The Remedy for BIG Corrupt Government - Part 1

[Livefire]

Gentlemen, what is most likely going to happen is this,
the feds will cut off funding for various programs unless the states bow to federal demands.....then like Michigan with the SSN requirement for drivers license applications, they will cave in.

[BOBT12]

This seem like a good message for the season,

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h

Lots of Americans are doing their taxes this weekend. I'm one of them.

It would be nice if there was a radio program that made you feel better as you filled out those forms and wrote your check. Well, today's Downsize DC Conference Call (radio show) will NOT be that program!

Everyone should feel bad about the IRS and the Income Tax. And for those wage slaves who are excited about their big refunds . . . they should feel bad too! Why? Because Big Government hurts, and if you got that large refund, that just means you lent the federal government your money at zero interest.*

Downsize DC was founded on an idea . . .

* Democrats tax and spend. In fact, the two remaining candidates are both calling for an increase in your taxes.
* Republicans borrow and spend. And, the presumptive nominee has all kinds of new spending plans, especially for fighting the strawman of terrorism.

. . . The PROBLEM is the spending!

Big Government costs you, inconveniences you, and occasionally hurts people you love. But it routinely injures a neighbor, damages your industry, and destroys your community -- it even kills people. We must Downsize DC for harmony and human progress.

I'm not usually prone to ranting and raving. I feel blessed to have been born in this country. I love our American ideals, especially the Constitution. There are lots of good things happening and it's easy to forget those things. And I'm even excited by the constant evidence I get that people are indeed waking up to the damage done by our federal government.

But in this week comes April 15 -- Christmas for the thieves on the Potomac. And at least once, perhaps, we shouldn't be so rosy or upbeat.

I find myself wishing I could get millions of people to feel -- yes, feel, rather than just understand -- how harmful the federal government really is. All that money you "voluntarily" surrender to them -- heck all the votes given to the politicians that impose the taxes and allocate that money -- are used to inflict pain, demolish peace, and impede human prosperity.

I expect today's show to elicit a visceral reaction, rather than intellectual recognition.

. . . And not that we won't have any fun: Sometimes you've got to laugh at the absurdity. We'll do some of that too. There will even be music! And a special appearance by Carla Howell with the Center for Small Government, who will talk about the Massachusetts ballot initiative to end their state income tax.

On top of that, we'll have a Gun Owners of America update that is consistent with the theme of this show, since they are one of the show sponsors.*

Hey, I'm sure I'm not the only one needs to get some things off my chest. What is your tax filing horror story or government nightmare (please, keep it short and to the point). You can call-in at 1-800-259-9231 or you can email me (just type this in as it sounds) CALL at DOWNSIZEDC dot ORG.

The two hour show starts at 3:06 PM Eastern (2:06 PM Central, 1:06 PM Mountain, and 12:06 PM Pacific).

It's on a couple of stations (and believe it or not, it pops up on stations in various places), but the very best way to listen is on the Genesis Communications Network website.

Happy Listening,

Jim Babka
Host
Downsize DC Conference Call

* The Downsize DC Conference Call is Jim Babka's show and DownsizeDC.org, Inc is merely a sponsor. The views expressed on the program are not necessarily those of the Downsize DC board, staff, or supporters. This message is distributed as part of a promotional arrangement.
D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation
CONTRIBUTE to the Electronic Lobbyist project
http://www.DownsizeDC.org is sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. -- a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government.
You are encouraged to forward this message to friends and business associates, and permission is hereby granted to reproduce any items herein as long as attribution is provided for articles and the subscription instructions above are included.

[BOBT12]

The plight of the poor taxpayer.

Quote of the Day:

"The rule of law thrives when the law is at peace with the people, not when it’s a cudgel."
-- Jim Harper, scholar, Cato Institute

Subject: A message from the Unknown Taxpayer

We received a message from a DC Downsizer over the weekend. This person wishes to remain anonymous, but has agreed to let us share the message . . .

