The Proper Function of the Law
Honestly, what more do we need to expect from the law other than a lack of plunder? Can the law -- which needs to use force -- rationally be used for anything other than protecting everyone's rights? I defy anyone who tries to extend it further without not only corrupting it but turning power against what is just. A more deadly and illogical social distortion can't be imagined. We have to accept that the only real solution -- which has been searched for for a very long time in the realm of social relations -- is simply this: Law is organized justice.
This needs to be said: When justice is lawfully organized -- by force -- this eliminates the idea of using law (force) to organize any human action be it labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or religion. If any of these were to be organized by law, the most essential organization, justice, would be destroyed. How can we imagine the force of law being used against people's liberty without the law also being used against justice which in turn makes it go against it's proper task?
The Seductive Lure of Socialism
This brings us to the biggest fallacy of today. It isn't considered good enough that the law be just; now it needs to be philanthropic as well. It isn't even good enough for the law to simply guarantee the people free and inoffensive use of his faulties for physical, mental and moral self improvement. No, now the law is expected to extend welfare, education, and morality nationwide.
This is the seductive lure of socialism. I'll say it again: These two uses of the law are diametrically opposed. We have to choose. It's impossible for someone to be free and not free at the same time.
Enforced Fraternity Destroys Liberty
Mr. de Lamartine once said this in a letter to me: "Your doctrine is only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I replied: "The second half of your program will destroy the first."
I find it impossible to separate the word fraternity from voluntary. It doesn't make any sense to me to say that brotherhood can be legally forced without utterly destroying liberty which results in justice being trample on.
There are two sources of legal plunder: As I've said before, one is human greed and the other is false philanthropy.
At this point I guess I need to clarify what I mean when I use the word plunder.*
*Translator's note: The French word used by Mr. Bastiat is spoliation.
Plunder Violates Ownership
I don't use the word vaguely or without a specific meaning. I mean it in its scientific acceptance -- the idea contrary to that of property (wages, land, money, or whatever). When a percentage of wealth is taken from the owner -- against his will and without compensation and whether forcefully or fraudulently -- to someone who is not the owner, then I say that property is violated and that plunder has been committed.
I tell you, this is what the law is always supposed to prevent no matter where. And when it is the law that commits the act it is supposed to prevent, plunder is still committed, and I submit that from the viewpoint of society and welfare, this assault against rights is even more terrible. In this scenario though, the beneficiary is not directly responsible for plundering. That blame lies with the legislator and society itself. That is where the political danger lies.
Regrettably, the word plunder is offensive. I've tried pointlessly to find one that isn't becaus the last thing I want to do -- especially not now -- want to add an offensive word to our disputes. Whether you believe me or not, I promise that I am not trying to attack the motives or virtues of anyone. I'm simply trying to attack an idea which I believe to be false; one that I believe to be unjust; an injustice so independant of motives that everyone benefits without even wanting to, and conversely suffers from it without even knowing why.
Three Systems of Plunder
I'm not doubting the sincerity of those who promote protectionism, socialism, and communism. Anyone who des that must be under influence of either a political spirit or political fear. It does need to be pointed out though that these three systems are basically three different stages of the same plant. It's just that legal plunder is more obvious in communism because it is nothing but pure plunder; and in protectionism as well because it is limited to specific industries and groups.* So then out of the three, socialism is the most vague, indecisive and sincere developmental stage.
*If the special privilege of government protection against competition -- a monopoly -- were granted only to one group in France, let's say the iron workers, it would be so obvious that it wouldn't last long. Because of that we see the protected trades unite for a common purpose. They even do it in a way that makes them look like they represent all laborers. Instinctively they feel like they're hiding legal plunder by generalizing it.
But sincere or insincere, their motives aren't in doubt here. I already mentioned that legal plunder is somewhat based on philanthropy, even though it isn't really true philanthropy.
With this explanation, let us examine the value -- the origin and the tendency -- of this popular goal which claims to succeed in general welfare by general plunder.
Law Is Force
Socialists will ask: since the law organizes justice, why can't it also organize labor, education, and religion?
Why shouldn't the law do that? Because it couldn't accomplish such organization without destrroying justice. Never forget that the law is force and therefore th proper functions of the law cannot go further than the proper functions of force.
