The Law - 2024

As It Always Should Be... Part Three

As we continue from Part Two 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? Look at the world with a open mind and you can see the calamity caused by ignoring the only purpose for “The Law”. From Gaza, to Ukraine to the streets of New York City, to our Southern Border, the list of cause and effect for ignoring the only proper purpose can been seen most everywhere! C.L.

Socialists Demand Forced Conformity

Be that as it may, a socialist will invest the creators, organizers, directors, legislators, and controllers of society with a terrible responsibility. He is, therefore, most exacting with them:

He who would dare to undertake the political creation of a people ought to believe that he can, in a manner of speaking, transform human nature; transform each individual-who, by himself, is a solitary and perfect whole-into a mere part of a collective whole from which the individual will henceforth receive his life and being. It is as if from observing a colony of bees that the socialist considers such an arrangement as one that should be natural for human society as well. Thus the person who would undertake the political creation of a people should believe in his ability to alter man's thinking ability; to strengthen it; to substitute for the physical and independent existence received from nature, an existence which is partial and moral according to the molders perspective. In short, the would-be creator of this collectivist being must remove man's own will and capabilities and endow him with others that are naturally alien to him.

Poor human nature! What would become of a person's dignity if it were entrusted to the followers of such thinking? And yet, here in the year 2024 is this not what is behind the effort on a world wide scale via the World Economic Forum? Is not the idea they propagate that you will own nothing and be happy a direct correlation to such thinking? Are they so ignorant of history to see that when you take away that part of mankind that desires property which is the very extension of his existence it leaves a void that turns into revolutions such as the 1789 French revolution? Because if you don’t own anything, who does except the vaunted elite behind such thinking? The result throughout history when the elite tell the masses, “Let them eat cake” has ALWAYS ended up turned into a bad case scenario for the fools that push that way of life on the masses!
According to the socialists way of thinking, the existence of social man is partial in the sense that he is henceforth merely a part part of society. Knowing himself as as such-and thinking and feeling from the point of view of the whole-he thereby becomes moral. Not matter how immoral the society has become. If the society has reached such a deranged point of existence that the religious leaders have decided the way to stop an eruption of a volcano, you must throw your first born daughter in to appease the volcano God, what other possible reaction would you be allowed by that society if you refused? Well, how about invading countries under the pretext that you are “defending freedom” which is nothing but a lie from the outset since invasion is a violation of the very principle that law is supposed to prevent!

Law Makers Desire to Mold Mankind Into A Moral Image of Themselves

Now let us examine another socialist thinker on this subject of mankind being molded by law makers:

The legislator must first consider the climate, the air, and the soil. The resources at his disposal determine his duties. He must first consider his locality. A population living on maritime shores must have laws designed for navigation...If it is an inland settlement, the legislator must make his plans according to the nature and fertility of the soil....

It is especially in the distribution of property that the new genius of the legislator will be found. As a general rule, when a new colony is established in any country, sufficient land should be given to each man to support his family...

On an uncultivated island that you are populating with children, you need do nothing but let the seeds of truth germinate along with the development of reason...But when you resettle a nation with a past into a new country, the skill of the legislator rests in the policy of permitting the people to retain no injurious opinions and customs which can possibly be cured and corrected. If you desire to prevent these opinions and customs from becoming permanent, you will secure the second generation by a general system of public education for the children. A legislator should never establish a colony without first arranging to send wise men along to instruct the youth...

In a new colony, ample opportunity is open to the careful legislator who desires to purify the customs and manners of the people. If he has virtue and genius, the land and the people at his disposal will inspire his soul with a plan for society. A writer can only vaguely trace the plan he advocates because it is necessarily subject to the instability of all hypotheses; the problem has many forms, complications, and circumstances that are difficult to foresee and settle in detail.