****


"I work for a charity, doing something I love that I think is important. But I don't earn much. I grossed $35,000 last year. According to an entry in Wikipedia, that makes me lower middle class, but I just did my tax returns, and now I feel poor.

"I believe my federal with-holding was done correctly, but I still had to write a big check to the federal government, and my situation with my state government is an even worse problem.

"I had more than $12,000 in medical expenses last year, mostly dentistry. But after spending the better part of two days reading through tax instructions, applying all the rules, and adding up all the numbers, I just missed having enough qualifying expenses to itemize.

"It doesn't seem that it would have made much difference anyway, even if I had barely qualified.

"I also found, in one small paragraph in the tax instructions, something indicating that I probably qualify for a fine for not doing enough federal withholding. But everyone I've consulted seems to agree that my with-holding was done correctly. I just owe more money. And somehow, when I do the numbers, it still seems that I qualify for this fine.

"The situation with my state taxes is even worse. My state has no mechanism for doing my with-holding because the non-profit for which I work is headquartered in another state. The company that does the payroll for my employer expressed despair when they learned where I live. Apparently my state is notorious for this problem. And the tax collection bureaucrats in my state won't do anything to help fix it. As a result . . .

"No state with-holding is done for me. I have to pay it all in one lump sum at the end of the year, or make quarterly estimated payments. The forms involved are mind-numbingly complex, the worst I've ever seen. And I can't help fearing that the state will fine me for all this, even though the problem is theirs, and not mine.

"I suppose I'm at the point where I need to hire professional help. But that's expensive, with no guarantee that I'll actually owe less tax as a result. I can barely pay the bills I already have . . .

"When I added my total tax payments for the year and my total medical expenses, the result was shocking. These two expenses consumed more than half of what I made in 2007. And it wasn't as if I had any really serious medical problems. Plus, I actually have health insurance, but my out-of-pocket was still huge, and most of it had to be paid with credit cards, at a very high rate of interest.

"I can't help thinking that this whole set-up is a backdoor corporate welfare scheme for the credit card companies.

But it gets worse . . .

"What if I added up my sales taxes, and my property taxes? My net income would look even worse. And what about all the hidden tariffs and excise taxes and corporate taxes that are passed on to me in the cost of the things I buy? Then there's the inflation tax. I know the government has been expanding the money supply. All of my costs are rising, but my income isn't.

"I also know that the government has distorted the health care market, causing costs to soar, and I know that the government was responsible for the housing bubble too, making housing unaffordable for me, even though I'm supposedly middle class.

"At this rate, how will I ever save for retirement? Social Security isn't enough to live on, and it's in trouble anyway.

"The politicians constantly claim they're doing things to help people, but I feel like they're crushing me.

"All of this makes me see the value of Ron Paul's health care bill. His tax credit would make a huge difference for me. And I'd like to be able to save more in my HSA for when I have real health care problems, and not just the minor things I had last year.

"I hope Downsize DC can get this bill passed, and cut the size of government in general. I really need it."


****

Well, we think that says it all. Please send another message to Congress asking them to pass Ron Paul's health care bill.

Please also help us grow stronger by contributing just a few dollars a month: $5, $10, $15, $20, or $25. All of those amounts equal less than a dollar a day. Please start a monthly credit card pledge to make us grow. You can do so here.

Or, you can make a one-time contribution to help us make budget for April. We need just four more $100 contribution to win the $1,000 matching donation from Jack Mullen. You can contribute here.

Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation

CONTRIBUTE to the Electronic Lobbyist project

http://www.DownsizeDC.org is sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. -- a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government.

Emphasis added.

The current taxing scheme is based on arbitrary rules, and is a tyranny to everyone who falls under them.

Originally Posted by REPUBLIC MAGAZINE

The fact is, that those of us who, the IRS and Major Media have convinced to religiously file 1040 Income Tax Confession Forms every year are giving the IRS the tools it needs to enslave, rob and jail us…. Close to 90% of those convicted by the IRS “Voluntarily” filed an Income Tax return.

