The Law - 2024

As It Always Should Be - Part One

“The Law” by Frederic Bastiat was written in 1850. Many people to this day have never read it. It was one of the most influential booklets in my life because it spoke to my reason, logic and common sense so well that I am convinced it is a truth given to us through Mr. Bastiat by the very creator of the Universe. I have taken the liberty to update it to terms we use in the year 2024 here in these United States. I have also added some statements to further instill in the reader the magnitude of the subject. Remember, this was written 174 years ago.

Could you imagine what the world would be like, how many less deaths there would have been, how many more people could have known their true potential if the precepts of this writing had been adhered to? I suspect we may have been to the stars by now if it had been so.

It should be read by everyone in school by at least the age of 13. It should be re read at the age of 18 and maybe some time after that as a reminder. Be sure to share this far and wide. If you have never read it…you will be in for a lesson you may never forget! Yes, it is a bit long, but the truth behind it is well worth the study. Due to Substack Email constraints it needed to be a four part series. . The other three parts are at these following links. Part Two , Part Three and Part Four. Get your friends and relatives to read this. Start some brushfires of liberty in the minds of men and women EVERYWHERE!!!. C.L.

---

The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish! If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call attention of my fellow citizens to it.

Life is a Gift from our Creator

We hold from a creator, which is evident from the creation that surrounds us, the gift which includes all others. This gift is life itself both physical, intellectual as well as moral life.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, we have been provided with a collection of marvelous faculties. And we have been put into the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course. We also provide services with our labor for our fellow man. For not everyone can be a mechanic, or a plumber. So some of us learn the trade and apply it as a service for those who do not know the trade.

Life, faculties, production. In other words, individuality, liberty and property-this is what makes up human kind. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from our creator precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.

Life, liberty and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. For no law should exist for any other reason than to protect that life, liberty and property that we accumulate through the act of labor.

What than is this “Law” we speak of?

What, then is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right given us by the life our Creator has endowed us with, to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? To obtain property you must give up a portion of your life to do so. Any attack on your property is an attack on the gift of time given to us by our Creator. So if it takes you 100 hours to obtain some sort of property and anyone were to take that from you by force, or threat of force, you will have effectively lost 100 hours of the life you were given by the aggressor.

If every person has the right to defend-even by force-his person, his liberty, and his property, then it obviously follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right-its reason for existing, its lawfulness-is based on an individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force, for the same reason, cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of any individual or groups of individuals.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to attack the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force since it is nothing more than the organized combination of the force an individual possesses to protect himself and his property?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this:

The law is the organization of our individual Creator given natural right to lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual has a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

To Have a Just and Enduring Government…

Any nation, founded on this basis, logically shows that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. Reason says that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, non-oppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable-whatever its political form might be.

Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the government for our success. And. conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming those administering government for our misfortunes than would the farmers blame them because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only as an invaluable blessing of safety provided by such a government.

It can be further stated that, thanks to the non-intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking schooling before they had food. Why could I rightfully expect the cost of educating my children, who are my responsibility by forcing the cost out of my neighbors labor? We would not see the people in cities supported at the expense of country dwellers, nor country dwellers at the expense of city dwellers. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions. What can you expect those who produce to do if they are taxed and regulated to the point where they cannot survive but to flee the oppression and find somewhere to produce what they do at less cost for the consumer and themselves? For to compete in a free market system, it has to be recognized that all costs of production have to be passed on to the consumer. The profit that the person or persons make, of course, is part of the cost too. Labor + materials + transportation + profit = cost to consumer. Many people look at the profit and consider the one that is making the effort to complete the equation to be “greedy”. And in same cases that may be true, but what crime is there in being greedy? Is Jeff Bezos, who some consider to be greedy forcing anyone to purchase through Amazon at gun point? Can the same be said when the “state” does you force to make you pay property tax for “services” you may have no use for whatsoever? I found that my “personal property” taxes pay for a County Library, at the cost of $4.99, which obviously isn’t that much, but I never use the library. I have no desire to. And then there is the schools both K-12 and Community College, which total $206.59 out of a tax “liability” of $226.05! And how can it BE my personal property if someone can decide over and above any objection I may have what it is worth and what it can be taxed for? And this doesn’t include the property tax on my home which is separate. Why is it so many do not seem to see anything wrong with this? I know why…

"When theft has become a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."

