The Law - 2024

As It Always Should Be... Part Two

As we continue from Part One of The Law 2024 we find that we have deviated so far from the proper purpose of Law that it seems to be an insurmountable task to get back to using the law for its intended purpose. To be used only as a DEFENSE against the attack of someone against the life, liberty or property of another… let us continue. Where are we today? C.L.

The Seductive Lure of Socialism

Here is where we encounter the most popular lie of all time. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be charitable. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his abilities for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality though out the nation and beyond.

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.

Enforced Fraternity Destroys Liberty

Once a detractor explained his view this way: "Your doctrine in only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him: "The second half of your program will destroy the first."

In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot.

Legal thievery has two roots: one of them, as I have said before, is in human greed; the other is in false charity.

At this point, I think I should explain exactly what I mean by the word plunder. {The French word used by Mr. Bastiat was spoliation since plunder is less understood the word has been replaced with a commonly understood synonym. THEFT or THIEVERY}

Any Kind of Theft Violates Ownership

I do not, as is often done, use the word in any vague, uncertain, approximate, or metaphorical sense. I use it in its scientific acceptance-an expressing the idea opposite to that of property [wages, land, money, or whatever]. When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it-without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud-to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of theft is committed. The current 2024 understanding of the word plunder would be similar to an act of war where a nation attacks another and steals everything that is able to be stolen and literally plunders that nation.

Common definition in 2024 of plunder is: as an intransitive verb

1. To rob of goods by force, especially in time of war; pillage.

   "plunder a village."

2. To seize wrongfully or by force; steal.

   "plundered the supplies."

3. To take booty; rob.

Thus my replacement of the word to theft or thievery is more appropriate to the modern reader.

I say that this act is exactly what the law is supposed to suppress, always and everywhere. When the law itself commits this act that it is suppoed to suppress, I say that theft is still committed, and I add that from the point of view of society and welfare, this aggression against rights is even worse. In this case of legal theft, however, the person who receives the benefits is not responsible for the act of plundering. The responsibility for this legal plunder rests with the law, the legislator, and society itself. Therein lies the political danger.

It is to be regretted that the word theft is offensive. Being a thief is what we are dealing with. Someone who is using the threat of violence to obtain that which was not his to obtain any other way out side of a voluntary agreement. Bastiat tried in vain to find an inoffensive word, for he did not at any time-especially then-wish to add an irritating word to his dissentions. Thus, whether he believed it or not, he did declare that he did not mean to attack the the intentions or the morality of anyone. Rather, he was attacking an idea which he believe to be false; a system which appears to him and any other person using reason, logic and common sense to be unjust; and injustice so independent of personal intentions that each of us profits from it without wishing to do so, and suffers from it without knowing the cause of the suffering.

Three Systems of Thievery

The sincerity of those who advocate protectionism, socialism, and communism is not here questioned. Any writer who would do that must be influenced by a political spirit or a political fear. It is to be pointed out, however, that protectionism, socialism, and communism are basically the same plant in three different stages of its growth. All that can be said is that legal theft is more visible in communism because it is complete theft; and in protectionism because the theft is limited to specific groups and industries.* Thus if follows that, of the three systems, socialism is the vaguest, the most indecisive, and, consequently, the most sincere stage of development. And will always lead to communism.

But sincere or insincere, the intentions of persons are not here under question. In fact, he already said that legal theft is based partially on charity, even though it is false charity.

With this explanation, let’s examine the value-the origin and the tendency-of this popular aspiration which claim to accomplish the general welfare by general thievery.

{*If the special privilege of government protection against competition-a monopoly-were granted only to one group in the USA, the iron workers, for instance, this act would so obviously be legal theft 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 represent all persons who labor. Instinctively, they feel that legal theft is concealed by generalizing it.}

Law as Force

Since the law organizes justice, the socialists ask why the law should not also organize labor, education, and religion. They do not use reason, logic and common sense. They operate on an emotional level feeling that it is right to support such endeavors. As an individual it may be right if it is done so with voluntary agreements, but to expect those around you to feel it is right to have their labor stolen from them under the threat of violence is where the arguments arise.