Legislators Told How to Manage Men By The Socialist Thinkers Among Us

Therefore instructions to the legislators on how to manage people may be compared to a professor of agriculture lecturing his students: "The climate is the first rule of the farmer. His resources determine his procedure. he must first consider his locality. If his soil is clay, he must do so and so. If his soil is sand, he must act in another manner. Every facility is open to the farmer who wishes to clear and improve his soil. If he is skillful enough, the manure at his disposal will suggest to him a plan of operation. A professor can only vaguely trace this plan in advance because it is necessarily subject to the instability of all hypotheses; the problem has many forms, complications, and circumstances that are difficult to foresee and settle in detail." After all, the professor is no farmer so for him to dictate what the farmer must do becomes futile as his ignorance on the subject matter will become quite obvious.

Oh, you teachers of what you consider truth! Please remember sometimes that this clay, this sand, and this manure which you so arbitrarily dispose of, are men! They are your equals! They are intelligent and free human beings like yourselves! As you have, they too have received from the creator the faculty to observe, to plan ahead, to think, and to judge for themselves! Heaven forbid if they were to do so! After all, you, the professor, writer or thinker only have the best intentions for mankind based upon your twisted and distorted views! Instead of being the master of your own fate, your desire is to be the master of everyone’s fate! To those who listen to your madness, what can be expected except madness to be the result?

A Temporary Dictatorship That Typically Becomes Permanent

Here is another gifted in stupidity on this subject of the law and the legislator. In the passages preceding the one here quoted, he has supposed the laws, due to a neglect of security, to be worn out. He continues to address the reader thusly:

Under these circumstances, it is obvious that the springs of government are slack. Give them a new tension, and the evil will be cured...Think less of punishing faults, and more of rewarding that which you need. In this manner you will restore to your republic the vigor of youth. Because free people have been ignorant of this procedure, they have lost their liberty! But if the evil has made such headway that ordinary governmental procedures are unable to cure it, then resort to an extra-ordinary tribunal with considerable powers for a short time. The imagination of the citizens needs to be struck a hard blow. We certainly do not want a divergent mindset to spring forth!

In this manner, this fool of a writer continues through twenty volumes.

Under the influence of teaching like this-which stems from classical education-there came a time when everyone wishes to place himself above mankind in order to arrange, organize, and regulate it in his own way. Oh for the benevolent dictator to arise among mankind of which such a creature has never existed. The typical dictator being of the class of people that you really wouldn’t want to leave in the same room with your children too long. The mindset of a Theodore Bundy or other psychopaths throughout history. The likes of Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Ceaușescu, Netanyahu and many others who were behind the death of untold millions due to their inability to mold all of their subjects into fearful children.

Socialists Want Equality of Wealth By Taking From the Producers and Giving to Those Who Are Parasites

Next let us examine another on this subject of the law maker and mankind:

Now reader please assume the character of Hitler or of Mao. And before you finish reading this essay, amuse yourself by giving laws to some savages in America or Africa. Confine these nomads to fixed dwellings; teach them to tend flocks...Attempt to develop the social consciousness that nature has implanted in them...Force them to begin to practice the duties of humanity...Use punishment to cause sensual pleasures to become distasteful to them. Then you will see that every point of your legislation will cause these savages to lose a vice and gain a virtue. In another words, simply mold them at the barrel of a rifle into good slaves. After all, as Mao has stated, all power comes from the barrel of a rifle. Isn’t that true?

All people have had laws. But few people have been happy. Why is this so? Because the legislators themselves have almost always been ignorant of the purpose of society, which is the uniting of families by a common interest.

Impartiality in law consists of two things: the establishing of equality in wealth and equality in dignity among the citizens...As the laws establish greater equality, they become proportionately more precious to every citizen...When all men are equal in wealth and dignity-and when the laws leave no hope of disturbing this equality-how can men then be agitated by greed, ambition, dissipation, idleness, sloth, envy, hatred, or jealousy? What? This teaching sounds more the ravings of a lunatic that has decided on his own to transform human society into a society of bees. Each part of the whole having it’s own duty. That of the queen, being the dictator, that of the drone being the many who serve the queen and that of the enforcers that make sure the drones are doing the job that they were obviously created for! So which would you be in this perfect society of bees?