If the sources of our existence are made uncertain and precarious by these state-created issues, what can we expect? And, furthermore, these acts burden the government with increased responsibilities that are none of their business in the first place. The free market will regulate the quality and cost of services and products.

What We Have is The Complete Perversion Law

But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed police enforcement at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted theft into a right, in order to protect theft. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense. For wouldn’t you suffer death or imprisonment if you were to defend yourself against unlawful force being administered against you by state agents trying to take your property because you haven’t paid a tax to live in it? Does it really matter if a person commits theft against you what kind of clothing they are wearing or what kind of pretend authority they have to claim the right to steal from you? Theft is theft. If I can’t take your home from you as an individual, you cannot use collective force against me to take it because you have created a “law” that says you can.

How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results? The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: common greed and philanthropy. That being the effort or inclination to increase the well-being of humankind, as by charitable aid or donations. Which is fine in and of itself, but when force is used to promote the well being and force is used to provide the aid or force is used to obtain the costs, it is then FALSE philanthropy. The love of humankind in general, is a good thing. But forcing anyone to “love” someone isn’t how love is achieved. There is nothing wrong if such an activity or institution, intended to promote human welfare is done so on a voluntary basis. Let us speak of greed…

This is The Fatal Tendency of Mankind

Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing. This should be obvious to even the most ardent skeptic.

But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, some will wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. It would appear the annals of history bear witness to the truth of it. The incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of a small group of men. These men are the ones that created the first “civilization”. They are the psychopaths which seem to always take positions of leadership and control due to their ability to con the average person into thinking they will be better off with them as their “leader”. They also gather around themselves those that are willing to enforce the “laws” that they create to control the masses and allow themselves to survive at the expense of others. They are the parasite. The average working man is the host. So who can you honestly say is the one who is the very definition of the word “greed”? The working man who just wants to house, cloth and feed his family or the one who works to steal from the man who wants those simple requirements of life to be fulfilled? If you work for any state agency, be if federal, state or local and you offer no good or service that is needed by the people, I repeat… you are a parasite and those who pay for your existence are the host.

Property VS Theft

Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the continual application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of all property. But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This way of life is obviously nothing but theft.

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain-and since labor is pain in itself-it follows that some men will resort to theft whenever stealing is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does the theft stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to steal instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish theft.

But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And that class is made up of psychopaths. Men who have no problem with robbing, raping, murdering and tyrannizing their fellow man. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws. And that force is made up of enforcers who will steal for those who sign their checks.

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of some men to satisfy their wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it becomes easier to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by legalized theft. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds. And to be that person, you have to believe that it is OK to steal and rob your fellow man for your own purpose.

It becomes more obvious if you observe carefully that no matter what illegal thing a modern politician does, no one will really take him to task. Especially when it comes to trampling on the rights of the citizens. And if a politician is against their rule, and currently the effort is for a “one world government” all of the effort they can muster will be against anyone who isn’t part of their “club”. Just look at the way the NATIONALIST, Donald Trump, has been attacked for the last six years. All of the so called scandals that have come up, any one of which would have taken down a legitimate administration if they had been true, are just dog and pony shows played out for the public, to distract us and to make us think that “democracy” or “representative government” is still working. It’s a bad joke.

Victims of Legalized Theft

Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when theft is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the classes who have been stolen from try somehow to enter-by peaceful or revolutionary means-into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these victim classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop legalized theft, or they may wish to share in it.

Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of legalized theft when they, in turn, seize the power to make the laws!

Until that happens, the few practice legalized thievery upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal theft. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the persecuted classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legalized theft. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in the very same thing they were subject to, even though it is against their own interests. Maybe what is really taking place is that psychopaths that were in control had their reign taken over by bigger psychopaths. That is a view I seem to come to the conclusion of.