Why should not law be used for these purposes? Because it could not organize labor, education, and religion without destroying justice. We must remember that law is used with the threat of violence, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of that threat. To have the threat of violence deter a murderer is obviously a proper function. But conversely to have threat of violence used against someone to force a payment to support the schools or any other idea which the socialist deems necessary is at odds with the proper function of law.

When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing by a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.

Understanding Law As a Negative Concept

The harmlessness of the mission performed by law and lawful defense is self-evident; the usefulness is obvious, and the legitimacy cannot be disputed.

This negative concept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.

But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed-then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property and their self respect.

Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without becoming that which is the opposite of the intention of law in the first place.

The Politicians View

When a politician view society from the seclusion of his office, he is struck by the spectacle of inequality that he sees. He deplores the deprivations which are the lot of so many of our brothers, deprivations which appear to be even sadder when contrasted with luxury and wealth.

Perhaps the politician should ask himself whether this state of affairs has not been caused by old conquests and lootings, and by more recent legal theft. Perhaps he should consider this proposition: Since all persons seek well-being and perfection, would not a condition of justice be sufficient to cause the greatest efforts toward progress, and the greatest possible equality that is compatible with individual responsibility? Would not this be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which our creator has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and reward?

The Law and Charity

You may say: " There are persons who have no money." and you turn to the law. But the law is not a breast that fills itself with milk. Nor are the lacteal veins of the law supplied with milk from a source outside the society. Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in. If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he has put in it, it is true that the law steals from nobody. But this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this, it is nothing but an instrument of theft.

With this in mind, examine the protective tariffs, subsidies, guaranteed profits, guaranteed jobs, relief and welfare schemes, public education, progressive taxation, free credit, and public works. You will find that they are always based on legal thievery which is simply organized injustice. Plus how much incentive does one obtain when that which he should earn for himself is stolen by a system that gives it to him without any time, energy or effort involved? It is a fact that to make an achievement gives a person self worth that is not obtained from stealing from another unless you have no conscience from doing so which puts you in the category of psychopath. Those who live off the labor of others would be considered a parasite in nature. What is the difference?

The Law Used For Education

You may say: "There are persons who lack education," and you turn to the law. But the law is not, in itself, a torch of learning which shines its light abroad. The law extends over a society where some persons have knowledge and others do not; where some citizens need to learn, and others can teach. In this matter of education, the law has only two alternatives: It can permit this transaction of teaching-and-learning to operate freely and without the use of force, or it can force human wills in this matter by taking from some of them enough to pay the teachers who are appointed by government to instruct others, without charge. But in this second case, the law commits legal theft by violating liberty and property. And why should you expect your neighbor to pay for the education, which in government schools should more appropriately be called indoctrination, of your children? Do you have the right as an individual to go to him and say, I want my son educated and I expect you to pay for his education with gun in hand? Well isn’t that what is really taking place except you are staying within the safety your home while sending out agents of the state to shake down your neighbors?

The Law and Morals

You say: "Here are persons who are lacking in morality or religion," and you turn to the law. But law is force. And need I point out what a violent and futile effort it is to use force in the matters of morality and religion? And who are you to determine what morality should be if there is no victim within the act that you deem to be immoral?

It would seem that socialists, however self-complacent, could not avoid seeing the monstrous legal theft that results from such systems and such efforts. But what do the socialists do? They cleverly disguise this legal theft from others-and even from themselves-under the seductive names of fraternity, unity, organization, and association. Because we ask so little from the law-only justice-the socialists thereby assume that we reject fraternity, unity, and organization, and association. The socialist brand us with the name individualist. And isn’t being an individual better than being a collectivist? We are not bees. We are individuals with very different wants and desires. As long as those wants and desires aren’t fulfilled by force on others, there is no violation of law. But when we use our religious beliefs to create a law that can harm others during the enforcement how is that moral in and of itself? Is it right to claim that a commonly grown plant should be outlawed as the “devils weed” if the person using it has committed no harm by the use on anyone else?