What you can learn about the republic of Sparta should enlighten you on this question. No other state has ever had laws more in accord with the order of nature; of equality. Which of course is nonsense. Forcing those to believe and go along with tyranny is not in accord with the order of nature. At least in the minds of those who use reason, logic and common sense!

The Error of all Socialist Thinking

Actually, it is not strange that during the seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, and now twentieth centuries the human race was regarded as inert matter, ready to receive everything-form, face, energy, movement, life-from a great “leader” or a great legislator or a great genius. These centuries were nourished on the study of antiquity. And antiquity presents everywhere-in Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome-the spectacle of a few men molding mankind according to their whims, thanks to the prestige of force and fraud. But this does not prove that this situation is desirable. It proves only that since men and society are capable of improvement, it is naturally to be expected that error, ignorance, despotism, slavery, and superstition should be greatest towards the origins of history. The thinkers quoted above were not in error when they found ancient institutions to be such, but they were in error when they offered them for the admiration and imitation of future generations. Uncritical and childish conformists, they took for granted the grandeur, dignity, morality, and happiness of the artificial societies of the ancient world. They did not understand that knowledge appears and grows with the passage of time; and that in proportion to this growth of knowledge, might takes the side of right, and society regains possession of itself.

It is as if mankind as a whole just can’t figure out that these cycles can be stopped such as the cycle of child abuse. If one father abuses his children, and one of those children grows up to become an abuser of his children, this cycle can only be stopped when one grows up and realizes that abuse of a child is WRONG and he stops the cycle. Mankind is like these people that abuse their children. Sometime mankind is going to have to stop the abuse. And realize that non aggression should be the universal understanding of a normal population and that aggression is the sign of a person who is unstable and should never be given a position where he can abuse his fellow man. The proper understanding of the use of law is the beginning of the end of the abuse.

What is That Which We Call Liberty?

Actually, what is the world wide political struggle that we witness? It is the instinctive struggle of all people toward liberty. And what is this liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world? Is it not the union of all liberties-liberty of conscience, of education, of association, of the press, of travel, of labor, of trade? In short, is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so? Is not liberty the destruction of all despotism-including, of course, legal despotism? Finally, is not liberty the restricting of the law only to its rational sphere of organizing the right of the individual to lawful self-defense; of punishing injustice?

It must be admitted that the tendency of the human race toward liberty is largely thwarted the world over. This is greatly due to a fatal desire-learned from the teachings of antiquity-that our writers on public affairs have in common: They desire to set themselves above mankind in order to arrange, organize, and regulate it according to their fancy. There idea of liberty is for you to have none. To own nothing and be happy. But reality shows that when people have nothing to lose…they lose it. Be forewarned you destroyers of liberty!

Tyranny Based on False Charity

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

This was especially true in 1789 after the revolution. No sooner was the old regime destroyed than society was subjected to still other artificial arrangements, always starting from the same point: the omnipotence of the law. And hasn’t America suffered the same fate after their revolution? Isn’t the only reason they have not folded into complete despotism because of their Constitution and Bill of Rights and the fact that millions of them are armed to the teeth?

Listen to the ideas of a few of the writers and politicians during that period:

“The law maker commands the future. It is for him to will the good of mankind. It is for him to make men what he wills them to be.”

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

“A people who are to be returned to liberty must be formed anew. A strong force and vigorous action are necessary to destroy old prejudices, to change old customs, to correct depraved affections, to restrict superfluous wants, and to destroy ingrained vices...Citizens, the inflexible austerity of Mao created the firm foundation of the Chinese nation. The weak and trusting character of one leader will plunge that country into slavery. This parallel embraces the whole science of government.”

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

Are these not actually the ravings of lunatics? Men who should be committed to an institution for the safety of their fellow man? Men who would claim to be Jesus if it would further their aims? Men who are cult leaders for all intents? The cult of slavery?