It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution-some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding. And it seems that a reign of justice when you look at the world from a historical perspective has only ever been for short periods of time before those who are psychopaths convince the rest of the people in their influence to let them have the reigns of power again.

The Results of Legalized Thievery

It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of theft.

What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.
In the first place, it erases from everyone's conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.
      No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict one another, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two can be of equal consequence, and it becomes difficult for a person to choose between them. I say let your moral sense rule you. Any law that violates a right is no “real” law in the first place.
      The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of many people, law and justice are equal to one another. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make theft appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and many a monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them. Those with reason, logic and common sense tend to become the non-conformist or the “law breaker” from the view of the one who has become a victim of cognitive dissonance.

The Fate of Non-Conformists or As Most Would See Them…”Law Breakers”

 If you suggest a doubt as to the morality of these institutions, it is boldly said that "You are a subversive; you would shatter the foundation upon which society rests."
       If you lecture upon morality or upon political science, there will be found official organization petitioning the government in this vein of thought: "That science no longer be taught exclusively from the point of view of free trade (of liberty, of property, and of justice) as has been the case until now, but also, in the future, science is to be especially taught from the viewpoint of the facts and laws that regulate United States industry (facts and laws which are contrary to liberty, to property, and to justice). That, in government-endowed teaching positions, the professor rigorously refrain from endangering in the slightest degree the respect due to the law now in force."
      Thus, if there exists a law which sanctions slavery or monopoly, oppression or robbery, in any form whatever, it must not even be mentioned. For how can it be mentioned without damaging the respect which it inspires? Still further, morality and political economy must be taught from the point of view of this law; from the supposition that it must be a just law merely because it is a law. If not you will be censored and most likely fired from your position of teaching.
      Another effect of this tragic perversion of the law is that it gives an exaggerated importance to political passions and conflicts, and to politics in general.

Who Shall Judge?

When Bastiat wrote “The Law” there was no such thing as universal suffrage in effect. Voting was restricted to a certain class of people. When the United States was formed, the Founding Fathers had the same mentality or understanding. There was no universal suffrage. It actually took the 19th amendment to the bill of rights to extend the ability/right to vote to women. And the 14th amendment pretty much allowed freed slaves to vote.

If you understand the REASON they didn’t allow just anyone to vote, you might then understand WHY it may have been a bad idea to allow just anyone to vote. But then again, if you are of the class that wouldn’t be able to vote, this would upset you even though the reason makes a lot of sense for property owners.

The reason was this…there are always less property owners than there are those who have no property. By allowing non property owners to vote…they could vote away the property of the property owners by means of state force. Has that happened? I would conclude that YES it has happened. Think about what the local school district system is paid with. It’s paid with forced property taxes more correctly called rent that you pay on your home every year under the threat of violence and loss of your home if you do not comply. So even if you don’t use the school system or wish to support it, you are forced to anyhow. We homeschooled four sons at the cost of over $1,000,000 over a 20 year period as my wife was a registered nurse that made about $50K a year. Multiply $50 x 20 and what do you get? And we also were forced to pay for the government school system too. We gave up the new cars, new house and other new things as a sacrifice to teaching our own children.

