THE LAW

BY David S. Watson

Based on: “The Law”; Written by Friedrich Bastiat; Circa 1849

WHAT’S GOING ON?

The Government as well as all the political powers of this country and in fact many others have been perverted!

The law has been perverted, It has not only been turned from its proper purpose but has been made to follow an entirely contrary purpose!

The law has become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself has been made guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!

If as I believe, this is in fact true, we are in a very serious state of affairs, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of all my fellow-citizens to it.

We hold our lives as a gift from GOD. This gift of life includes individuality, liberty and property for those who are able to attain it through hard work and force of will. ‘The Law’ was created along with lawfulness for the same reason. To guide and help our unsuppressable instincts that are instilled within each of us from the moment of conception until the time we pass from this world. Our instincts are meant to impel humanity to satisfy their desires with the least possible pain.

Property and Plunder.

Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labour; the ceaseless application of his faculties along with the Earth’s natural resources. These processes are the origin of property. But it is also a rue, that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labour of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

Since humanity is naturally inclined to avoid pain and since labour is a form of pain in of itself. We as the dominant life on the planet by peaceful or other means make use of all that is around us, some for evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.

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.

First, it erases from everyone's conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.

No society can exist unless the laws are respected and we as its citizens abide them, at least to a certain degree. The safest and easiest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable.

When law and morality contradict each other, a 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 is difficult for a just 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 people have erroneously held that things are "just" because the 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.

Mandates, Restrictions, Monopolies and even Government Coercion find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.

Non-Conformists.

If you express or suggest doubts as to the morality of individuals or institutions, it is boldly said that "You are a Dangerous Person, a Conspiracy Theorist, a Subversive, a Utopian."

If you lecture upon morality or upon political science, there will be found official organizations petitioning our government in this vein of thought:

"That science, math as well as language no longer be taught exclusively from the point of view of free trade, of liberty, of property, or of justice. As has been the case until recently, but in the future, these disciplines are to be taught from the viewpoint of the facts and laws that regulate industry (facts and laws which are contrary to liberty, to property, and to justice). Those in government endowed teaching positions, no longer rigorously refrain from endangering in the slightest degree the respect due to the laws now in force."

Thus, if there exists a law which sanctions monopolies, 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 is supposed to inspire?

Still further, morality and political economy now must be taught from the point of view of these new laws; simply based on 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 those in politics, their positions, passions, and to conflict.

This assertion can be proved in many ways. But, by way of illustration, I shall limit myself to a subject that has lately occupied the minds of most everyone: Mandates.

Who Shall Judge what is required for all?

The school of thought surrounding this topic is that it is unlikely that we as citizens would have issues with being required to do something. With a single or multiple levels of government relegating this position from a governance point of view. Whereas many if not most merely see this as a form of control.

Without The Law; is it likely that the right and ability for citizens to vote would endanger governments, and they would try ever harder to control populations with a variety of political machinations. With the obvious end result being a curtailment of rights, freedoms and liberties, as well as arranging the outcomes of elections which we are now seeing the world over.

We may even experience a complete loss of all rights should the path we currently tread is not corrected. Governments would simply say it is for the supreme good and public peace.

It is extremely unlikely that all people or classes of people would accept this peaceably, which again seems to be what we are seeing and experiencing in many locations around the world, today.

People who do know or have known and remember their rights, freedoms and liberties. Would and are asserting and jealously defending those rights. The excluded classes would begin to refuse to peaceably accept what is taking place.

If ‘The Law’ were confined to its proper functions, everyone's interest in ‘The Law’ would be the same for all. Thus it seems clear that, under these circumstances, those who voted could not inconvenience those who did not vote?

The Fatal Idea of Legal Plunder.

Imagine if you will, that this fatal principle HAS already been introduced: 'Under the pretense of Global Organization, Regulation, Protection, or Encouragement'.

If ‘The Law’ allows property to be taken from one person and given to another; this allowance by the law allows takes the wealth of all and gives it to a few, whether they be farmers, manufacturers, ship owners, artists, or even comedians.

Under these circumstances, certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so. Any excluded classes will furiously demand to have their rights, to have privileges and subsidies, this violates the right to property instead of protecting it and now endangers public peace and cohesion.

History has shown us the incontrovertible proof that subjugation of people through a perversion of ‘The Law’ whether it be locally, nationally or globally will always end with similar if not the same results.

Any issues which are contrary to the general spirit of the public will, are most often be assumed to be a violation based on greed. In effect the government enacting or trying to enact these laws takes on the character of a plunderer.

Subjugation by law, is a violation of personal liberty. Taxes or Tariffs by law, are also a violation of property. Regardless of whether these laws are prescriptive or protective they are violations based on greed.

It is a most remarkable fact that this double legal crime and may be the only issue which can, and perhaps will, lead to the destruction of entire nations.

It is indeed impossible to imagine, that this is at the very heart of our societies. An even more astounding fact than this is: ‘The Law’ has come to be an instrument of injustice.

This fact brings terrible consequences to any nation which has penal codes that attempt to anticipate, define and punish its citizens prior to a crime being committed.