These are the sad facts of American life today, ever heard of random audits?

Every great robber styles as sedition and faction every utterance that subtracts from his admiration, that interrupts his wild and ravenous schemes or that attempts to preserve the rights of the people. –Cato

[mrg]

"When in the course of human events..."

That is sovereign law.

Controllong force; irresistable compulsion; a power or impulse so great that it admits no choice of conduct.
Black's 6th

That is the DC National Socialist State junta's "law."

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by mrg

That is sovereign law.



That is the DC National Socialist State junta's "law."

I agree.

Nero was not the last that made a power to protect property a warrant for seizing it. [L] Cato’s Letters, #118, p. 821.

The DC NAZI's answer is to take more enforcement action.

Neither the titles nor the deeds of tyrants will bear examination; and their power is concerned to stupefy and destroy the very faculties of reason and thinking. [L] Cato’s Letters #71, p. 518.

[BOBT12]

THE LAW

By Fredric Bastiat (1801 to 1850)

The Book and Author
The Translation
Other Credits
Other Notes
Table of Contents
Life Is a Gift from God
What Is Law?
A Just and Enduring Government
The Complete Perversion of the Law
A Fatal Tendency of Mankind
Property and Plunder
Victims of Lawful Plunder
The Results of Legal Plunder
The Fate of Non-Conformists
Who Shall Judge?
The Reason Why Voting Is Restricted
The Answer Is to Restrict the Law
The Fatal Idea of Legal Plunder
Perverted Law Causes Conflict
Slavery and Tariffs Are Plunder
Two Kinds of Plunder
The Law Defends Plunder
How to Identify Legal Plunder
Legal Plunder Has Many Names
Socialism Is Legal Plunder
The Choice Before Us
The Proper Function of the Law
The Seductive Lure of Socialism
Enforced Fraternity Destroys Liberty
Plunder Violates Ownership
Three Systems of Plunder
Law Is Force
Law Is a Negative Concept
The Political Approach
The Law and Charity
The Law and Education
The Law and Morals
A Confusion of Terms
The Influence of Socialist Writers
The Socialists Wish to Play God
The Socialists Despise Mankind
A Defense of Compulsory Labor
A Defense of Paternal Government
The Idea of Passive Mankind
Socialists Ignore Reason and Facts
Socialists Want to Regiment People
A Famous Name and an Evil Idea
A Frightful Idea
The Leader of the Democrats
Socialists Want Forced Conformity
Legislators Desire to Mold Mankind
Legislators Told How to Manage Men
A Temporary Dictatorship
Socialists Want Equality of Wealth
The Error of the Socialist Writers
What Is Liberty?
Philanthropic Tyranny
The Socialists Want Dictatorship
Dictatorial Arrogance
The Indirect Approach to Despotism
Napoleon Wanted Passive Mankind
The Vicious Circle of Socialism
The Doctrine of the Democrats
The Socialist Concept of Liberty
Socialists Fear All Liberties
The Superman Idea
The Socialists Reject Free Choice
The Cause of French Revolutions
The Enormous Power of Government
Politics and Economics
Proper Legislative Functions
Law and Charity Are Not the Same
The High Road to Communism
The Basis for Stable Government
Justice Means Equal Rights
The Path to Dignity and Progress
Proof of an Idea
The Desire to Rule Over Others
Let us Now Try Liberty

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.

{TLP note: All the italicized words and parenthetical expressions were supplied by the Author; all the subheadings and bracketed material were supplied by the Translator.}

Life Is a Gift from God

We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life - physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.

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 men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

What Is Law?

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

Each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

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. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force - for the same reason - cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

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

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

A Just and Enduring Government

If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, non-oppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable - whatever its political form might be.

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

It can be further stated that, thanks to the non-intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions.

The sources of our existence are made uncertain and precarious by these state-created displacements. And, furthermore, these acts burden the government with increased responsibilities.

The Complete Perversion of the Law

But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and

[BOBT12]

property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?
The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy. Let us speak of the first.