Some Reasons Why Voting Was Restricted

A closer examination of subject shows us the motive which causes the right to vote was to be based upon the supposition of incapacity. The motive is that the elector or voter does not exercise the right for himself alone, but for everybody.
      The most extended elective system and the most restricted elective system are alike in this respect. They differ only in respect to what constitutes incapacity. It is not a difference of principle, but merely a difference of degree.
      If, as the republicans of the present-day Greek and Roman schools of thought pretend, the right of the vote arrives with one's birth, it would be an injustice for adults to prevent women and children from voting. Why are they prevented? Because they are presumed to be incapable. And why is incapacity a motive for exclusion? Because it is not the voter alone who suffers the consequences of his vote; because each vote touches and affects everyone in the entire community; because the people in the community have a right to demand some safeguards concerning the acts upon which their welfare and existence depend. Are these demands reasonable? Maybe the demand to keep children from voting is, but is it right to keep woman from voting? Many men would say it would be a good idea, but obviously most women would disagree. Why should disagreement exist? Because men in this type of society are considered the ones who use logic for their reasoning while women are considered emotional. They might be questioned as to why they voted for John F. Kennedy and the answer might be, “because he was handsome”. Which by the way was the answer that some women gave when asked that question back in that day. And in today’s climate they want ILLEGAL immigrants to be able to vote for those who would make laws to steal more of our labor and property from us to support them at our expense. Am I the only one that sees the insanity of this?

The Answer is to Restrict the Law

I know what might be said in answer to this; what the objections might be. But this is not the place to exhaust a controversy on this nature. I wish merely to observe here that this controversy over the universal right to vote (as well as most other political questions) which agitates, excites, and overthrows nations, would lose nearly all of its importance if the law had always been what it ought to be.
      In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual's right to self defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and theft-is it likely that we citizens would then argue about the extent of the franchise?
      Under these circumstances, it is likely that the extent of the right to vote would endanger that supreme good, the public peace? Is it likely that the excluded classes would refuse to peaceably await the coming of their right to vote? Is it likely that those who had the right to vote would jealously defend their privilege?
      If the law were confined to its proper functions, everyone's interest in the law would be the same. Is it not clear that, under the circumstances, those who voted could not inconvenience those who did not vote? In another words, you couldn’t VOTE for laws or edicts that infringed on the rights of others. For instance, you couldn’t have on the ballot a tax for a local school that would infringe on the property rights of other people in the neighborhood. If you want the school paid for, pay for it yourself or get a committee of citizens together to work to get voluntary contributions to the project. What you would find is almost no participation and that in and of itself proves that to be able to vote to increase someone else’s tax (rent) burden would be in direct violation of the purpose of law. Law cannot be properly used to force people into paying for goods or services that they have no desire to use.

The Fatal Idea of Legalized Theft

But on the other hand, imagine that this fatal principle has been introduced: Under the pretense of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law takes the property from one person and gives it to another; the law takes the wealth of all and gives it to a few-whether farmers, manufacturers, shipowners, artists, or comedians. Under these circumstances, then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so.
      The excluded classes will furiously demand their right to vote-and will overthrow society rather than not to obtain it. Even beggars and illegal aliens will then prove to you that they also have an incontestable title to vote. They will say to you:
      "We cannot buy wine, tobacco, or salt without paying the tax. And a part of the tax that we pay is given by law-in privileges and subsidies-to men who are richer than we are. Others use the law to raise the prices of bread, meat, iron, or cloth. Thus, since everyone else uses the law for his own profit, we also would like to use the law for our profit. We demand from the law the right to relief, which is the poor man's theft. To obtain this right, we also should be voters and legislators in order that we may organize beggary on a grand scale for our own class, as you have organized, protection on a grand scale for your class. Now don't tell us beggars that you will act for us, and then toss us, as Chairman Xiden proposes, $10,000 debit cards, to keep us quiet, like throwing us a bone to gnaw. We have other claims. And anyway, we wish to bargain for ourselves as other classes have bargained for themselves!" We were INVITED into the USA by your leaders! And so we clamor for more of the “free” items that we feel we deserve at your expense!
      And what can you say to answer that argument?

Perverted Law Creates Conflict

As long as it is admitted that the law be diverted from its true purpose-that it may violate property instead of protecting it - then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against theft or to use it for theft themselves. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the legislatures in many cases, and the struggle within will be no less furious. To know this, it is hardly necessary to examine what transpires in the 50 State Legislatures as well as the House of “Representatives” and Senate; merely to understand the issue is to know the answer.

