any other purpose.
Law is solely the organization of the individual right of self-defense which existed before law was formalized. Law is justice.
 
 

Law and Charity Are Not the Same
 
 
The mission of the law is not to oppress persons and plunder them of their property, even though the law may be acting in a philanthropic spirit. Its mission is to protect persons and property.
 
 
Furthermore, it must not be said that the law may be philanthropic if, in the process, it refrains from oppressing persons and plundering them of their property; this would be a contradiction. The law cannot avoid having an effect upon persons and property; and if the law acts in any manner except to protect them, its actions then necessarily violate the liberty of persons and their right to own property.
 
 
The law is justice — simple and clear, precise and bounded. Every eye can see it, and every mind can grasp it; for justice is measurable, immutable, and unchangeable. Justice is neither more than this nor less than this.
 
 
If you exceed this proper limit— if you attempt to make the law religious, fraternal, equalizing, philanthropic, industrial, literary, or artistic —you will then be lost in an uncharted territory, in vagueness and uncertainty, in a forced utopia or, even worse, in a multitude of utopias, each striving to seize the law and impose it upon you. This is true because fraternity and philanthropy, unlike justice, do not have precise limits. Once started, where will you stop? And where will the law stop itself?
 
 

The High Road to Communism
 
 
Mr. de Saint-Cricq would extend his philanthropy only to some of the industrial groups; he would demand that the lawcontrol the consumers to benefit the producers.
 
 
Mr. Considerant would sponsor the cause of the labor groups; he would use the law to secure for thema guaranteed minimum of clothing, housing, food, and all other necessities of life.
Mr. Louis Blanc would say — and with reason —that these minimum guarantees are merely the beginning of complete fraternity; he would say that the law should give tools of production and free education to all working people.
 
 
Another person would observe that this arrangement would still leave room for inequality; he would claim that the law should give to everyone even in the most inaccessible hamlet— luxury, literature, and art.
 
 
All of these proposals are the high road to communism; legislation will then be — in fact, it already is —the battlefield for the fantasies and greed of everyone.
 
 

The Basis for Stable Government
 
 
Law is justice.
 
In this proposition a simple and enduring government can be conceived. And I defy anyone to say how even the thought of revolution, of insurrection, of the slightest uprising could arise against a government whose organized force was confined only to suppressing injustice.
 
 
Under such a regime, there would be the most prosperity— and it would be the most equally distributed. As for the sufferings that are inseparable from humanity, no one would even think of accusing the government for them. This is true because, if the force of government were limited to suppressing injustice, then government would be as innocent of these sufferings as it is now innocent of changes in the temperature.
 
 
As proof of this statement, consider this question: Have the people ever been known to rise against the Court of Appeals, or mob a Justice of the Peace, in order to get higher wages, free credit, tools of production, favorable tariffs, or government-created jobs?
 
 Everyone knows perfectly well that such matters are not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals or a Justice of the Peace. And if government were limited to its proper functions, everyone would soon learn that these matters are not within the jurisdiction of the law itself.
 
 
But make the laws upon the principle of fraternity— proclaim that all good, and all bad, stem from the law; that the law is responsible for all individual misfortunes and all social inequalities —then the door is open to an endless succession of complaints, irritations, troubles, and revolutions.
 
 

Justice Means Equal Rights
 
 
Law is justice.
 
 And it would indeed be strange if law could properly be anything else! Is not justice right? Are not rights equal? By what right does the law force me to conform to the social plans of Mr. Mimerel, Mr. de Melun, Mr. Thiers, or Mr. Louis Blanc? If the law has a moral right to do this, why does it not, then, force these gentlemen to submit to my plans? Is it logical to suppose that nature has not given mesufficient imagination to dream up a utopia also? Should the law choose one fantasy among many, and put the organized force of government at its service only?
 
 
Law is justice. And let it not be said — as it continually is said —that under this concept, the law would be atheistic, individualistic, and heartless; that it would make mankind in its own image. This is an absurd conclusion, worthy only of those worshippers of government who believe that the law is mankind.
 