Be it understood that we repudiate only forced organization, not natural organization. We repudiate the forms of association that are forced upon us, not free association. We repudiate forced fraternity, not true fraternity. We repudiate the artificial unity that does nothing more than deprive persons of individual responsibility. We do not repudiate the natural unity of mankind under our creator.

A Confusion of Terms

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialist conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialist say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to state-enforced equality. Then they say we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain. The reality is that we object to being FORCED, under the threat of violence, to pay out of our limited time on earth given to us by our Creator, to support such endeavors. For this is obviously SLAVERY which is our main objection.

The Influence of Socialist Writers To This Very Day

How did politicians ever come to believe this weird idea that the law could be made to produce what it does not contain-the wealth, science, and religion that, in a positive sense, constitute prosperity? Is it due to the influence of our modern writers on public affairs?

Present-day writers-especially those of the socialist school of thought-base their various theories upon one common hypothesis: They divide mankind into two parts. People in general-with the exception of the writer himself-form the first group. The writer, all alone, forms the second and most important group. Surely this is the weirdest and most conceited notion that ever entered a human brain!

In fact, these writers on public affairs begin by supposing that people have within themselves no means of discernment; no motivation to action. No reason, no logic ad no common sense! The writers assume that people are inert matter, passive particles, motionless atoms, at best a kind of vegetation indifferent to its own manner of existence. They assume that people are susceptible to being shaped-by the will and hand of another person-into infinite variety of forms, more or less symmetrical, artistic, and perfected. It is based in the idea that man is but a mechanical object totally subject to external forces like a common engine.

Moreover, not one of these writers on governmental affairs hesitates to imagine that he himself-under the title of organizer, discoverer, legislator, or founder-is this will and hand, this universal motivating force, this creative power whose sublime mission is to mold these scattered materials-persons-into a society, which of course is based on his idea of what is right and what is wrong. Proving beyond any reasonable doubt as to his/her total miss understanding of morality in itself.

These socialist writers look upon people in the same manner that the gardener views his trees. Just as the gardener capriciously shapes the trees into pyramids, parasols, cubes, vases, fans and other forms, just so does the socialist writer whimsically shape human beings into groups, series, centers, sub-centers, honeycombs, labor corps, and other variation. And just as the gardener needs axes, pruning hooks, saws, and shears to shape his trees, just so does the socialist writer need the force that he can find only in law to shape human beings. For this purpose, he devises tariff laws, tax laws, relief laws, and school laws. All of which violate the premise of non aggression!

The Socialists Sees Himself as an All Knowing God

Socialists look upon people as raw material to be formed into social combinations. This is so true that, if by chance, the socialists have any doubts about the success of these combinations, they will demand that a small portion of mankind be set aside to experiment upon. The popular idea of trying all systems is well known. And one socialist leader has been known seriously to demand that the existing governmental power give him a small district with all its inhabitants, to try his experiments upon.

In the same manner, an inventor makes a model before he constructs the full sized machine; the chemist wastes some chemicals-the farmer wastes some seeds and land-to try out an idea.

But what a difference there is between the gardener and his trees, between the inventor and his machine, between the chemist and his elements, between the farmer and his seeds! And in all sincerity, the socialist thinks that there is the same difference between him and mankind! He sees himself as the gardener, inventor, chemist and farmer!

It is no wonder that the writers of the nineteenth century and beyond began to look upon society as an artificial creation of the legislator's genius. This idea-the fruit of classical education-has taken possession of all the intellectuals and the famous writers of our world. To these intellectuals and writers, the relationship between persons and the law making body appears to be the same as the relationship between the clay and the potter.

Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a principle of action in the heart of man-and a principle of discernment in man's intellect-they have considered these gifts from our Creator to be fatal gifts. They have thought that persons, under the impulse of these two gifts, would fatally tend to ruin themselves. They assume that if the legislators left persons free to follow their own inclinations, they would arrive at atheism instead of religion, ignorance instead of knowledge, poverty instead of production and exchange. Failure is the lot of men according to their ideas. We have to have them to mold society to bring about a paradise on Earth, no matter what destruction it leaves in its wake in the process.

Reality Shows That the Socialists Actually Despise Mankind

According to these writers, it is indeed fortunate that Heaven has bestowed upon certain men-governors and legislators-the exact opposite inclinations, not only for their own sake but also for the sake of the rest of the world! While mankind tends toward evil, the legislators yearn for good; while mankind advances towards darkness, the legislators aspire for enlightenment; while mankind is is drawn toward vice, the legislators are attracted toward virtue. Since they have decided that this is the true state of affairs, they then demand the use of force in order to substitute their own inclinations for those of the human race. In reality, they are diseased with the very evil that they claim that mankind is inhibited with! They are the psychopathic control freak parasites that they project on the rest of the world!

Open at random any book on philosophy, politics, or history, and you will probably see how deeply rooted in our world has become steeped is this idea-the child of classical studies, the mother of socialism. In all of them, you will probably find this idea that mankind is merely inert matter, receiving life, organization, morality, and prosperity from the power of the state. And even worse, it will be stated that mankind tends toward degeneration, and is stopped from this downward course only by the mysterious hand of the legislator. Conventional classical thought everywhere says that behind passive society there is a concealed power called law or legislator (or called by some other terminology that designates some unnamed person or persons of undisputed influence and authority) which moves, controls, benefits, and improves mankind. What kind of folly is this? To believe that those that are not of their group are evil but somehow they have escaped this fatal flaw of mankind!

This Is Their Defense of Compulsory Labor

Let us first consider a quotation from one of the “leaders” of the time this was written…

One of the things most strongly impressed (by whom?) upon the minds of the Egyptians was patriotism...No one was permitted to be useless to the state. The law assigned to each one his work, which was handed down from father to son. No one was permitted to have two professions. Nor could a person change from one job to another...But there was one task to which all were forced to conform: the study of the laws and of wisdom. Ignorance of religion and of the political regulations of the country was not excused under any circumstances. Moreover, each occupation was assigned (by whom?) to a certain district...Among the good laws, one of the best was that everyone was trained (by whom?) to obey them. As a result of this, Egypt was filled with wonderful inventions, and nothing was neglected that could make life easy and quiet.

Thus, according to that writer, persons derive nothing from themselves. Patriotism, prosperity, inventions, husbandry, science-all of these are given to the people by the operation of the laws via the rulers. All that the people have to do is to bow to leadership. And the “leadership” throughout history has proven to be of the class known as psychopaths. Most, if not all, nothing but control freak parasites!

Their Defense of Paternal Mommy and Daddy Government

Bossuet (a French “intellect” of Bastiat’s day) carries this idea of the state as the source of all progress even so far as to defend the Egyptians against the charge that they rejected wrestling and music. He said: "How is that possible? These arts were invented by Trismegistus" [who was alleged to have been Chancellor to he Egyptian god, Osiris].

And again among the Persians, Bossuet claims that all comes from above:

"One of the first responsibilities of the prince was to encourage agriculture...Just as there were offices established for the regulation of armies, just so were there offices for the direction of farm work...The Persian people were inspired (at the point of a spear) with an overwhelming respect for royal authority."

And according to Bossuet, the Greek people, although exceedingly intelligent, had no sense of personal responsibility; like dogs and horses, they themselves could not have invented the most simple games: "The Greeks, naturally intelligent and courageous, had been early cultivated by the kings and settlers who had come from Egypt. From these Egyptian rulers, the Greek people had learned bodily exercises, foot races, and horse and chariot races...But the best thing that Egyptians had taught the Greeks was to become docile, and to permit themselves to be formed by the law for the public good. What kind of insanity is this? People who were naturally intelligent and courageous, had to be cultivated into becoming emasculated boot lickers to the parasites in power? Well, that, reason tells us, is EXACTLY what occured!