When law and force keep someone within the boundaries of justice, the impose simply a negation. The force him only to not harm others. They do not violate his personality, liberty, or property. All of these are protected. They are defensive; they defend everyone's rights equally..
Law Is a Negative Concept
It's obvious that the mission of the law and lawful defense is harmless; the usefulness is obvious; and it's legitimacy is indisputable.
A friend of mine once said that this negative concept of law is so true that the statement that the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign isn't entirely accurate. More specifically, the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from ruling. It's actually injustice and not justice that exists on it's own. Justice can only be achieved in the absence of injustice.
But when the law, through force, imposes labor regulations, a means or topic of education, a religious faith or creed -- the law has ceased to be a negative force. It begins to act positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own; the initiative of the legislator for their own. When this occurs, people no longer need do discuss, compare or plan ahead; the law already does this for them. Intelligence is simply a worthless prop; they are no longer men; they lose not only their personality but their liberty and property as well.
Give me an example of a labor regulation that is mandated by law that doesn't violate liberty or a forced transfer of wealth that doesn't involve the violation of property. If you can't resolve these contradictions, then you have to realize that the law can't organize labor and industry without organizing injustice as well.
The Political Approach
When a politician looks at society from his office, he is shocked by the inequality in society. He condemns the deprivations that many of our fellow citizens suffer which seem even more depressing when compared with his own luxury and wealth.
Maybe the politician should ask himself if this is because of old conquests and lootings and by more recent legal plunder. Maybe he should think about this: since everyone wants to strive for happiness and perfection, wouldn't a state of justice be good enough to encourage the best efforts for progress and the best possible equality that works with individual responsibility? Wouldn't that mesh with the idea of personal responsibility that God willed so that man would have the choice between vice and virtue and the subsequent punishment or reward?
But, a politician never thinks about that. He immediately thinks of organizations, combinations, and arrangements -- legal or supposedly legal. He tries to fix the evil by increasing and perpetuating what caused the evil to begin with: legal plunder. Does even one of these things not contain the idea of legal plunder?
The Law and Charity
You say: "There are people who don't have money," and you turn to the law. But the law isn't a breast that fills itself with milk. And the lacteal veins of the law aren't supplied by anything outside of society. Nothing goes into the public treasury for someones benefit unless other citizens and classes were already forced to contribute. If everyone only drew out of the treasury what they put in then it's true that the law doesn't plunder anyone. But this doesn't do anything for people with no money. It doesn't promote equality of income. The law only acts as an equalizer when it takes from some people and gives to others. When this happens, the law is an instrument of plunder.
Keep this in mind when you examine protective tarriffs, subsidies, guaranteed profits, guaranteed jobs, relief and welfare schemes, public education, progressive taxation, free credit, and public works. You'll see that they are always based on legal plunder and organized injustice.
The Law and Education
You say: "There are people without education," and you turn to the law. But the law isn't a beacon of learning which shines it's light everywhere. The law reaches out over a society where some are knowledgeable and others are not; where some need to learn and others can teach. When it comes to education the law only has two options: It can either allow the procss of teaching and learning to operate freely without being forced, or it can force the will of people by taking from some enough to pay government appointed teachers who teach others that don't have to pay. But in the latter case, the law plunders by violating both liberty and property.
The Law and Morals
You say: "Here are people without morals or religion," so you turn to the law. But law is force. Do I even need to point out how pointless it is to try and force morality and religion?
It seems like socialists, however self-complacent, couldn't avoid seeing the sheer amount of plundering that results from such systems and efforts. But what do they do? They disguise the plunder from others and from themselves under such alluring titles such as fraternity, unity, organization, and association. Because we only really ask justice from the law and nothing else, they assume we reject fraternity, unity, organization and association. They label us as individualists.
But we assure them that we only reject forced, not natural organization. We reject forced association, not free association. We reject forced, not true fraternity. We reject the false unity that does nothing but rob someone of their personal responsibility. We don't reject the natural unity of man under God.
A Confusion of Terms
Socialism, like it's ideological roots, blurs the distinction between government and society. As a result, when we object to something government does, socialists conclude that we object to it being done period.