 
Nonsense! Do those worshippers of government believe that free persons will cease to act? Does it follow that if we receive no energy from the law, we shall receive no energy at all?
 
 Does it follow that if the law is restricted to the function of protecting the free use of our faculties, we will be unable to use our faculties?
 
 Suppose that the law does not force us to follow certain forms of religion, or systems of association, or methods of education, or regulations of labor, or regulations of trade, or plans for charity; does it then follow that we shall eagerly plunge into atheism, hermitary, ignorance, misery, and greed?
 
 If we are free, does it follow that we shall no longer recognize the power and goodness of God? Does it follow that we shall then cease to associate with each other, to help each other, to love and succor our unfortunate brothers, to study the secrets of nature, and to strive to improve ourselves to the best of our abilities?
 
 

The Path to Dignity and Progress
 
 
Law is justice.
 
And it is under the law of justice— under the reign of right; under the influence of liberty, safety, stability, and responsibility —that every person will attain his real worth and the true dignity of his being. It is only under this law of justice that mankind will achieve— slowly, no doubt, but certainly —God's design for the orderly and peaceful progress of humanity.
 
 
It seems to me that this is theoretically right, for whatever the question under discussion —whether religious, philosophical, political, or economic; whether it concerns prosperity, morality, equality, right, justice, progress, responsibility, cooperation, property, labor, trade, capital, wages, taxes, population, finance, or government —at whatever point on the scientific horizon I begin my researches, I invariably reach this one conclusion: The solution to the problems of human relationships is to be found in liberty.
 
 
 

Proof of an Idea
 
 
And does not experience prove this? Look at the entire world. Which countries contain the most peaceful, the most moral, and the happiest people?
 
Those people are found in the countries where the law least interferes with private affairs; where government is least felt; where the individual has the greatest scope, and free opinion the greatest influence; where administrative powers are fewest and simplest; where taxes are lightest and most nearly equal, and popular discontent the least excited and the least justifiable; where individuals and groups most actively assume their responsibilities, and, consequently, where the morals of admittedly imperfect human beings are constantly improving; where trade, assemblies, and associations are the least restricted; where labor, capital, and populations suffer the fewest forced displacements; where mankind most nearly follows its own natural inclinations; where the inventions of men are most nearly in harmony with the laws of God; in short, the happiest, most moral, and most peaceful people are those who most nearly follow this principle: Although mankind is not perfect, still, all hope rests upon the free and voluntary actions of persons within the limits of right; law or force is to be used for nothing except the administration of universal justice.
 
 

The Desire to Rule Over Others
 
 
This must be said: There are too many "great" men in the world— legislators, organizers, do-gooders, leaders of the people, fathers of nations, and so on, and so on. Too many persons place themselves above mankind; they make a career of organizing it, patronizing it, and ruling it.
Now someone will say: "You yourself are doing this very thing." True. But it must be admitted that I act in an entirely different sense; if I have joined the ranks of the reformers, it is solely for the purpose of persuading them to leave people alone. I do not look upon people as Vancauson looked upon his automaton. Rather, just as the physiologist accepts the human body as it is, so do I accept people as they are. I desire only to study and admire.
 
 
My attitude toward all other persons is well illustrated by this story from a celebrated traveler: He arrived one day in the midst of a tribe of savages, where a child had just been born. A crowd of soothsayers, magicians, and quacks— armed with rings, hooks, and cords — surrounded it.
 
One said: "This child will never smell the perfume of a peace-pipe unless I stretch his nostrils." Another said: "He will never be able to hear unless I draw his ear-lobes down to his shoulders." A third said: "He will never see the sunshine unless I slant his eyes." Another said: "He will never stand upright unless I bend his legs." A fifth said: "He will never learn to think unless I flatten his skull."
 
 
"Stop," cried the traveler. "What God does is well done. Do not claim to know more than He. God has given organs to this frail creature; let them develop and grow strong by exercise, use, experience, and liberty."
 
 

Let Us Now Try Liberty
 
 
God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! A way with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!
 
 
And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.




Notes

[1]: General Council of Manufacturers, Agriculture, and Commerce, May 6, 1850
 
[2]:  Translator's note: At the time this was written, Mr. Bastiat knew that he was dying of tuberculosis. Within a year, he was dead.
 