The Idea of Passive Mankind

It cannot be disputed that these classical theories [advanced by these latter-day teachers, writers, legislators, economists, and philosophers] held that everything came to the people from a source outside themselves. As another example take a look at what an archbishop, author, and instructor to the Duke of Burgundy.

He was a witness to the power of Louis XIV. This, plus the fact that he was nurtured in the “classical studies” and the admiration of antiquity, naturally caused him to accept the idea that mankind should be passive; that the misfortunes and the prosperity-vices and virtues-of people are caused by the external influence exercised upon them by the law and the legislators. Thus, in his Utopia of Salentum, he puts men-with all their interests, faculties, desires, and possessions-under the absolute discretion of the law makers. Whatever the issue may be, persons do not decide it for themselves; the politician decides for them. The politician is depicted as the soul of this shapeless mass of people who form the nation. In the law maker resides the thought, the foresight, all progress, and the principle of all organization. Thus all responsibility rests with him.

The whole of the tenth book of Fenelon's Telemachus proves this. Bastiat refers the reader to it, and content himself while quoting it at random from this celebrated work to which, in every other respect, he was the first to pay homage. Fenelon reveals the insanity behind the thinking process of those who believe such nonsense! And unfortunately that the lot of humanity has been subjected to for the ages. Freedom can only exist when the chains of this kind of thinking are thrown off and the people regain their trust in THEMSELVES! For if every man is nothing but an evil creature only held back by the “chains” of laws, what may I ask makes those who make these laws of any better character? The water they drink? The food their eat? The drugs they take? It is an easy answer for sure. For what can be said of the idea that man is evil but somehow his evil nature will vote for people who are virtuous to “rule” over them?

Socialists Obviously Ignore Reason and Facts

With the amazing credulity which is typical of the classicists, Fenelon ignored the the authority of reason and facts when he attributes the general happiness of the Egyptians, not to their own wisdom but to the wisdom of their kings:

We could not turn our eyes to either shore without seeing rich towns and country estates most agreeably located; fields, never fallowed, covered with golden crops every year; meadows full of flocks; workers bending under the weight of the fruit which the earth lavished upon its cultivators; shepherds who made the echoes resound with the soft notes from their pipes and flutes "Happy," he claimed, "is the people governed by a wise king"... Or is it that in reality most of what they labor to do and produce is brought about by their very needs and the needs of their fellow man?

Later, Mentor desired that we must observe the contentment and abundance which covered all Egypt, where twenty-two thousand cities could be counted. He admired the good police regulations in the cities; the justice rendered in favor of the poor against the rich; the sound education of the children in obedience, labor, sobriety, and the love of the arts and letters; the exactness with which all religious ceremonies were performed; the unselfishness, the high regard for honor, the faithfulness to men, and the fear of the gods which every father taught his children. He never stopped admiring the prosperity of the country. "Happy, " he repeated, "is the people ruled by a wise king in such a manner." And what is it that makes this king wise? DNA? His belief in his divinity? And do all the people agree to this summation? Maybe some consider him a tyrant but due to his influence with the enforcement class prefer to remain silent in the face of their daily torment.

Socialists Want to Regiment People Not They Demand to Do So!

Fenelon's idyl on Crete is even more alluring. He is made to say:

All that you see in this wonderful island results from the laws of Minos. The education which he ordained for the children make their bodies strong and robust. From the very beginning, one accustoms the children to a life of frugality and labor, because one assumes that all pleasures of the senses weaken both body and mind. Thus one allows them no pleasure except that of becoming invincible by virtue, and of acquiring glory...Here one punishes three vices that go unpunished among other people: ingratitude, hypocrisy, and greed. There is no need to punish persons for pomp and dissipation, for they are unknown in Crete...No costly furniture, no magnificent clothing, no delicious feasts, no gilded palaces are permitted. Except of course for those of the ruling class, which of he conveniently manages to overlook. After all…they are special! They are a gift from the Almighty himself to the lowly mundane peasants he has the privilege to rule over!