Is there any need to offer proof that this odious perversion of the law is a perpetual source of hatred and discord; that it tends to destroy society itself? If such proof is needed, look at the United States [in 1850]. There is no country in the world where the law is kept more in its proper domain: the protection of every person's liberty and property. As a consequence of this, there appears to be no country in the world where the social order rests on a firmer foundation. But even in the United States, there are two issues-and only two-that have always endangered the public peace. And here we are in 2024. Is the statement valid that is made here anymore or have we devolved into a form of forced Communism that is run by psychopathic control freak PARASITES?

Let’s take a look at those two issues…

Slavery and Tariffs Are Theft

What are the 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 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?

And did not the US fight a terrible war allegedly over slavery? Or was it really over the tariffs that were being imposed and lost by the North with the opening of the port in Shreveport Louisiana?

Surprise, surprise…we are now ALL slaves (14th unlawfully ratified amendment) and it seems as if the tariffs that are spoken of are only levied on products from the US going abroad to other countries. That is if we don’t buy them for those countries with fake money that supports the military industrial complex.

Two Kinds of Thievery

Mr de Montalembert [French politician and writer -1850] 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 theft."

But of what theft was he speaking? For there are two kinds of theft; legal and illegal.

I do not think that illegal theft, such as robbery, or swindling-which the penal code defines, anticipates, and punishes- can be called socialism. It is not this kind of theft that systematically threatens the foundation of society. Anyway, the war against this kind of thievery has not waited for the command of these gentlemen. The war against illegal thievery 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 theft. The law itself conducts this war, and it is my wish and opinion that the law should always maintain this attitude toward thievery.

And Here We Find That The Law Defends Theft

But it does not always do this. Sometimes the law defends theft and participates in it. Think of asset forfeiture for one. 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 enforcers at the service of the thieves, and treats the victim-when he defends himself-as a criminal. In short, there is legal thievery, and it is of this, no doubt, that Mr. de Montalembert had spoken of.

This legalized theft 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 Legalized Thievery

But how is this legalized thievery 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. Those beneficiaries of the military industrial complex will scream to high heaven if you try to take away the job of building weapons to attack and kill innocent people with! What will I do if my job is lost? Where will I go? What of my home and family? I’ll loose my pension!

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal theft 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 theft universal under the pretense of organizing it.

Legal Thievery has Many Names

Now, legal theft can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: forced use of fake money through fiat law legislation, 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 legalized theft-constitute socialism/communism.

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. Especially in 2024.

Socialism is Legalized Theft

Mr. de Montalembert had been accused of desiring to fight socialism by the use of brute force. He ought to be exonerated from the 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 he not 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. Socialism desires to practice legal theft, not illegal theft. Socialists, like all other monopolies, 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 theft is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your police, 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 legislatures? You shall not succeed, I predict, so long as legal thievery continues to be the main business of the legislature. It is illogical-in fact, absurd-to assume otherwise. Think of all the “laws” on the books that rake in millions of dollars a year in revenue because someone has violated them? No victims, just the law. Think of the money generated by property taxes in all 50 states and every county country wide. How many people profit from these acts of theft on a day to day basis? If you are forced to have taxes taken for Social Security, I would offer that the only amount you should ever get back is the amount you had stolen from you in the first place and since the monetary system is based totally on fraud, you can at least add inflation to the return that you receive.

The Choice Before Us or Is It Now Behind Us?

This question of legal theft must be settled once and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:

1. The few rob from the many.

2. Everybody steals from everybody.

3. Nobody robs anybody.

We must make our choice among limited theft, universal theft, and no theft. The law can follow only one of these three.

Limited legal theft: 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 theft: 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 thievery that was used by their predecessors when the vote was limited.

No legal theft: 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). {At the time this was written, Mr. Bastiat knew that he was dying of tuberculosis. Within a year, he was dead.}

The Proper Function of the Law

And, in all sincerity, can anything more than the absence of theft be required by the law? Can the law-which necessarily requires the use of force-rationally be used for anything except the protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond that 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 can only be used as 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?

PART TWO

. It appears that to fit in Email it will have to be a Four Part series. Thank you for getting this far! C.L.

---

---