[3]: Translator's note: The French word used by Mr. Bastiat is spoliation.
 
[4]: If the special privilege of government protection against competition— a monopoly —were granted only to one group in France, the iron workers, for instance, this act would so obviously be legal plunder that it could not last for long. It is for this reason that we see all the protected trades combined into a common cause. They even organize themselves in such a manner as to appear to representall persons who labor. Instinctively, they feel that legal plunder is concealed by generalizing it.
 
[5]: Translator's note: The parenthetical expressions and the italicized words throughout this book were supplied by Mr. Bastiat. All subheads and bracketed material were supplied by the translator.
 
[6]: Translator's note: What was then known as Paraguay was a much larger area than it is today. It was colonized by the Jesuits who settled the Indians into villages, and generally saved them from further brutalities by the avoid conquerors.
 
[7]: Translator's note: According to Rousseau, the existence of social man is partialin the sense that be is henceforth merely a part of society. Knowing himself as such— and thinking and feeling from the point of view of the whole —he thereby becomes moral.
 
[8]: Translator's note: Mr. Bastiat has devoted three other books and several articles to the development of the ideas contained in the three sentences of the following paragraph.



Found on the site US History resources in the translation by Dean Russell for the Foundation for Economic Education. Reformatted by François-René Rideau for Bastiat.org.
On Bastiat.org, you may also find the original text in French "La loi", and other works of Bastiat, either in French or translated into English.
 

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

The Law- Frédéric Bastiat part 3

The Law


Frédéric Bastiat
PART 3


Slavery and Tariffs Are Plunder
 
 
 
 
What are these two issues?
 
They are slavery and tariffs.
 
 These are the only two issues where, contrary to the general spirit of the republic of the United States, law has assumed the character of a plunderer.
 
Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty.
 
The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property.
 
 
It is a most remarkable fact that this double legal crime— a sorrowful inheritance from the Old World —should be the only issue which can, and perhaps will, lead to the ruin of the Union. It is indeed impossible to imagine, at the very heart of a society, a more astounding fact than this:The law has come to be an instrument of injustice.
 
And if this fact brings terrible consequences to the United States— where the proper purpose of the law has been perverted only in the instances of slavery and tariffs —what must be the consequences in Europe, where the perversion of the law is a principle; a system?
 
 

Two Kinds of Plunder
 
 
Mr. de Montalembert [politician and writer] adopting the thought contained in a famous proclamation by Mr. Carlier, has said: "We must make war against socialism." According to the definition of socialism advanced by Mr. Charles Dupin, he meant: "We must make war against plunder."
 
But of what plunder was he speaking?
 
 For there are two kinds of plunder:
 
 legal and illegal.
 
 
I do not think that illegal plunder, such as theft or swindling— which the penal code defines, anticipates, and punishes —can be called socialism. It is not this kind of plunder that systematically threatens the foundations of society. Anyway, the war against this kind of plunder has not waited for the command of these gentlemen. The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. Long before the Revolution of February 1848— long before the appearance even of socialism itself —France had provided police, judges, gendarmes, prisons, dungeons, and scaffolds for the purpose of fighting illegal plunder. The law itself conducts this war, and it is my wish and opinion that the law should always maintain this attitude toward plunder.
 
 

The Law Defends Plunder
 
 
But it does not always do this. Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger, and scruple which their acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim — when he defends himself — as a criminal. In short, there is a legal plunder, and it is of this, no doubt, that Mr. de Montalembert speaks.
 
 
This legal plunder may be only an isolated stain among the legislative measures of the people. If so, it is best to wipe it out with a minimum of speeches and denunciations— and in spite of the uproar of the vested interests.
 
 

How to Identify Legal Plunder
 
 
But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
 
 
Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case —is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.
 
 
The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.
 
 
Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.
 
 

Legal Plunder Has Many Names
 
 
Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole— with their common aim of legal plunder —constitute socialism.
 