There are already laws around the world which are conducting this war.

My wish and opinion is that ‘The Law’ should always maintain an attitude against plunder of any kind.

Law When Perverted Defends Plunder.

But it does not always do this. Sometimes The Law defends plunder and also participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger and scruples which their acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes laws place the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and military at the service of the plunderers and treats the victim as a criminal.

In short, there is legal plunder happening today in may places around the world, and there is no doubt of this, no doubt at all.

Legal plunder may be only an isolated stain among the legislative measures of nations. If so, it is best to wipe it out with a minimum of speeches and denunciations. Although if anyone care to look closely will find that isolated cases are not isolated but have the common goal and aim of legal plunder for the benefit of the few.

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. (limited legal plunder)

2. Everybody plunders everybody. (universal plunder)

3. Nobody plunders anybody. (no legal plunder)

We must make our choice among them. 'The Law' can only follow one.

Limited legal plunder: This system prevails when the right or action of voting for socialistic entities is restricted. But this quickly reverts backward into socialism.

Universal legal plunder: We are currently under the threat of this system. The current majority(s) has or have decided to formulate laws on the principle of legal plunder.

No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony and logic. I proclaim this principle. (which is still too inadequate). It is the proper function of ‘The Law’.

In all sincerity, can anything more than the absence of plunder be required of ‘The Law’? Can the law rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? Is that not what ‘The Law’ is supposed to be for? “I challenge anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently turning it against what is right and just.”

It must be admitted that the true solution is contained in these simple words: The Law is Organized Justice.

When justice is organized by law it excludes the idea of using law (force) to organize any human activity whatever, whether it be labour, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or religion.

The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy the essential organization as an expression opposite to that of property [wages, land, money or whatever].

“When a portion of wealth is transferred from a person who owns it to anyone who does not own it, that is an act of plunder.”

These acts are exactly what ‘The Law’ is supposed to suppress, always and everywhere.

When the law itself is used to commit these acts it is plunder being committed. From the point of view of society and welfare, this aggression against rights is even worse.

In the case of legal plunder however, the person who receives the benefits are not responsible for the act of plundering. The responsibility for this legal plunder rests with the legislature who created the law, and on society itself. Therein lies the political danger.

A legislature who enacts this legal plunder may find the word plunder offensive, but that is in fact what it is. I personally feel (and many would agree) the impetus for these acts is a combination of self-righteous aggrandizement and vote pandering (buying votes).

I do not intend to attack intentions of morality. Rather, I am attacking ideas which lead to systems which are unjust. These systems benefit some, and penalizes others; while at the same time they remove liberty and freedom from all.

Three Systems of Plunder.

The sincerity of those who advocate for protectionism, socialism and communism is rarely questioned.

Whereas those who advocate against them are in general terms questioned, ridiculed and called a variety of distasteful names and accused of political fear mongering.

It is to be pointed out, however, that protectionism, socialism and communism are basically the same plant in three different stages of growth.

All that can be said is that legal plunder is more visible in communism because it is complete plunder; and in protectionism the plunder is limited to specific groups and industries. It follows that, of the three systems, socialism is the most vague, the most indecisive.

The legal plunder is in fact partially based on philanthropy, even though a philanthropy which removes liberty and freedom, cannot be describes as anything but false.

The Law Is Force. Since ‘The Law’ organizes justice, socialists ask why ‘The Law’ should not also organize education, labour, ideologies and religion...

Simply put , ‘The Law’ when used for these purposes, destroys justice, as well as liberty and freedom.

Remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of ‘The Law’ cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force.

Force keeps people within specific boundaries, by obliging them to abstain from harming others.

The setting of boundaries beyond not causing harm may violate a person's liberty or property.

Boundaries in this context are meant to be a defensive safeguard; they defend equally the rights of all.

Law Is a Negative Concept.

The harmlessness of the mission performed by ‘The Law’ and lawful defence is self-evident; the usefulness is obvious; and the legitimacy cannot be disputed.

Some say, 'the concept of law is negative', this is a true statement. 'The purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign', which is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that “the true 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.”

When ‘The Law’, substitutes the will of a legislature for a peoples own wills; 'force', people no longer need to discuss, compare, plan ahead; The Law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop. The people; cease to be individuals; they lose their personality, their liberty and their property.

Try to imagine a regulation of labour 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 labour and industry without organizing injustice.

The Political Approach.

When politicians view society from the seclusion of an office, they are struck by the spectacle of inequality. They deplore the deprivations which are the lot of so many, deprivations which appear to be even sadder when contrasted with luxury and wealth.

Perhaps politicians should ask themselves whether this state of affairs has been caused by old conquests and looting and by more recent legal plunder.

Perhaps they should consider this proposition: since all people 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 politicians rarely if ever give this a thought. Their minds turn to organizations, combinations and arrangements. They view only law (force), wealth and science in a positive sense to constitute prosperity? This is mainly due to those who influence (writers and consultants) on public affairs?

