In part II of "The Law Revisited" we will look at the faulty assumption that all laws are in and of themselves just and good. To continue in that example, we will look at the issue of making anything "universal" no matter how good those intentions are.
The Fate of Non-Conformists
If you even state that you think these institutions may have become immoral, it will be loudly proclaimed that "You are a loose cannon, a utopian, a theorist, a rebel; you wish to destroy the foundations of society."
And so help you God if you should posture on morality or political science because then there will be official organizations which will go to the government and protest in this line of thinking: "We can't teach science from a free trade point of view (i.e, liberty, property and fairness) like we have been. We need to teach science exclusively from the position of the facts and laws that restrict and regulate industry (i.e, laws contrary to liberty, property and fairness). We need to make sure that our professors do everything they can to avoid speaking against the laws that are in place now."*
*General Council of Manufacturers, Agriculture, and Commerce, May 6, 1850. (Wording modified)
So for example if a law approves of slavery, monopoly, opression or theft in any way whatsoever, it can never be mentioned. After all how do you point out something like that without causing people to begin to disrespect such a law? On top of that, all notions of morality and political economy must be taught from the point of view that it is a just law simply because it is a law.
The other side effect of this gross distortion is that it overemphasizes the importance of political passions and conflicts. Really just politics in general is given too much importance.
There are thousands of ways to prove this. But I will simply limit the illustration to that of universal suffrage since that seems to be on everyone's mind lately.
Who Shall Judge?
Rousseau's followers -- who think themselves to be very intellectually advanced but as far as I'm concerned are about two thousand years behind -- will certainly disagree with me. But universal suffrage -- in the strictest sense of the word -- isn't one of those sacred teachings that one cannot doubt or examine without having committed some sort of crime. In fact there are some good objections to it.
For starters, the word universal is very misleading. For example, there are 36 million people in France. So for voting to be universal there should be 36 million voters, right? But even the most inclusive system only gives that ability to about 9 million. So that means that three out of four people don't have the right to vote. Even better, the other three are denied that right by the fourth who says that the others don't have the capacity to vote and therefore is justified in denying others the ability to vote.
So then really what is being said is that voting is universal for all of those that are capable of voting. That raises an important question: Who is capable? Are minors, women, the mentally ill and people who have committed major crimes the only ones to be excluded?
The Reason Why Voting Is Restricted
When you look closer it becomes more clear why someone would want to base the right of voting on someone's capacity or incapacity. That motive is that the elector or voter doesn't just affect himself but everyone else as well.
The most permissive and restrictive systems are identical in this aspect. The only way they differ is in their definition of what incapacity is. It isn't a difference of principle but of degree.
So lets assume that the republicans of our current Greek and Roman schools are correct and that the right to vote comes at birth. If that is the case than it isn't just to prevent women and children from exercising that right. So why are they prevented? Because it assumed that they are incapable of doing so. But why is incapacity a motive to exclude? Because the voter isn't the only one who lives with the consequences of his vote. Each vote affects the entire community and the people in the community have every right to insist on protection in regard to such actions that affect the community's very existence and welfare.
The Answer Is to Restrict the Law
I know what objections will be made to this. But this isn't the time or place to go into all of that. I'm simply trying to point out this conflict over universal suffrage (much like many other political questions) which agitates, excites, and overthrows nations, would be utterly insignificant if the law had simply lmited itself to doing what it was supposed to do.
If the law simply limited itself to protecting all people, freedoms and properties; if it just stayed as nothing more than the collective right to legal self defense; if the law were the safeguard and the punisher of any form of oppression and plunder -- would citizens even need to argue abou the extent of franchisement?
If this was the situation, would it be likely that the more people who have the right to vote, the greater the danger to the supreme good and public peace would become? Would those excluded refuse to wait peacefully until the day they are granted the right to vote? Is it likely that those privileged would jealously defend that privilege?
If the law simply did what it was supposed to then everyone would have the same interest in the law. And based on that, doesn't it stand to reason that those who did vote would certainly not be a burden to those that could not vote?
The Fatal Idea of Legal Plunder
But on the other hand, let's imagine that the law begins to seize property from one person and gives it to someone else. It takes wealth from all and gives it to a select few -- be they farmers, manufacturers, ship owners, artists or comedians. And all of this is done under the guise of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement. Under such conditions, surely everyone would want to seize hold of the law and understandably so.
Those that are excluded will demand the right to vote and would rather overthrow society than to do without. Even beggars and vagrants will then try to prove to you that they too have the right to vote. They will say:
"We cant' buy wine, tobacco, or salt without being taxed. And part of those taxes that we're forced to pay is given to men that are wealthier than we are. Other people use the law to increase prices on bread, meat, iron or cloth. So since everyone can apparently use the law to profit for themselves, we want to do the same. We demand from relief programs from the government which is our own version of plunder. And in order to do this we should be made voters and legislators so that we can promote beggary on a large scale for our own socio-economic class since you've organized protection on a similar scale for your own class. But don't you dare pretend like you'll work for us and then simply give us, like Mr. Mimerel suggested, 600,000 franks to shut us up like you would throw a bone to a dog to gnaw on. We have other claims. Besides, we want to have our own special bargains like the other classes have done for themselves."
And what can you say to answer that argument!
Perverted Law Causes Conflict
As long as we admit that the law can be de-railed from it's true purpose -- that it can violate instead of protect property -- then everyone will want to join in lawmaking for either self protection or to steal for themselves as well. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. Equally vicious fighting will occur not only outside of the Legislature but inside as well. If you know this then you really don't need to study what goes on in French and English legislature; understanding the situation is the same as knowing the answer.