 
Now, since under this definition socialism is a body of doctrine, what attack can be made against it other than a war of doctrine? If you find this socialistic doctrine to be false, absurd, and evil, then refute it. And the more false, the more absurd, and the more evil it is, the easier it will be to refute. Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may have crept into your legislation. This will be no light task.
 
 

Socialism Is Legal Plunder
 
 
Mr. de Montalembert has been accused of desiring to fight socialism by the use of brute force. He ought to be exonerated from this accusation, for he has plainly said: "The war that we must fight against socialism must be in harmony with law, honor, and justice."
 
 
But why does not Mr. de Montalembert see that he has placed himself in a vicious circle? You would use the law to oppose socialism? But it is upon the law that socialism itself relies. Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder. Socialists, like all other monopolists, desire to make the law their own weapon. And when once the law is on the side of socialism, how can it be used against socialism? For when plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes, and your prisons. Rather, it may call upon them for help.
 
 
To prevent this, you would exclude socialism from entering into the making of laws? You would prevent socialists from entering the Legislative Palace? You shall not succeed, I predict, so long as legal plunder continues to be the main business of the legislature. It is illogical — in fact, absurd — to assume otherwise.
 
 

The Choice Before Us
 
 
This question of legal plunder must be settled once and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:

  1. The few plunder the many.
  2. Everybody plunders everybody.
  3. Nobody plunders anybody.

We must make our choice among limited plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder. The law can follow only one of these three.
 
Limited legal plunder:
 This system prevailed when the right to vote was restricted. One would turn back to this system to prevent the invasion of socialism.
 
Universal legal plunder:
We have been threatened with this system since the franchise was made universal. The newly enfranchised majority has decided to formulate law on the same principle of legal plunder that was used by their predecessors when the vote was limited.
 
No legal plunder:
This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic. Until the day of my death, I shall proclaim this principle with all the force of my lungs (which alas! is all too inadequate).[2]
 
 

The Proper Function of the Law
 
 
And, in all sincerity, can anything more than the absence of plunder be required of the law? Can the law — which necessarily requires the use of force —rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution— so long searched for in the area of social relationships —is contained in these simple words:

Law is organized justice.
 
 
Now this must be said: When justice is organized by law — that is, by force —this excludes the idea of using law (force) to organize any human activity whatever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy the essential organization— justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being used against the liberty of citizens without it also being used against justice, and thus acting against its proper purpose?
 
 

The Seductive Lure of Socialism
 
 
Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.
 
 
This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again: These two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.

Total Pageviews

I'm a proud Conservative

"Yes I do proudly support Donald J. Trump for President, I am a Christian something I'm even more proud of. I believe that Donald Trump's policies will make America Great Again and the dream of American prosperity a real tangible thing again.

We have lost the ability to do great things because we have lost our faith in God and our founding principles. It's really not hard to support the best choice that's a no brainier, it's also not hard to support the WRONG choice because we base choice not on facts in front of us but make it based upon the PUSH from Left or from the Right, I say decide based upon contextual facts, in-depth study and pure common sense something the establishment doesn't utilize!

Support This Ministry- Check Out These Sites!

My photo

Before you look at the links below know this about me, I do not know everything about anything, I know only what God has revealed to me.

Proving God exists CANNOT be done for the person who is not open to hearing and seeing the evidence as God sees it. Faith is the KEY to releasing all the evidence contained in creation, in man's heart and his mind. Without FAITH no one can ever please God so to throw away faith as unimportant destroys our receptivity to the evidence!

I was a hypocrite, a sinner and a fool, sometimes even as a believer but as long as God is in control I'm forgiven and healed of every form of human shortcoming. Nothing can stand before the evidence contained in Faith.....NOTHING!


LEARN MORE ABOUT ME AND MY MINISTRY HERE!

http://hopefromdispair.blogspot.com/

http://skepticalofskepticism.blogspot.com/

http://truthinprophecy.blogspot.com/

http://affiliatesgoldenchest.blogspot.com/

http://endwashingtonwaste.blogspot.com/

http://alltheusefulidiots.blogspot.com/
WebRep
Overall rating
 

Translate This Blog

The COMPLETE story about Hillary's E-Mail Scandel !