Thus does Mentor prepare his student to mold and to manipulate-doubtless with the best of intentions-the people of Ithaca. And to convince the student of the wisdom of these ideas, Mentor recites to him the example of Salentum.

It is from this sort of philosophy that we receive our first political ideas! We are taught to treat persons much as an instructor in agriculture teaches farmers to prepare and tend the soil. For what are they except vessels of virtue, looking down from their lofty perches at those that they desire to control with their ways of thinking! To be the master of so many due to your all consuming virtue!

A Famous Name and an Evil Idea

An evil idea? Not to the one who comes forth with it!
Now listen to the great Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu on the same subject:

To maintain the spirit of commerce, it is necessary that all the laws must favor it. These laws, by proportionately dividing up the fortunes as they are made in commerce, should provide every poor citizen with sufficiently easy circumstances to enable him to work like the others. These same laws should put every rich citizen in such lowered circumstances as to force him to work in order to keep or to gain.

Thus the laws are to dispose of all fortunes! And this idea is to give people incentive to continue to seek after wealth! ?

Although real equality is the soul of the state in a democracy, yet this is so difficult to establish that an extreme precision in this matter would not always be desirable. It is sufficient that there be established a census to reduce or fix these differences in wealth within a certain limit. After this is done, it remains for specific laws to equalize inequality by imposing burdens upon the rich and granting relief to the poor.

Here again we find the idea of equalizing fortunes by law, by force.

In Greece, there were two kinds of republics. One, Sparta, was military; the other, Athens, was commercial. In the former, it was desired that the citizen be idle; in the latter, love of labor was encouraged.

Note the marvelous genius of the legislators: By debasing all established customs-by mixing the usual concepts of all virtues-they knew in advance that the world would admire their wisdom.

Lycurgus gave stability to the city of Sparta by combining petty thievery with the soul of justice; by combining the most atrocious beliefs with the greatest moderation. He appeared to deprive his city of all its resources, arts, commerce, money and defenses. In Sparta, ambition went without the hope of material reward. Natural affection found no outlet because a man was neither son, husband, nor father. Even chastity was no longer considered becoming. By this road, Lycurgus led Sparta on to greatness and glory.

This boldness which was to be found in the institutions of Greece has been repeated in the midst of the degeneracy and corruption of our modern times. An occasional honest legislator has molded a people in whom integrity appears as natural as courage in the Spartans.

Mr. William Penn, for example, is a true Lycurgus. Even though Mr. Penn had peace as his objective-while Lycurgus had war as his objective-they resemble each other in that their moral prestige over free men allowed them to overcome prejudices, to subdue passions, and to lead their respective peoples into new paths.

The country of Paraguay furnishes us with another example [of a people who, of course, for their own good, are molded by their legislators].

Now it is true that if one considers the sheer pleasure of commanding to be the greatest joy in life, he contemplates a crime against society; it will, however, always be a noble ideal to govern men in a manner that will make them happier. Or at least happier in a manner where they are wearing a mask to hide their disdain for the system they have become slaves to.

Those who desire to establish similar institutions must do as follows; Establish common ownership of property as in the republic of Plato; revere the gods as Plato commanded; prevent foreigners from mingling with the people, in order to preserve the customs; let the state, instead of the citizens, establish commerce. The legislators should supply arts instead of luxuries; they should satisfy needs instead of desires. Is it not true that by having some one else take care of all your needs that you would be so much happier? Thus the new motto of the WEF…you will own nothing and be happy! And of course, they will own everything and be happier.

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 hem from further brutalities by the avid conquerors.