The Socialists Demand a Dictatorship

Again, it is claimed that persons are nothing but raw material. It is not for them to will their own improvement; they are incapable of it. According to some, only the legislator is capable of doing this. Persons are merely to be what the legislator wills them to be. According to Robespierre, who copies Rousseau literally, the legislator begins by decreeing the end for which the commonwealth has come into being. Once this is determined, the government has only to direct the physical and moral forces of the nation toward that end. Meanwhile, the inhabitants of the nation are to remain completely passive. and accordingly the people should have no prejudices, no affections, and no desires except those authorized by the legislator. They even goes so far as to say that the inflexible austerity of one man is the foundation of a republic.

In cases where the alleged evil is so great that ordinary governmental procedures cannot cure it, many will recommend a dictatorship to promote virtue: "Resort," they says, "to an extraordinary tribunal with considerable powers for a short time. The imagination of the citizens needs to be struck a hard blow. "This doctrine has not been forgotten. Listen to this insanity from the mind of another of the psycho class:

The principle of the republican government is virtue, and the means required to establish virtue is terror. In our country we desire to substitute selfishness with morality, honesty for honor, principles for customs, duties for manners, the empire of reason for the tyranny of fashion, contempt of vice for contempt of property, pride for insolence, greatness of soul for vanity, love of glory for love of money, good people for good companions, merit for intrigue, genius for wit, truth for glitter, the charm of happiness for the boredom of pleasure, the greatness of man for the littleness of the great, a generous, strong, happy people for a good-natured, frivolous, degraded people; in short we desire to substitute all the virtues and miracles of a republic for all the vices and absurdities of a monarchy. And haven’t they achieved this goal that they long aspired to?

Dictatorial Arrogance

At what a tremendous height above the rest of mankind do these tyrants place themselves! And note the arrogance with which they speaks. They are not content to pray for a great reawakening of the human spirit. Nor dothey expect such a result from a well-ordered government. No, the lawmaker will remake mankind, and by means of terror.

This mass of rotten and contradictory statements is extracted from a discourse by Robespierre in which he aims to explain the principles of morality which ought to guide a revolutionary government. Note that Robespiere's request for dictatorship is not made merely for the purpose of repelling a foreign invasion or putting down the opposing groups. Rather he wants a dictatorship in order that he may use terror to force upon the country his own principles of morality. He says that this act is only to be a temporary measure preceding a new constitution. But in reality, he desires nothing short of using terror to extinguish from mankind selfishness, honor, customs, manners, fashion, vanity, love of money, good companionship, intrigue, wit, sensuousness, and poverty. Not until he, Robespierre, shall have accomplished these miracles, as he so rightly calls them, will he permit the law to reign again.

At this point in the original French text, Mr. Bastiat pauses and speaks thusly to all do-gooders and would-be rulers of mankind:

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."

The Indirect Approach to Tyranny

Usually, however, these gentlemen-the reformers, the legislators, and the writers on public affairs-do not desire to impose direct despotism upon mankind. Oh no, they are too moderate and philanthropic for such direct action. Instead, they turn to the law for this despotism, this absolutism, this omnipotence. They desire only to make the laws.

To show the prevalence of this queer idea in France, I would need to copy not only the entire works of Mably, Raynal, Rousseau, and Fenelon-plus long extracts from Bossuet and Montesquieu-but also the entire proceedings of the Convention. I shall do no such thing; I merely refer the reader to them. Or has it become clear enough to the reader that they need not waste a minute of their time delving into the insane writers of those who many consider to be experts on the subject?

Napoleon Wanted Passive Mankind

It is , of course, not at all surprising that this same idea should have greatly appealed to Napoleon. He embraced it ardently and used it with vigor. Like a chemist, Napoleon considered all Europe to be material for his experiments. But, in due course, this material reacted against him.

At St. Helena, Napoleon-greatly disillusioned-seemed to recognize some initiative in mankind. Recognizing this, he became less hostile to liberty. Nevertheless, this did not prevent him from leaving this lesson to his son in his will: "To govern is to increase and spread morality, education, and happiness."

After all this, it is hardly necessary to quote the same opinions from Morelly, Babeuf, Owen, Saint-Simon, and Fourier. Here are, however, a few extracts from Louis Blanc's book on the organization of labor: "In our plan, society receives its momentum from power."