We disapprove of state education and so they say we oppose any education at all. We object to a state religion so they assume we want no religion at all. We disapprove of state-enforced equality. So then we're obviously against any equality. And so on and so forth. Next we'll be accused of being against someone eating because we don't want the state producing grain.
The Influence of Socialist Writers
How did politicians ever start to believe the absurd idea that the law can somehow produce what it doesn't contain -- the wealth, science, and religion that constitute prosperity? Is it because of our modern writer's influence on public affairs?
Present-day writers -- especially socialist writers -- base their theories on one common idea: They divide society into two groups: people in general -excluding the writer of course -- form the first group. The writer, all by himself, is the second and most important group. This has got to be the most bizarre and arrogant idea that has ever crossed someones mind!
In fact, these writers assume that people in general have absolutely no way of discerning things for themselves; no motivation to action. The writers assume people are just inert, passive, motionless atoms. People might as well just be some vegetable completely indifferent to its own existence. They assume people are easily molded -- by the machinations of someone else -- into an endless variety of forms, more or less even, artistic and perfect.
Even better, not a single of these writers even hesitates to think that he -- under the title of organizer, discoverer, legislator or founder -- is this powerful, genius force whose lofty purpose is to mold these disorganized materials -- people -- into a society.
These socialist writers thinks of people the same way a gardener thinks about his trees. Much like a gardner carfully shapes trees into pyramids, parasols, cubes, vases, fans, and such, the socialist writer whimsically shapes people into groups, series, centers, sub-centers, honeycombs, labor corps, and other variations. And just as the gardener needs axes, pruning hooks, saws, and shears to shape his trees, the socialist writer needs the force that he only finds in the law to shape humanity. For that purpose, he makes up tariff laws, tax laws, relief laws, and school laws.
The Socialists Wish to Play God
Socialists think of people as raw materials to be made into social groups. This is so true that, if for some reason the socialist doubts the success of a certain group, they will insist on a smaller group to experiment with. The popular idea of trying all systems is well known. There is one socialist leader who actually wanted an entire district, every inhabitant included, to experiment on.
This is the same way an inventor makes a model before he builds the full machine; the chemist wastes some chemicals -- the farmer wastes some seeds and land -- just to try an idea.
But there is a fundamental difference between the gardner and his trees, the inventor and his machine, the chemist and his elements, and the farmer and his seeds! But the socialist, in all sincerity, thinks there is the same level of difference between himself and the rest of humanity.
No wonder our nineteenth century writers see society as just an artificial cration of the legislator's genius. This idea -- the fruit of classical education -- has taken over the monds of all the intellectuals and famous authors of our country. To them, the relationship between citizen and legislator is identical to that of clay and the potter.
Moreover, even when they admit to a principle of action in man -- and that man can actually think for himself -- they think of these gifts from God to be fatal. They assume that with these two gifts man would just naturally want to wipe himself out. If legislator's didn't do anything, the people would arrive at atheism, ignorance and poverty instead of religion, knowledge, and prosperity.
The Socialists Despise Mankind
According to these writers, man is so fortunate that God decided to bless certain men -- not suprisingly governors and legislators -- the exact opposite impulses, not just for their own sake but for the entire world! While man tends toward evil the legislator only wants what is good; while man sprints into the darkness of ignorance, the legislator searches for enlightenment; while compelled toward vice, the legislator is only attracted toward virtue. Since the writers have somehow come to the conclusion that this is how things really are, they demand to be able to use the law in order to put their inclinations in place of the everyone elses.
Just randomly open any book on philosophy, politics, or history, and you'll see just how deeply rooted this idea has become -- the child of classical studies, the mother of socialism. In all of them, you will more than likely find this idea that man is just some sort of inert matter that recieves its life, organization, morality and prosperity from the state. What's worse is that it will be dclared that the only reason man doesn't keep getting worse and destroy himself is because the state intervenes. Conventional classical thought everywhere says that behind passive society there is a hidden power called law or legislator (or some other term that describes some unnamed person or people of indisputable influence and power) that guides, manipulates, benefits and improves humanity.
This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.
No comments:
Post a Comment