A Frightful Idea

Those who are subject to vulgar infatuation may exclaim: "But the great Montesquieu has said this! So it's magnificent! It's sublime!" As for me, I have the courage of my own opinion to say: What? You have the nerve to call that fine? It is frightful! It is abominable! These random selections from the writings of Montesquieu show that he considers persons, liberties, property-mankind itself-to be nothing but materials for legislators to exercise their wisdom upon.

Who is this man than others should consider him such an expert on the working of economics and human interaction? Who made him the arbiter of truth and wisdom in the face of reason and common sense?

He may have had some good ideas, which have filtered down through the ages, but he was also the author of many totalitarian writings. So was Montesquieu as great as claimed?

The Leader of the Democrats - 1850 Are Their Leaders Today of a Different Thought Process? I Fear Not!

Now let us examine Rousseau on this subject. This writer on public affairs is the supreme authority of the democrats. And although he bases the social structure upon the will of the people, he has, to a greater extent than anyone else, completely accepted the theory of the total inertness of mankind in the presence of the legislators:

If it is true that a great prince is rare, then is it not true that a great legislator is even more rare? The prince has only to follow the pattern that the legislator creates. The legislator is the mechanic who invents the machine; the prince is merely the workman who sets it in motion.

And what part do persons play in all this? They are merely the machine that is set in motion. In fact, are they not merely considered to be raw material of which the machine is made?

Thus the same relationship exists between the legislator and the prince as exists between the agricultural expert and the farmer; and the relationship between the prince and his subjects is the same as that between the farmer and his land. How high above mankind, then, has this writer on public affairs been placed? Rousseau rules over legislators themselves, and teaches them their trade in these imperious terms:

Would you give stability to the state? Then bring the extremes as closely together as possible. Tolerate neither wealthy persons nor beggars.

If the soil is poor or barren, or the country too small for its inhabitants, then turn to industry and arts, and trade those products for the foods that you need...On a fertile soil-if you are short of inhabitants-devote all your attention to agriculture, because this multiplies people; banish the arts, because they only serve to depopulate the nation...

If you have extensive and accessible coast lines, then cover the sea with merchant ships; you will have a brilliant but short existence. If your seas wash only inaccessible cliffs, let the people be barbarous and eat fish; they will live more quietly-perhaps better-and, most certainly, they will live more happily.

In short, and in addition to the maxims that are common to all, every people has its own particular circumstances. And this fact in itself will cause legislation appropriate to the circumstances.

This is the reason why the Hebrews formerly-and, more recently, the Arabs-had religion as their principle objective. The objective of the Athenians was literature; of Carthage and Tyre, commerce; of Rhodes, naval affairs; of Sparta, war; and of Rome, virtue. The author of The Spirit of Laws has shown by what art the legislator should direct his institutions toward each of these objectives...But suppose that the legislator mistakes his proper objective, and acts on a principle different from that indicated by the nature of things? Suppose that the selected principle sometimes creates slavery, and sometimes liberty; sometimes wealth, and sometimes population; sometimes peace, and sometimes conquest? This confusion of objective will slowly enfeeble the law, and impair the constitution. The state will be subjected to ceaseless agitations until it is destroyed or changed, and invincible nature regains her empire.

But if nature is sufficiently invincible to regain its empire, why does not Rousseau admit that it did not need the legislator to gain it in the first place? Why does he not see that men, by obeying their own instincts, would turn to farming on fertile soil, and to commerce on an extensive and easily accessible coast, without the interference of a Lycurgus or a Solon or a Rousseau who might easily be mistaken.

Does any of this sound vaguely familiar? Are not the citizens of numerous countries the world over being subjected to such insanity? Surely the answer you have come into your thought process is most likely a resounding…YES.

---

Due to constraints in length here on Substack…we will now end Part 2 and continue Part 3. It appears due to Substacks Email limits that this will be a four part series. Thanks for making it this far. I hope the lessons have a lasting effect. C.L.