Now consider this: The impulse behind this momentum is to be supplied by the plan of Louis Blanc; his plan is to be forced upon society; the society referred to is the human race. Thus the human race is to receive its momentum from Louis Blanc.

Now it will be said that the people are free to accept or reject this plan. Admittedly, people are free to accept or to reject advice from whomever they wish. But this is not the way in which Mr. Louis Blanc understands the matter. He expects that his plan will be legalized, and thus forcibly imposed upon the people by the power of the law:

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

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

In the United States it is believed that we live in a free country. It has been so drummed into the minds of the populace that they indeed believe they are free. And yet with a bit of study what you find is the thinking that is behind the distortion of law is prevalent with millions in cages for victimless acts. That Karl Marx Communist Manifesto is in fact, in force and effect while the Constitution and Bill of Rights are treated as a pariah. Show me where I’m wrong!

The Vicious Circle of Socialism

We shall never escape from this circle: the idea of passive mankind, and the power of the law being used by a great man to propel the people. Wash, rinse, repeat, wash, rinse repeat. Always with the same outcome. A sign of insanity. Is the human race insane or is it an unfortunate fact that those who are insane seem to gravitate to the positions of “authority”?

Once on this incline, will society enjoy some liberty? (Certainly.) And what is liberty?

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

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

Thus, again, liberty is power. Of what does this power consist? (Of being educated and of being given the tools of production.) Who is to give the education and the tools of production? (Society, which owes them to everyone.) by what action is society to give tools or production to those who do not own them? (Why, by the action of the state.) And from whom will he state take them?

Let the reader answer that question. Let him also notice the direction in which this has taken us.

The Doctrine of the Democrats

The strange phenomenon of our times-one which will probably astound our descendants-is the doctrine based on this triple hypothesis; the total inertness of mankind, the omnipotence of the law, and the infallibility of the legislator. These three ideas form the sacred symbol of those who proclaim themselves totally democratic.

The advocates of this doctrine also profess to be social. So far as they democratic, they place unlimited faith in mankind. But so far as they are social, they regard mankind as little better than mud. Let us examine this contrast is greater detail.

What is the attitude of the democrat when political rights are under discussion? How does he regard the people when a legislator is to be chosen? Ah, then it is claimed that the people have an instinctive wisdom; they are gifted with the finest perception; their will is always right; the general will cannot err; voting cannot be too universal.

When it is time to vote, apparently the voter is not to be asked for any guarantee of this wisdom. His will and capacity to choose wisely are taken for granted. Can the people be mistaken? Are we not living in an age of enlightenment? What! Are the people always to be kept on leashes? Have they not won their rights by great effort and sacrifice? Have they not given ample proof of their intelligence and wisdom? Are they not adults? Are they not capable of judging for themselves? Is there a class or a man who would be so bold as to set himself above the people, and judge and act for them? No, no, the people are and should be free. They desire to manage their own affairs, and they shall do so.

But when the legislator is finally elected-ah! Then indeed does the tone of his speech undergo a radical change. The people are returned to passiveness, inertness, and unconsciousness; the legislator enters into omnipotence. Now it is for him to initiate, to direct, to propel, and to organize. Mankind has only to submit; the hour of despotism has struck. We now observe this fatal idea: The people who, during the election, were so wise, so moral, and so perfect, now have no tendencies whatever; or if they have any, they are tendencies that lead downward into despotism.

The Socialist Concept of Liberty

But ought not the people be given a little liberty?

But one great thinker has assured us that liberty leads inevitably to monopoly!

We understand that liberty means competition. But according to him, competition is a system that ruins the businessmen and exterminates the people. It is for this reason that free people are ruined and exterminated in proportion to their degree of freedom. (Possibly he should observe the results of competition in, for example, Switzerland, Holland, England, and the United States.)

He also tells us that competition leads to monopoly. And by the same reasoning, he thus informs us that low prices lead to high prices; that competition drives production to destructive activity; that competition drains away the sources of purchasing power; that competition forces an increase in production while, at the same time, it forces a decrease in consumption. From this, it follows that free people produce for the sake of not consuming; that liberty means oppression and madness among the people; and that these specially gifted “leaders” absolutely must attend to.