Those who influence base their various theories upon one common hypothesis: They divide mankind into two parts.

People in general form the first group. The influencer 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, influencers on public affairs begin by supposing that people have within themselves no means of discernment; no motivation to action. They 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 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 they themselves is part of this universal motivating force, this creative power whose submission is meant to mold these scattered materials into a society.

These socialists look upon people in the same manner that the gardener views his plants. Just as the gardener capriciously shapes the garden. These socialist writers whimsically shape human beings into groups, series, centres, honeycombs, labour-groups and other variations. Just as the gardener needs axes, pruning hooks, saws, shovels, rakes and shears to shape.

So does the socialist need the force that they can only find in the law to shape all human beings (except themselves). For this purpose, they devise tariffs, taxes, monetary relief, education laws, health care laws, judicial laws and so on and so on.

Socialists Wish to Play God.

Socialists look upon people as raw material to be formed into social combinations, for their exclusive use. This is so true that, if by chance, the socialists have any doubts about the success of their machinations, they perform many tests or experiments on mankind to find the group they wish to control.

They are willing to let the balance of mankind pass from the face of the earth, so their plans are carried out.

This idea of testing and experimenting is well known, even today in our modern times this is still being done, at times on very large scales such as the recently debunked pandemic and in a myriad of outrageous laws and mandates.

Socialist leaders throughout history have been known to seriously demand that the constituent assembly’s give them all their inhabitants, to complete experiments upon.

In the same manner, an inventor makes a model before he constructs the full-sized machine; or the chemist wastes some chemicals to try out an idea.

But what a difference there is between the gardener and his plants, between the inventor and his machine, between the chemist and his elements, between the farmer and his seeds!

In all sincerity, socialists think that there is this same difference between them and mankind!

It is no wonder that many writers of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries look upon society as an artificial creation of a legislator's genius. This idea has taken possession of numerous intellectuals and famous writers.

To these writers, the relationship between people and legislators appears to be the same as the relationship between the potter and clay.

Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a principle of action in the heart of humans they have not considered these to be gifts from God, but to be fatal gifts, worthy of stamping out.

They give no thought to those people, with these impulses they believe these gifts should be extinguished; in fact they demand it, so that the sons and daughters which may be born with these gifts to a heightened ability, will not fatally ruin it for themselves.

Socialists truly assume that if the legislators are free to follow their own inclinations they will arrive at atheism instead of religion, ignorance instead of knowledge, poverty instead of production and trade.

"The Fact that Socialists Truly Despise Mankind is Easy to See."

Simply read history or listen to those who have for numerous examples of despots, dictators, maniacs, even wacko's. Of course, I wish you to look to modern times for real life examples, you could also read modern socialist writings whether it be fiction or non-fiction.

According to many of these writers, it is fortunate that Heaven has bestowed upon certain men the exact opposite inclinations of the populations of the world.

Not only for their sake but for the sake of countries, nations even the entire world!

It is true that for many, sloth, loose morals and the easy way is preferred to good character, strong morals and hard work. Mankind is tending toward evil, even from those who yearn for good advancing toward darkness.

Some legislators aspire for enlightenment and purpose; all while man-kind is drawn or being pushed toward vice. Those attracted toward virtue are being killed by crime, governmental assisted medical murder, toxins and chemicals introduced in overly processed food, so-called medications that debilitate or kill, surgical procedures gone wrong as well as the silent species killer of 'Low Birthrate', which has been purposely supported and advised since late in the 19th century by people such as 'Margaret Sanger' and many other so-called philanthropists throughout the 20th, and 21st century.

Since governments have decided that this is the true state of affairs, they demand the use of legal plunder to force their orders. They substitute their own inclinations on the human race.

Open any random book on philosophy, politics, or history, and you will likely see how deeply rooted in these ideas truly are, give your attention to those things the people require and need, agriculture and housing are always good places to pay attention to because they will always be needed. Banish anything that tends toward depopulating the nation.

A nation with accessible coastlines should have merchant ships so they are not dependent on others.

Take advantage of the maxims that are common to all, every nation and people have their own particular circumstances.

These facts alone will create cause for legislation appropriate to the circumstances.

This is the reason why the Hebrews had religion as a principle objective.

A confusion of objectives will slowly enfeeble the law impairs a the nation. By subjecting it to ceaseless agitation until it is destroyed or changed.

Why do so many see that men do best by obeying their instincts not their brains.

Socialists Want Forced Conformity.

Be that as it may, legislators, and controllers of society have a terrible responsibility.

Therefore, be most exacting with them: He who dares to undertake the political creation of a people ought to believe that they can, in a manner of speaking, transform human nature; transform an individual into a part of a greater whole from which the individual will hence forth receive their life and being.

Thus a person who would undertake the political creation of a people should believe in their ability to alter a persons constitution; to strengthen it; to substitute for the physical and independent existence received from nature, an existence which is partial and moral.

In short, a would-be creator of political people must remove a people’s own force and endow them with others that are naturally alien to them.

What would become of a person's dignity, if it were entrusted to a socialist dictator?