The Law and Socialism
Bastiat’s 1850 treatise “The Law” is a seminal work that spells out the true principles necessary for a free society.
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 the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.
Frederic Bastiat
This essay reproduces my previous write-up, titled The Law and Socialism, originally posted on December 16, 2020.
Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) was a French economist, political leader, and author. He did most of his writing before and following the February 1848 Revolution. It was during this time that France was evolving into full-scale socialism. As a Deputy to the Legislative Assembly, Bastiat studied and explained collectivist ideas. He explained how socialism would degenerate into what we now know as Communism. His compatriots chose to ignore his logic. For today’s brainwashed people and Woke folk, socialism sounds like a soothing sonata.
Bastiat’s1850 treatise The Law is a seminal work that spells out the true principles necessary for a free society. Like our Founding Fathers, he shows us that too much government threatens true liberty. Unfortunately, most people from all “wings” do not grasp the concepts found in The Law. Today, more laws will take “care of the problem.” For example, gun safety (translation — gun control/elimination), where more laws will be the end all. Guns alone kill people, while automobile deaths are an “accident.” In other words, automobile accidents are acceptable, but gun accidents (rare) are unacceptable. These controls do not and never will address the root issues. That is the opposite of true classical liberalism. There, religion and civic associations form a just society. No matter how much the post-modern liberals and neo-conservatives say otherwise, the big government never was and never will be the answer.
While reality is an illusion today, those who can see through the haze know that we have vestiges of a free-market country. We can no longer even pretend that we have a limited government as required under the Constitution. The veneer is wearing thin. The average person is lucky to keep 50% of their earnings. Open and hidden taxes feed the appetite of federal, state, and local governments. Yes, the government is necessary, but the best government has limits. The defund the police trolls might have a free market idea! Of course, this is in jest.
Given the above modern considerations, taking a quick journey into a few salient points from The Law is necessary. Bastiat invokes the essential truth at the beginning:
We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life -- physical, intellectual, and moral life. . . Life, faculties, production -- in other words, individuality, liberty, property -- this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because legislators have made laws. But, the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand caused men to make laws in the first place. In contrast, over 50,000 laws got placed on the books during the last half of the 20th century alone. A moral nation would need minimal laws and police.
The forced “contribution” called Social Security is an example of plunder. If we kept our money and spent it wisely, we would have plenty to live through tough times (e.g., Covid-1984) and enjoy retirement. If people do not lead moral and frugal lives, they will not save for the future. Socialists never promoted solid morals, values, and principles, and they never will. They look at people as raw materials formed into a specific mold. But we have the right to defend our property from plunder and to protect ourselves:
Each of us has a natural right -- from God -- to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. . . If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it 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 individual right.
No individual can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others. Thus the same principle also applies to the common force. That is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces.
While socialists have promoted the concept of a “Utopia,” such a notion is bankrupt, even with a moral citizenry. Even so, what would be the best society? Under such an administration, everyone would understand their privileges and responsibilities.
No one would argue with the government if they had respect and the fruits of their labor protected against all unjust attacks. We would not have to thank the state for our success when successful. Thus, when unsuccessful, we would no longer think of blaming the state for our misfortune. It is akin to the farmers blaming the state for hail or frost. The state would only recognize the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.
One of society’s most essential building blocks is property or wealth. The fruits of challenging work bear fruit. That is what makes a sound economic system while reducing poverty. Through a desire to succeed, individuals build a society that supports a monetary system with true wealth and proper backing. Such a free-market economy was the natural result of liberty, carried out in the economic aspect of society. This concept works to enhance individual freedom. It does not restrict or reduce the personal right to make financial choices. Individuals were to succeed or fail based on those choices. So, the notion of property is the target of the plunderers:
Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. . . . 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 process is the origin of plunder. . . When, then, does plunder 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 plunder instead of to work. . . But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. . .This force must be entrusted to those who make the laws. . . . Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice.
Society flourishes with morals, values, and principles. Without these precepts, a resulting cancer of complacency spreads throughout. Fewer people take responsibility for their actions and work hard; thus, the government cares for the masses. This causes the redistribution of wealth and a reduced desire to work. A poignant example, as a teen, this author had industrious ambitions during snowstorms. Indeed, snow was money. Joyful work to clear the driveways of my neighbors landed a handsome reward. Fallen leaves and green grass also gave way to greenbacks. As an adult, I can think of only a few occasions in 45 years when a teenager came to my house to offer their services to do yard work. We know today’s “protestant work ethic” is a target of the Woke worldview.