A Fatal Tendency of Mankind

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

But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man - in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.

Property and Plunder

Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor, by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

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

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. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.

Victims of Lawful 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 the laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of the 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!

Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.

It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution - some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.

The Results of Legal Plunder

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

What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.
In the first place, it erases from everyone's conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.

No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.

The Fate of Non-Conformists

If you suggest a doubt as to the morality of these institutions, it is boldly said that "You are a dangerous innovator, a utopian, a theorist, a subversive; you would shatter the foundation upon which society rests."

If you lecture upon morality or upon political science, there will be found official organizations petitioning the government in this vein of thought: "That science no longer be taught exclusively from the point of view of free trade (of liberty, of property, and of justice) as has been the case until now, but also, in the future, science is to be especially taught from the viewpoint of the facts and laws that regulate French industry (facts and laws which are contrary to liberty, to property, and to justice). That in government-endowed teaching positions, the professor rigorously refrain from endangering in the slightest degree the respect due to the laws now in force." (Author's note: General Council of Manufacturers, Agriculture and Commerce, May 6, 1850.)

Thus, if there exists a law which sanctions slavery or monopoly, oppression or robbery, in any form whatever, it must not even be mentioned. For how can it be mentioned without damaging the respect which it inspires? Still further, morality and political economy must be taught from the point of view of this law; from the supposition that it must be a just law merely because it is a law.

Another effect of this tragic perversion of the law is that it gives an exaggerated importance to political passions and conflicts, and to politics in general.

I could prove this assertion in a thousand ways. But, by way of illustration, I shall limit myself to a subject that has lately occupied the minds of everyone: universal suffrage.

Who Shall Judge?

The followers of Rousseau's school of thought - who consider themselves far advanced, but whom I consider twenty centuries behind the times - will not agree with me on this. But universal suffrage - using the word in its strictest sense - is not one of those sacred dogmas which it is a crime to examine or doubt. In fact, serious objections may be made

[BOBT12]

to universal suffrage.

In the first place, the word universal conceals a gross fallacy. For example, there are 36 million people in France. Thus, to make the right of suffrage universal there should be 36 million voters. But the most extended system permits only 9 million people to vote. Three persons out of four are excluded. And more than this, they are excluded by the fourth. This fourth person advances the principle of incapacity as his reason for excluding the others.

Universal suffrage means, then, universal suffrage for those who are capable. But there remains this question of fact: Who is capable? Are minors, females, insane persons, and persons who have committed certain major crimes the only ones to be determined incapable?

The Reason Why Voting Is Restricted

A closer examination of the subject shows us the motive which causes the right of suffrage to be based upon the supposition of incapacity. The motive is that the elector or voter does not exercise this right for himself alone, but for everybody.

The most extended elective system and the most restricted elective system are alike in this respect. They differ only in respect to what constitutes incapacity. It is not a difference of principle, but merely a difference of degree.

If, as the republicans of our present-day Greek and Roman schools of thought pretend, the right of suffrage arrives with one's birth, it would be an injustice to prevent women and children from voting. Why are they prevented? Because they are presumed to be incapable. And why is incapacity a motive for exclusion? Because it is not the voter alone who suffers the consequences of his vote; because each vote touches and affects everyone in the entire community; because the people in the community have a right to demand some safeguards concerning the acts upon their welfare and existence depend.

The Answer Is to Restrict the Law

I know what might be said in answer to this; what the objections might be. But this is not the place to exhaust a controversy of this nature. I wish merely to observe here that this controversy over universal suffrage (as well as most other political questions) which agitates, excites, and overthrows nations, would lose nearly all of its importance if the law had always been what it ought to be.

In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual's right to self defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder - is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?

Under these circumstances, is it likely that the extent of the right to vote would endanger that supreme good, the public peace? Is it likely that the excluded classes would refuse to peaceably await the coming of their right to vote? Is it likely that those who had the right to vote would jealously defend their privilege?