Socialists Fear Liberty as if it Where a Plague

Well, what liberty should the politicians permit people to have? Liberty of conscience? (But if this were permitted, we would see the people taking this opportunity to become atheists.)

Then liberty of education? (But parents would pay professors to teach their children immorality and falsehoods; besides, according to some, if education were left to national liberty, it would cease to be national, and we would be teaching our children the ideas of the Turks or Hindus; whereas, thanks to this legal despotism over education, our children now have the good fortune to be taught the noble ideas of the Romans.)

Then liberty of labor? But that would mean competition which, in turn, leaves production unconsumed, ruins businessmen, and exterminates the people.

Perhaps liberty of trade? But everyone knows-and the advocates of protective tariffs have proved over and over again-that freedom of trade ruins every person who engages in it, and that it is necessary to suppress freedom of trade in order to prosper.

Possible then, liberty of association? But, according to socialist doctrine, true liberty and voluntary association are in contradiction to each other, and the purpose of the socialists is to suppress liberty of association precisely in order to force people to associate together in true liberty.

Clearly then, the conscience of the social democrats cannot permit persons to have any liberty because they believe that the nature of mankind tends always toward every kind of degradation and disaster. Thus, of course, the legislators must have plans for the people in order to save them from themselves.

This line of reasoning brings us to a challenging question: If people are as incapable, as immoral, and as ignorant as the politicians indicate, then why is the right of these same people to vote defended with such passionate insistence? Well?

The Superman Idea

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

They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep, Certainly such an arrangements presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority. Well? If mankind is so depraved, how is it that reason says that voting in depraved people to rule us is going to have a better consequence than having no one to rule us?

The Socialist Reject Free Choice

Please understand that I do not dispute their right to invent social combinations, to advertise them, to advocate them, and to try them upon themselves, at their own expense and risk. But I do dispute their right to impose these plans upon us by law-by force-and to compel us to pay for them with our taxes.

I do not insist that the supporters of these various social schools of though-the Communists, Fascists, National Socialists, and the Racial supremicists-renounce their various ideas. I insist only that they renounce this one idea they have in common: They need only to give up the idea of forcing us to acquiesce to their groups and series, their socialized projects, their free-credit banks, their Graeco-Roman concept of morality, and their commercial regulations. I ask only that we be permitted to decide upon these plans for ourselves; that we not be forced to accept them, directly or indirectly, if we find them to be contrary to our best interests and repugnant to our consciences.

But these organizers desire access to the tax funds and to the power of the law in order to carry out their plans. In addition to being oppressive and unjust, this desire also implies the fatal supposition that the organizer is infallible and mankind is incompetent. But, again, if persons are incompetent to judge for themselves, then why all this talk about universal voting?

The Cause of All Revolutions

This contradiction in ideas is, unfortunately but logically, reflected in events in various parts of the world throughout history. For example, Frenchmen have led all other Europeans in obtaining their rights-or, more accurately, their political demands. Yet this fact has in no respect prevented us from becoming the most governed, the most regulated, the most imposed upon, the most harnessed, and the most exploited people in Europe. France also leads all other nations as the one where revolutions are constantly to be anticipated. And under the circumstances, it is quite natural that this should be the case.

All this will remain the case so long as our politicians continue to accept this idea that has been so well expressed by one French orator: "Society receives its momentum from power." This will remain the case so long as human beings with feelings continue to remain passive; so long as they consider themselves incapable of bettering their prosperity and happiness by their own intelligence and their own energy; so long as they expect everything from the law; in short, so long as they imagine that their relationship to the state is the same as that of the sheep to the shepherd. How often have you heard the statement from the unaware…WE NEED A LAW AGAINST THAT!

The Enormous Power Given To The Administers of Government

As long as these ideas prevail, it is clear that the responsibility of government is enormous. Good fortune and bad fortune, wealth and destitution, equality and inequality, virtue and vice-all then depend upon political administration. It is burdened with everything, it undertakes everything, it does everything; therefore it is responsible for everything.

