Preface
When a
reviewer wishes to give special recognition to a book, he predicts that it will
still be read "a hundred years from now." The Law, first published as
a pamphlet in June, 1850, is already more than a hundred years old. And because
its truths are eternal, it will still be read when another century has passed.
Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) was a French economist, statesman, and author. He
did most of his writing during the years just before--and immediately
following--the Revolution of February 1848. This was the period when
The Law
is here presented again because the same situation exists in
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.
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 cities populated at the expense of rural
districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. 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
property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect
plunder. And it has converted lawful 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 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!
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."(1)
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 to universal suffrage. In the first place, the
word universal conceals a gross fallacy. For example, there are 36 million
people in
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 for
adults to prevent women and children from voting. Why are they prevented?
Because they are presumed to be incapable. And why is incapacity a motive for
exclusion? Because it is not the voter alone who suffers the consequences of
his vote; because each vote touches and affects everyone in the entire
community; because the people in the community have a right to demand some
safeguards concerning the acts upon which their welfare and existence depend. 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 they also have an incontestable title to vote. They will say to you:
"We cannot buy wine, tobacco, or salt without paying the tax. And a part
of the tax that we pay is given by law--in privileges and subsidies--to men who
are richer than we are. Others use the law to raise the prices of bread, meat,
iron, or cloth. Thus, since everyone else uses the law for his own profit, we
also would like to use the law for our 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
Is
there any need to offer proof that this odious perversion of the law is a
perpetual source of hatred and discord; that it tends to destroy society
itself? If such proof is needed, look at the
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
Slavery
is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protective tariff is a violation, by
law, of property.
Its is
a most remarkable fact that this double legal crime--a sorrowful inheritance of
the Old World--should be the only issue which can, and perhaps will, lead to
the ruin of the Union. It is indeed impossible to imagine, at the very heart of
a society, a more astounding fact than this: The law has come to be an
instrument of injustice. And if this fact brings terrible consequences to the
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--
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 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
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:
1. The
few plunder the many.
2.
Everybody plunders everybody.
3.
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).(2)
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,
or religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy
the essential organization--justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being
used against the liberty of citizens without it also being used against
justice, and thus acting against its proper purpose?
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.(3)
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 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 I 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.(4) Thus it follows that, of the three systems, socialism is
the vaguest, the most indecisive, and, consequently, the most sincere stage of
development.
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. 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 wills; the initiative of
the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no
longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for
them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men;
they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.
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 toward progress, and the greatest possible equality that is
compatible with individual responsibility? Would not this be in accord with the
concept of individual responsibility which 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.
The Law and
Morals
You
say: "Here are persons who are lacking in morality or religion," and
you turn to the law. But law is force. And need I point out what a violent and
futile effort it is to use force in the matters of morality and religion?
It
would seem that socialists, however self-complacent, could not avoid seeing
this monstrous legal plunder that results from such systems and such efforts.
But what do the socialists do? They cleverly disguise this legal plunder from
others--and even from themselves--under the seductive names of fraternity,
unity, organization, and association. Because we ask so little from the
law--only justice--the socialists thereby assume that we reject fraternity,
unity, organization, and association. The socialists brand us with the name
individualist.
But we
assure the socialists that we repudiate only forced organization, not natural
organization. We repudiate the forms of association that are forced upon us,
not free association. We repudiate forced fraternity, not true fraternity. We
repudiate the artificial unity that does nothing more than deprive persons of
individual responsibility. We do not repudiate the natural unity of mankind
under
A Confusion
of Terms
Socialism,
like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between
government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing
being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being
done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we
are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the
socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced
equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It
is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because
we do not want the state to raise grain.
The
Influence of Socialist Writers
How did
politicians ever come to believe this weird idea that the law could be made to
produce what it does not contain--the wealth, science, and religion that, in a
positive sense, constitute prosperity? Is it due to the influence of our modern
writers on public affairs?
Present-day
writers--especially those of the socialist school of thought--base their
various theories upon one common hypothesis: They divide mankind into two
parts. People in general--with the exception of the writer himself--from the
first group. The writer, all alone, forms the second and most important group.
Surely this is the weirdest and most conceited notion that ever entered a human
brain!
In
fact, these writers on public affairs begin by supposing that people have
within themselves no means of discernment; no motivation to action. The writers
assume that people are inert matter, passive particles, motionless atoms, at
best a kind of vegetation indifferent to its own manner of existence. They
assume that people are susceptible to being shaped--by the will and hand of
another person--into an infinite variety of forms, more or less symmetrical,
artistic, and perfected. Moreover, not one of these writers on governmental
affairs hesitates to imagine that he himself--under the title of organizer,
discoverer, legislator, or founder--is this will and hand, this universal
motivating force, this creative power whose sublime mission is to mold these
scattered materials--persons--into a society.