If the law were confined to its proper functions, everyone's interest in the law would be the same. Is it not clear that, under these circumstances, those who voted could not inconvenience those who did not vote?

The Fatal Idea of Legal Plunder

But on the other hand, imagine that this fatal principle has been introduced: Under the pretense of organization. regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law takes property from one person and gives it to another; the law takes the wealth of all and gives it to a few - whether farmers, manufacturers, shipowners, artists, or comedians. Under these circumstances, then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so.
The excluded classes will furiously demand their right to vote - and will overthrow society rather than not to obtain it. Even beggars and vagabonds will then prove to you that the also have an incontestable title to vote. They will say to you:

"We cannot buy wine, tobacco, or salt without paying the tax. And a part of the tax that we pay is given by law - in privileges and subsidies - to men who are richer than we are. Others use the law to raise the prices of bread, meat, iron, or cloth. Thus, since everyone else uses the law for his own profit, we also would like to use the law for our own profit. We demand from the law the right to relief, which is the poor man's plunder. To obtain this right, we also should be voters and legislators in order that we may organize Beggary on a grand scale for our own class, as you have organized Protection on a grand scale for your class. Now don't tell us beggars that you will act for us, and then toss us, as Mr. Mimerel proposes, 600,000 francs to keep us quiet, like throwing us a bone to gnaw. We have other claims. And anyway, we wish to bargain for ourselves as other classes have bargained for themselves!"

And what can you say to answer that argument!

Perverted Law Causes Conflict

As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose - that it may violate property instead of protecting it - then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious. To know this, it is hardly necessary to examine what transpires in the French and English legislatures; merely to understand the issue is to know the answer.

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

Slavery and Tariffs Are Plunder

What are these two issues? They are slavery and tariffs. These are the only two issues where, contrary to the general spirit of the republic of the United States, law has assumed the character of a plunderer.

Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property.

It is a most remarkable fact that this double legal crime - a sorrowful inheritance from the Old World - should be the only issue which can, and perhaps will, lead to the ruin of the Union. It is indeed impossible to imagine, at the very heart of a society, a more astounding fact than this: The law has come to be an instrument of injustice. And if this fact brings terrible consequence in Europe, where the perversion of the law is a principle; a system?

Two Kinds of Plunder

Mr. de Montalembert [politician and writer] adopting the thought contained in a famous proclamation by Mr. Carlier, has said: "We must make war against socialism." According to the definition of socialism advanced by Mr. Charles Dupin, he meant: "We must make war against plunder."

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

I do not think that illegal plunder, such as theft or swindling - which the penal code defines, anticipates, and punishes - can be called socialism. It is not this kind of plunder that systematically threatens the foundations of society. Anyway, the war against this kind of plunder has not waited for the command of these gentlemen. The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. Long before the Revolution of February 1848 - long before the appearance even of socialism itself - France had provided police, judges, gendarmes, prisons, dungeons, and scaffolds for the purpose of fighting illegal plunder. The law itself conducts this war, and it is my wish and opinion that the law should always maintain this attitude toward plunder.

The Law Defends Plunder

But it does not always do this. Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger, and scruple which their acts would

[BOBT12]

otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim - when he defends himself - as a criminal. In short, there is a legal plunder, and it is of this, no doubt, that Mr. de Montalembert speaks.

This legal plunder may be only an isolated stain among the legislative measures of the people. If so, it is best to wipe it out with a minimum of speeches and denunciations - and in spite of the uproar of the vested interests.

How to Identify Legal Plunder

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law - which may be an isolated case - is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.

Legal Plunder Has Many Names

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.

Now, since under this definition socialism is a body of doctrine what attack can be made against it other than a war of doctrine? If you find this socialistic doctrine to be false, absurd, and evil, then refute it. And the more false, the more absurd, and the more evil it is, the easier it will be to refute. Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may have crept into your legislation. This will be no light task.