Do we really need to prove that such a distortion of the law a source of unending hatred and discord; that it destroys society? If you really need proof, look at the United States (1850). No other country in the world keeps the law in it's proper place as well as they: the safeguarding of everyone's liberty and property. As a result, there doesn't seem to be a country where societal order rests more firmly. However, even in the United States, there are two issues -- and only two -- that have always been potentially dangerous to the public peace.
Slavery and Tariffs Are Plunder
What are these two issues? They are slavery and taxes. These are the only two issues where in spite of the general character of the United States, the law has engaged in plunder.
Slavery is a legal violation of liberty and the protective tariff a legal violation of property.
It is amazing that this dual legal crime - an unfortunate carry over from the Old World - is the only issue which can and may ruin the Union. It is unfathomable to think that at the very core of a society this exists: The law has become the very instrument of injustice. And if this has dire consequences to the United States - where it only exists in regard to slavery and tariffs - what will happen to Europe where the corruption of law has become a principle; a system?
Two Kinds of Plunder
Mr. de Montalembert [politician and writer] borrowing from a thought contained in a famous speech by Mr. Carlier, has said: "We must make war against socialism." According to Charle's Dupin's definition of socialism, he means "We must make war against plunder."
But which kind of plunder? There are two kinds: legal and illegal.
I don't think that illegal plunder such as theft or scamming -- which is already defined and punished -- can really be classified as socialism. This isn't the kind of plunder that systematically threatens the fabric of society. Besides, fighting that type of plunder didn't wait for these men to start it. That war has been fought since the beginning of time. Long before the Revolution of February 1848 -- before socialism was ever devised -- France had provided police, judges, gendarmes, prisons, dungeons, and scaffolds whose job was to fight against illegal plunder. The law has always fought against this and I believe it always should have this mindset against plunder.
The Law Defends Plunder
But the law doesn't always do this, in fact some times it defends and participates in plunder. As a result, those that benefit aren't subjected to the shame, danger, and scruple that they would be subjected to otherwise. Sometimes the law even places the entire legal system at the service of the plunderer and as a result treats the victim as a criminal when he tries to defend himself. In otherwords, there is such a thing as legal plunder and it should be rather obvious that this is what Mr. de Montalembert was referring to.
This may only be an isolated problem among the laws of the people. If that is the case, the best thing to do is eliminate it with a minimum of speeches and condemnations -- regardless of the protests by those with vested interests.
How to Identify Legal Plunder
So how does one identify legal plunder? Easily. See if the law takes what rightfully belongs to one person and gives it to someone else that it doesn't belong to. See if the law benefits one person at the expense of another by doing what a private citizen would be called a criminal for doing.
Once you find that law, get rid of it immediately because it is not only evil but is a breeding ground for even more evil. If it isn't done away with quickly -- even if it's just an isolated incident -- it will spread and multiply and become a system.
Obviously the beneficiary of this law will complain bitterly and defend his "rights". He will say that the state is under obligation to protect his industry and even propagate it; that such a process helps the state because his industry can pay more to the poor working class.
Don't listen to this garbage. By accepting such arguments, legal plunder will develop into an entire system. It has already happened. The current delusion is to make everyone richer at the expense of everybody else; to make plunder apply to everyone under the guise of regulating it.
Legal Plunder Has Many Names
There are no shortage of ways to commit legal plunder. As such there are an innumerable amount of plans which regulate 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, ad nauseum. All of these -- with their unified purpose of legal plunder -- constitute socialism.
Now, by this definition, socialism is a body of doctrine so what can you attack it with other than doctrine? If you believe socialistic doctrine to be untrue, asinine, and evil then refute it. The more untrue, idiotic and evil it is the easier it is to refute. More than anything, if you want to be strong, then get rid of every shred of socialism that has crept into your legal system. This is far easier said than done.
Socialism Is Legal Plunder
Mr. de Montalembert has been accused of wanting to fight socialism with nothing but brute force. He should be exonerated from this accusation, since he clearly said: "The war that we must fight against socialism must be in harmony with law, honor, and justice."
But why doesn't he see that he has placed himself in a vicious circle? Use the law to oppose socialism? Socialism relies on the law to survive. Socialists want to commit legal, not illegal plunder. They, like all other monopolists, want to use the law as their own weapon. Once they have the law on their side, how can it be used against them? When the law helps plunder, it isn't afraid of the legal system anymore. in fact it will probably call on that system for help.
To prevent this, you would ban socialism from participating in lawmaking? You would prevent socialists from becoming legislators? I predict that you will never succeed as long as legal plunder is still the legislatures main order of operation. It is illogical -- actually, it's just ludicrous -- to think otherwise.
The Choice Before Us
The question of legal plunder needs to be absolutely settled are there are only three options to do so with:
1. The few plunder the many.
2. Everybody plunders everybody.
3. Nobody plunders anybody.
So the choice is either limited, universal, or no plunder The law can only follow one at a time.
Limited legal plunder: This was what was happening when voting was restricted. One could go back to this and prevent socialism from invading.
Universal legal plunder: This has been a threat since voting was extended to everybody. The new voting class has decided to make law on the same premises that their oppressors used against them when voting was restricted.
No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic. Until I die I will proclaim this principle with every last bit of strength left in my lungs (which unfortunately is far from adequate).*
*Translator's note: At the time this was written, Mr. Bastiat knew that he was dying of tuberculosis. Within a year, he was dead.
No comments:
Post a Comment