As the government grows, people have an increased opportunity to take advantage of the system. Furthermore, there is an increased opportunity for people to take advantage of the government. Greed and corruption take the form of legal plunder:
Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter -- by peaceful or revolutionary means -- into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.
Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws!
One can argue that socialism is good because it cares for the people. A good society should care for those who cannot participate and pick the fruits of their demanding work. However, as culture debases itself in moral depravity (e.g., values clarification and relativism), it supplies incentives for many to no longer produce. Thus, it becomes necessary to plunder from those who continue to labor. What are these programs called? Bastiat says it best:
Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole --with their common aim of legal plunder -- constitute socialism.
The institution of legal plunder is like cancer; once it starts, it never stops. The slightest attempt to stop any socialist program, no matter how wasteful or destructive, brings on the howls of the few who profit. The majority who do not even have any perceived stake in a program remain silent. As the old saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the oil. Legal plunder (socialism) is like a monopoly, but it has a particular advantage:
Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder. Socialists, like all other monopolists, desire to make the law their own weapon. And when once the law is on the side of socialism, how can it be used against socialism? For when plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes, and your prisons. Rather, it may call upon them for help.
Socialism has a seductive lure with its wrapping in a humanitarian guise. We hear many mantras such as “It’s all about the children,” “compassionate conservatism,” and “sustainable development.” Sounds nice, but Bastiat writes:
Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation. This is the seductive lure of socialism.
Legal plunder has two roots: As discussed before, it is inhuman greed; the other is false philanthropy.
The person who honestly believes that socialism is a form of goodwill rejects any argument Bastiat makes. That is unfortunate because the precept of a genuinely moral society with a desire and a drive to succeed will produce momentum. There will be less poverty, and successful people will have more to provide for the less fortunate. The more socialism, the less the people must provide, which reduces the resources available to the less fortunate. Specifically, the otherwise unnecessary bureaucracy in place to redistribute wealth absorbs resources. Once again, Bastiat says it best:
You 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 then plunders 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 an instrument of plunder.
Consider protective tariffs, subsidies, guaranteed profits, jobs, relief, and welfare schemes. Examine public education, progressive taxation, free credit, and public works. You will find that they are always based on legal plunder and organized injustice.
The Law, written over 150 years ago, has eternal truth as the precepts are the same. Despite what our postmodern secular Darwinist friends may say, human nature remains unchanged. We have the exact needs, desires, and temptations that existed thousands of years ago. Academia long forgot and banished Bastiat’s treatise like many other essential writings. It would be anti-Woke and incite the clarion call of racism. Even so, one can, in one sitting, read The Law. You will conclude that this literature is even more applicable to today’s world. If one is a hard-core Darwinist, all the above aside, Bastait’s writing means nothing, like our “living breathing Constitution.”
For balance in writing, the other big brother deserves mention. Like the Leviathan government, big business has its problems too. Crony capitalism can crush the lifeblood of society — small businesses. Influential people seek favors from the government. Thus, they make more money creating extreme inequality. Politicians and government officials use state power for “legal” privileges. In return, they get financial and political support. The vast rewards reaped upon by the super-rich during the Covid-1984 events are legendary. Think about how many super-rich proclaim to be “liberal.” Enough said.
In closing, it is prudent to mention that Bastiat writes negatively about Montesquieu:1
Those who are subject to vulgar infatuation may exclaim: “Montesquieu has said this! So it’s magnificent! It's sublime!” As for me, I have the courage of my own opinion. I 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. 📕
The Founding Fathers often cited Charles Louis Joseph de Secondat, the Baron of Montesquieu of France (1689 – 1755), for his best-known work, “The Spirit of Laws.” He taught in French universities during the Enlightenment, and many writers say he was a Deist. However, Montesquieu was born a Catholic and died a Catholic. In his works, Montesquieu showed that he believed that all law has its source in God. In The Spirit of Laws, he declared that “. . . a modern government is most agreeable to the Christian Religion, and a despotic Government to the Mahommedan.” James Madison often referenced Montesquieu in his many contributions to the Federalist Papers.
It's an epidemic!
Socialists are guilty of hubris. Where are the Greek gods when you need them?