If we are fortunate, then the government has a claim to our gratitude; but if we are unfortunate, then the government must bear the blame. For are not our persons and property now at the disposal of government? Is not the law omnipotent?

In creating a monopoly of education, the government must answer to the hope of the fathers of families who have thus been deprived of their liberty; and if these hopes are shattered, whose fault is it?

In regulating industry, the government has contracted to make it prosper; otherwise it is absurd to deprive industry of its liberty. And if industry now suffers, whose fault is it?

In meddling with the balance of trade by playing with tariffs, the government thereby contracts to make trade prosper; and if this results in destruction instead of prosperity, whose fault is it?

In giving the maritime industries protection in exchange for their liberty, the government undertakes to make them profitable; and if they become a burden to the taxpayers, whose fault is it?

Thus there is not a grievance in the nation for which the government does not voluntarily make itself responsible. Is it surprising then, that every failure increases the threat of another revolution in France?

And what remedy is proposed for this? To extend indefinitely the domain of law; that is, the responsibility of government.

But if the government undertakes to control and to raise wages, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to care for all who may be in want, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to support all unemployed workers, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to lend interest-free money to all borrowers, and cannot do it; if, in these words that we regret to say escaped from the pen of Mr. de Lamartine, "The state considers that its purpose is to enlighten, to develop, to enlarge, to strengthen, to spiritualize, and to sanctify the soul of the people"-and if the government cannot do all of these things, what then? Is it not certain that after every government failure-which, alas! is more than probably-there will be an equally inevitable revolution? Why is it the end result continually throughout history? Doesn’t the answer jump out of these words into your mind? It is due to the INCORRECT use of law that mankind is continually fighting to rid himself of it.

Politics and Economics

A science of economics must be developed before a science of politics can be logically formulated. Essentially, economics is the science of determining whether the interests of human beings are harmonious or antagonistic. This must be known before a science of politics can be formulated to determine the proper functions of government.

Immediately following the development of a science of economics, and at the very beginning of the formulation of a science of politics, this all-important question must be answered: What is law? What ought it to be? What is its scope; its limits? Logically, at what point do the just powers of the legislator stop?

I do not hesitate to answer: Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle to injustice. In short, law is justice.
Mr. Bastiat has devoted three other books and several articles to the development of the ideas contained in the three sentences of the following paragraph.

Proper Legislative Functions’

It is not true that the legislator has absolute power over our persons and property? The existence of persons and property preceded the existence of the legislator, and his function is only to guarantee their safety.

It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or our pleasures? The function of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of these same rights by any other person.

Since law necessarily require the support of force, its lawful domain is only in the areas where the use of force is necessary. This is justice.

Every individual has the right to use force for lawful self-defense. It is for this reason that the collective force-which is only the organized combination of the individual forces-may lawfully be used for the same purpose; and it cannot be used legitimately for any other purpose.

Law is solely the organization of the individual right of self-defense which existed before law was formalized. Proper law is justice.

Law and Charity Are Not the Same

The mission of the law is not to oppress persons and steal their property, event though the law may be acting in a philanthropic spirit. Its mission is to protect persons and property.

Furthermore, it must not be said that the law may be made charitable if, in the process, it refrains from oppressing persons and robbing them of their property; this would be a contradiction. The law cannot avoid having an effect upon persons and property; and if the law acts in any manner except to protect them, its actions then necessarily violate the liberty of persons and their right to own property.

The law is justice-simple and clear, precise and bounded. Every eye can see it, and every mind can grasp it; for justice is measurable, immutable, and unchangeable. Justice is neither more than this nor less than this.

If you exceed the proper limit-if you attempt to make the law religious, fraternal, equalizing, charitable, industrial, literary, or artistic-you will then be lost in an unchartered territory, in vagueness and uncertainty, in a forced utopia or, even worse, in a multitude of utopias, each striving to seize the law and impose it upon you. This is true because fraternity and charity, unlike justice, do not have precise limits. Once started, where will you stop? And where will the law stop itself?

As we continue into the last part 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? Part 4 is upon us! C.L.