Socialism Is Legal Plunder

Mr. de Montalembert has been accused of desiring to fight socialism by the use of brute force. He ought to be exonerated from this accusation, for he has plainly said: "The war that we must fight against socialism must be in harmony with law, honor, and justice."
But why does not Mr. de Montalembert see that he has placed himself in a vicious circle? You would use the law to oppose socialism? But it is upon the law that socialism itself relies. 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.

To prevent this, you would exclude socialism from entering into the making of laws? You would prevent socialists from entering the Legislative Palace? You shall not succeed, I predict, so long as legal plunder continues to be the main business of the legislature. It is illogical - in fact, absurd - to assume otherwise.

The Choice Before Us

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

The few plunder the many.
Everybody plunders everybody.
Nobody plunders anybody.

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

Limited legal plunder: This system prevailed when the right to vote was restricted. One would turn back to this system to prevent the invasion of socialism.

Universal legal plunder: We have been threatened with this system since the franchise was made universal. The newly enfranchised majority has decided to formulate law on the same principle of legal plunder that was used by their predecessors when the vote was limited.

No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace order, stability, harmony, and logic. Until the day of my death, I shall proclaim this principle with all the force of my lungs (which, alas! is all too inadequate). [Translator's note: At the time this was written, Mr. Bastiat knew that he was dying of tuberculosis. Within a year, he was dead]

The Proper Function of the Law

And, in all sincerity, can anything more than the absence of plunder be required of the law? Can the law - which necessarily requires the use of force - rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution - so long searched for in the area of social relationships - is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice.

Now this must be said: When justice is organized by law - that is, by force - this excludes the idea of using law (force) to organize any human activity whatever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy the essential force being used against the liberty of citizens without it also being used against justice, and thus acting against its proper purpose?

The Seductive Lure of Socialism

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. 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

Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: "Your doctrine is 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 plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said before, is in human greed; the other is in false philanthropy.

At this point, I think that I should explain exactly what I mean by the word plunder. [Translator's note: The French word used by Mr. Bastiat is spoliation.]
Plunder 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 - as expressing the idea opposite to

[BOBT12]

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 plunder is committed.

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 supposed to suppress, I say that plunder 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 plunder, 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 plunder is offensive. I have tried in vain to find an inoffensive word, for it would not at any time - especially now - wish to add an irritating word to our dissentions. Thus, whether I am believed or not, I declare that I do not mean to attack the intentions or the morality of anyone. Rather, I am attacking an idea which I believe to be false; a system which appears to me to be unjust; an 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 Plunder

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 plunder is more visible in communism because it is complete plunder; and in protectionism because the plunder is limited to specific groups and industries. Thus it follows that, of the three systems, socialism is the vaguest, the most indecisive, and, consequently the most sincere stage of development. (Author's note: If the special privilege of government protection against competition -- a monopoly -- were granted to only one group in France, the iron workers, for example, this act would be so obviously legal plunder 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 sense that legal plunder is best concealed by generalizing it.)

But sincere or insincere, the intentions of persons are not here under question. In fact, I have already said that legal plunder is based partially on philanthropy, even though it is a false philanthropy.

With this explanation, let us examine the value - the origin and the tendency - of this popular aspiration which claims to accomplish the general welfare by general plunder.

Law Is Force

Since the law organizes justice, the socialists ask why the law should not also organize labor, education, and religion.(RNT color and emphasis added).

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 force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force.

When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but 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.

Law Is 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.

As a friend of mine once remarked, 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 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.

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 organizing injustice.

The Political Approach

When a politician views society from the seclusion of his office, he is struck by the spectacle of the 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 plunder. 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 towards 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 God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and reward?

But the politician never gives this a thought. His mind turns to organizations, combinations, and arrangements - legal or apparently legal. He attempts to remedy the evil by increasing and perpetuating the very thing that caused the evil in the first place: legal plunder. We have seen that justice is a negative concept. Is there even one of these positive legal actions that does not contain the principle of plunder?

The Law and Charity

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.

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 plunder, organized injustice.

The Law and Education

You 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 plunder by violating liberty and property.