These
socialist writers look upon people in the same manner that the gardener views
his trees. Just as the gardener capriciously shapes the trees into pyramids,
parasols, cubes, vases, fans, and other forms, just so does the socialist
writer whimsically shape human beings into groups, series, centers,
sub-centers, honeycombs, labor corps, and other variations. And just as the
gardener needs axes, pruning hooks, saws, and shears to shape his trees, just
so does the socialist writer need the force that he can find only in law to
shape human beings. For this purpose, he devises tariff laws, tax laws, relief
laws, and school laws.
The
Socialists Wish to Play God
Socialists
look upon people as raw material to be formed into social combinations. This is
so true that, if by chance, the socialists have any doubts about the success of
these combinations, they will demand that a small portion of mankind be set
aside to experiment upon. The popular idea of trying all systems is well known.
And one socialist leader has been known seriously to demand that the
Constituent Assembly give him a small district with all its inhabitants, to try
his experiments upon. In the same manner, an inventor makes a model before he
constructs the full-sized machine; the chemist wastes some chemicals--the
farmer wastes some seeds and land--to try out an idea.
But
what a difference there is between the gardener and his trees, between the
inventor and his machine, between the chemist and his elements, between the
farmer and his seeds! And in all sincerity, the socialist thinks that there is
the same difference between him and mankind!
It is
no wonder that the writers of the nineteenth century look upon society as an
artificial creation of the legislator's genius. This idea--the fruit of
classical education--has taken possession of all the intellectuals and famous
writers of our country. To these intellectuals and writers, the relationship
between persons and the legislator appears to be the same as the relationship
between the clay and the potter.
Moreover,
even where they have consented to recognize a principle of action in the heart
of man--and a principle of discernment in man's intellect--they have considered
these gifts from God to be fatal gifts. They have thought that persons, under
the impulse of these two gifts, would fatally tend to ruin themselves. They
assume that if the legislators left persons free to follow their own
inclinations, they would arrive at atheism instead of religion, ignorance
instead of knowledge, poverty instead of production and exchange.
The
Socialists Despise Mankind
According
to these writers, it is indeed fortunate that Heaven has bestowed upon certain
men--governors and legislators--the exact opposite inclinations, not only for
their own sake but also for the sake of the rest of the world! While mankind
tends toward evil, the legislators yearn for good; while mankind advances
toward darkness, the legislators aspire for enlightenment; while mankind is
drawn toward vice, the legislators are attracted toward virtue. Since they have
decided that this is the true state of affairs, they then demand the use of
force in order to substitute their own inclinations for those of the human
race.
Open at
random any book on philosophy, politics, or history, and you will probably see
how deeply rooted in our country is this idea--the child of classical studies,
the mother of socialism. In all of them, you will probably find this idea that
mankind is merely inert matter, receiving life, organization, morality, and
prosperity from the power of the state. And even worse, it will be stated that
mankind tends toward degeneration, and is stopped from this downward course
only by the mysterious hand of the legislator. Conventional classical thought
everywhere says that behind passive society there is a concealed power called
law or legislator (or called by some other terminology that designates some
unnamed person or persons of undisputed influence and authority) which moves,
controls, benefits, and improves mankind.
A Defense of
Compulsory Labor
Let us first consider a quotation
from Bossuet [tutor to the Dauphin in the Court of Louis XIV]:*
"One
of the things most strongly impressed (by whom?) upon the minds of the
Egyptians was patriotism.... No one was permitted to be useless to the state.
The law assigned to each one his work, which was handed down from father to
son. No one was permitted to have two professions. Nor could a person change
from one job to another.... But there was one task to which all were forced to
conform: the study of the laws and of wisdom. Ignorance of religion and of the
political regulations of the country was not excused under any circumstances.
Moreover, each occupation was assigned (by whom?) to a certain district....
Among the good laws, one of the best was that everyone was trained (by whom?)
to obey them. As a result of this,
Thus,
according to Bossuet, persons derive nothing from themselves. Patriotism,
prosperity, inventions, husbandry, science--all of these are given to the
people by the operation of the laws, the rulers. All that the people have to do
is to bow to leadership.
A Defense of
Paternal Government
Bossuet
carries this idea of the state as the source of all progress even so far as to
defend the Egyptians against the charge that they rejected wrestling and music.
He said:
"How
is that possible? These arts were invented by Trismegistus [who was alleged to
have been Chancellor to the Egyptian god Osiris]".
And
again among the Persians, Bossuet claims that all comes from above:
"One
of the first responsibilities of the prince was to encourage agriculture....
