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...
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...
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...
For there are two kinds of plunder: legal and illegal...
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...
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...
I like Bastiat and find that many things he said rind a little too true for my comfort.
I am wondering; are you applying this to current politics in general or a specific current event?
People are hating the extreme right and left and those are what's being offered, so we just keep swinging back and forth trying to get away from each one.
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 must admit that prior to this thread, I never heard of the man. I like his take on law and morality, so I think I'll spend some time and see what he is all about.
Howdy!
It seems to me that everyone doing and studying some politics should read this remarkable work - The Law (by Frederic Bastiat).
Unfortunately, the world has gone deeply in the "wrong" direction, the one that Bastiat would call "socialism" (what is socialism is another topic but he obviously means some state socialism like the one in the USSR. Just for your reference, I happen to believe in another definition of socialism, for example). Anyway, let me quote some of his thoughts for you and see how they fit in today's world, USA included.
Sounds familiar?
Howdy!
It seems to me that everyone doing and studying some politics should read this remarkable work - The Law (by Frederic Bastiat).
Unfortunately, the world has gone deeply in the "wrong" direction, the one that Bastiat would call "socialism" (what is socialism is another topic but he obviously means some state socialism like the one in the USSR. Just for your reference, I happen to believe in another definition of socialism, for example). Anyway, let me quote some of his thoughts for you and see how they fit in today's world, USA included.
Sounds familiar?
I'm not sure how that applies specifically to socialism?
Like any black and white principal put to paper, in some cases Bastiet is correct and in some cases not. Real life is always full of caveats and simplistic arguments such of this never work well.
Of course, but his writings were meant to convey a point to the common individual for them to better understand the core principle.
Including all the specific caveats, exceptions, occurrences would not be "pretty" in literary terms.
Then it suffers from the same problem as most philosophical treatises, it does not do its subject the same justice as raw data does.
Canell...glad to see another fan of Bastiat on this forum. Personally, in my opinion Bastiat's greatest contribution to society was his development of the concept of opportunity cost. It's a real shame he didn't live longer.
If you get a chance you should check out my post...The Blind Men and the Scope of Government...and share your feedback on the value of allowing taxpayers to consider the opportunity costs of their tax allocation decisions.
I'm not sure how that applies specifically to socialism?
Like any black and white principal put to paper, in some cases Bastiet is correct and in some cases not. Real life is always full of caveats and simplistic arguments such of this never work well.
Now, there is socialism and there is socialism, and there is socialism. Unfortunately, the term has been so abused that it has become dangerous to use, as it shows. I think Bastiat refers to the type of socialism we had in the USSR (a dictatorship by a small group of very powerful men) and is spreading now like fire in the West (bailouts, handouts, buyouts, heavy debt, concentration of power, etc).
The Law, by Frederic BastiatSocialists 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!
He is taking the tax from one and spend on another being socialism perspective.
They work for me, like 2+2=4 and that's that.
I don't think Bastiat was referring to Soviet style socialism. The Law was published in 1850 (the same year of his untimely death), the Russian revolution that overthrew the Czars and created the Soviet Union was happened 67 years later, in 1917. Bastiat was not envisioning a Leninist Russia.
If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth programme, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs.
Communism or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.
Bastiat talks about this quality inherent in socialism in the The Law: The Socialists Wish to Play God.
Thanks for sharing this. His distinction between collectivism and individualism is succinct and clarifying. Either the purpose of the state is to serve the people, or the purpose of the people is to serve the state.G. Edward Griffin on "legal plunder", capitalism ,socialism and so on.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?