Just as there were offices established for the regulation of armies, just so
were there offices for the direction of farm work.... The Persian people were
inspired with an overwhelming respect for royal authority."
And
according to Bossuet, the Greek people, although exceedingly intelligent, had
no sense of personal responsibility; like dogs and horses, they themselves
could not have invented the most simple games:
"The
Greeks, naturally intelligent and courageous, had been early cultivated by the
kings and settlers who had come from
The Idea of
Passive Mankind
It
cannot be disputed that these classical theories [advanced by these latter-day
teachers, writers, legislators, economists, and philosophers] held that
everything came to the people from a source outside themselves. As another
example, take Fenelon [archbishop, author, and instructor to the Duke of
Burgundy]. He was a witness to the power of Louis XIV. This, plus the fact that
he was nurtured in the classical studies and the admiration of antiquity,
naturally caused Fenelon to accept the idea that mankind should be passive;
that the misfortunes and the prosperity--vices and virtues--of people are
caused by the external influence exercised upon them by the law and the
legislators. Thus, in his Utopia of Salentum, he puts men--with all their
interests, faculties, desires, and possessions--under the absolute discretion
of the legislator. Whatever the issue may be, persons do not decide it for
themselves; the prince decides for them. The prince is depicted as the soul of
this shapeless mass of people who form the nation. In the prince resides the
thought, the foresight, all progress, and the principle of all organization.
Thus all responsibility rests with him.
The
whole of the tenth book of Fenelon's Telemachus proves this. I refer the reader
to it, and content myself with quoting at random from this celebrated work to
which, in every other respect, I am the first to pay homage.
Socialists
Ignore Reason and Facts
With
the amazing credulity which is typical of the classicists, Fenelon ignores the
authority of reason and facts when he attributes the general happiness of the
Egyptians, not to their own wisdom but to the wisdom of their kings:
"We
could not turn our eyes to either shore without seeing rich towns and country
estates most agreeably located; fields, never fallowed, covered with golden
crops every year; meadows full of flocks; workers bending under the weight of
the fruit which the earth lavished upon its cultivators; shepherds who made the
echoes resound with the soft notes from their pipes and flutes.
"Happy," said
Later,
Socialists
Want to Regiment People
Fenelon's
idyll on
"All
that you see in this wonderful island results from the laws of Minos. The
education which he ordained for the children makes their bodies strong and
robust. From the very beginning, one accustoms the children to a life of
frugality and labor, because one assumes that all pleasures of the senses
weaken both body and mind. Thus one allows them no pleasure except that of
becoming invincible by virtue, and of acquiring glory.... Here one punishes
three vices that go unpunished among other people: ingratitude, hypocrisy, and
greed. There is no need to punish persons for pomp and dissipation, for they
are unknown in
Thus
does
It is
from this sort of philosophy that we receive our first political ideas! We are
taught to treat persons much as an instructor in agriculture teaches farmers to
prepare and tend the soil.
A Famous
Name and an Evil Idea
Now
listen to the great Montesquieu on this same subject: "To maintain the
spirit of commerce, it is necessary that all the laws must favor it. These
laws, by proportionately dividing up the fortunes as they are made in commerce,
should provide every poor citizen with sufficiently easy circumstances to
enable him to work like the others. These same laws should put every rich
citizen in such lowered circumstances as to force him to work in order to keep
or to gain." Thus the laws are to dispose
of all fortunes!
Although
real equality is the soul of the state in a democracy, yet this is so difficult
to establish that an extreme precision in this matter would not always be
desirable. It is sufficient that there be established a census to reduce or fix
these differences in wealth within a certain limit. After this is done, it
remains for specific laws to equalize inequality by imposing burdens upon the
rich and granting relief to the poor.
Here
again we find the idea of equalizing fortunes by law, by force.
In
Note
the marvelous genius of these legislators: By debasing all established
customs--by mixing the usual concepts of all virtues--they knew in advance that
the world would admire their wisdom.
Lycurgus
gave stability to his city of
This
boldness which was to be found in the institutions of
Mr.
William Penn, for example, is a true Lycurgus. Even though Mr. Penn had peace
as his objective--while Lycurgus had war as his objective--they resemble each
other in that their moral prestige over free men allowed them to overcome
prejudices, to subdue passions, and to lead their respective peoples into new
paths.
The
country of
Now it
is true that if one considers the sheer pleasure of commanding to be the
greatest joy in life, he contemplates a crime against society; it will,
however, always be a noble ideal to govern men in a manner that will make them
happier. Those who desire to establish similar institutions must do as follows:
Establish common ownership of property as in the
A Frightful
Idea