Frederick R. Smith Speaks: The Law and Socialism

Frederick R Smith has moved to Frederick R. Smith Speaks (substack.com)

Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) was a French economist, political leader [1], and author. He did most of his writing before and following the February 1848 Revolution. It was during this time that France was evolving into full-scale socialism. As a Deputy to the Legislative Assembly, Bastiat was studying and explaining collectivist ideas. He explained how socialism would degenerate into what we now know as Communism. His compatriots chose to ignore his logic. Like today’s brainwashed people and Woke folk – socialism sounds like a soothing sonata.

Bastiat’s1850 treatise “The Law” is a seminal work that spells out the true principles that are necessary for a free society. Like our Founding Fathers, he shows us the greatest threat to true liberty is too much government. Unfortunately, most people from all “wings” do not grasp the concepts found in The Law. For example, in the days before the start of the Iraq War in March 2003, former Ohio Democrat Representative Dennis Kucinich teamed up with the now-defunct Global Renaissance Alliance (GRA). The goal, to establish a Cabinet-level “Department of Peace.” Rest assured the GRA would have introduced more socialist programs in the United States. Among the goals for the proposed GRA would be the development of “... new programs that relate to the societal challenges of school violence, guns, racial or ethnic violence, violence against gays and lesbians, and police-community relations disputes.”

Kucinich’s argument is typical — let us react to the symptom and not the root cause of the problem. Like gun safety (translation — gun control/elimination), more laws will take “care of the problem.” Guns alone kill people while automobile deaths are an “accident.” In other words, automobile accidents are acceptable, but gun accidents (rare) are unacceptable. These controls do not and never will address the root issues. This is the opposite of true classical liberalism. There, religion and civic associations form a just society. No matter how much the liberals and neo-conservatives say otherwise, the big government never was and never will be the answer.

If we do indeed get a Peace Department, where will the money come from? You got it, from the taxpayers by direct taxation and an indirect tax called inflation. [2] The good congressman from Ohio desired the elimination of the Department of mis-Education to replace it with the Peace Department. The elimination of the Department of mis-Education has merit!

While the reality is an illusion today, those who can see through the haze know in fact that we have vestiges of a free-market country. We can no longer even pretend that we have a limited government as required under the Constitution. The veneer is wearing thin. The average person is lucky to keep 50% of his or her earnings. Open and hidden taxes feed the appetite of federal, state, and local governments. Yes, the government is a necessity, but the best government is a limited affair. The defund the police trolls might have a free market idea! Of course, this is in jest.

Given the above modern considerations, it is necessary to take a quick journey into a few salient points from The Law. Bastiat invokes the most important truth at the very beginning:

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

There have been more than 50,000 laws placed on the books during the last half of the 20th century alone. A moral nation would need minimal laws and police itself.

The forced “contribution” called Social Security is an example of plunder. If we kept our money and spent it in a wise manner, we would have plenty to live through tough times (e.g., Covid-1984) and enjoy retirement. If people do not lead moral and frugal lives, they will not be able to save for the future. Socialists never promoted solid morals, values, and principles, and they never will. They look at people as raw material formed into a certain mold. But, we have the right to defend our property from plunder and to protect ourselves:

Each of us has a natural right -- from God -- to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. . . 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.

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?

While socialists have promoted the concept of a “Utopia,” such a notion is a bankrupt idea, even with the moral citizenry. Nevertheless, what would be the best society?

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.

As we know, one of the most important building blocks of a society is the concept of property or wealth obtained through challenging work. This is what makes a sound economic system while reducing poverty. Through a desire to succeed, the individuals build a society, which in turn supports a monetary system that has true wealth, a sound backing. Such a free-market economy was the natural result of liberty, carried out in the economic aspect of society. This concept works to enhance individual freedom and not to restrict or reduce the individual right to make economic choices. Individuals were to succeed or fail based on those choices. So, property is the target of the plunderers:

Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. . . . 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. . . 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. . . But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. . .This force must be entrusted to those who make the laws. . . . Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice.

As society sheds its morals, values, and principles, a resulting cancer of complacency spreads throughout. With people taking less and less responsibility for their actions and fewer people working hard, the government steps in to take care of the masses. This inevitably causes the redistribution of wealth and a reduced desire to work. A poignant example, as a teen, this author had industrious ambitions during snowstorms. Indeed, snow was money. Joyful work to clear the driveways of my neighbors landed a handsome reward. As an adult, I can think of few occasions in 45 years that a teenager came to my house to offer their services to shovel snow. But we know this “protestant work ethic” today is an anti-Woke poke.

As the government becomes larger and larger, there is an increased opportunity for people to take advantage of the system. Furthermore, there is increased opportunity for people to take advantage from within the government as greed and corruption takes the form of legal 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!

One can argue that socialism is good because it takes care of the people. A good society should take care of those who cannot take part and pick the fruits of their demanding work. However, as society debases itself in moral depravity (e.g., values clarification and relativism) it takes from those who continue to work. It supplies incentives for many to no longer produce. It becomes necessary to plunder from those who continue to labor. What are these programs called? Bastiat says it best:

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.

The institution of legal plunder is like malignant cancer, once it starts it never stops. The slightest attempt to stop any socialist program, no matter how wasteful or destructive brings on the howls of the few who profit. The majority who do not even have any perceived stake in a program simply remain silent. As the old saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the oil. Legal plunder (socialism) is like a monopoly, but it has a certain advantage:

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.

Socialism has a seductive lure with its warping in a humanitarian guise. We hear many mantras such as “it’s all about the children,” “compassionate conservatism,” and “sustainable development.” Sounds nice, but Bastiat writes:

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.

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.

The person who honestly believes that socialism is goodwill reject any argument made by this author or Bastiat. This is unfortunate because the precept of a truly moral society with a desire and a drive to succeed will simply produce on its own momentum. There will be less poverty and those who succeed will have more to give to the poor. The more socialism, the less the people must give which in turn reduces the resources available to the truly needy. Specifically, the otherwise unnecessary bureaucracy that is in place to redistribute the wealth absorbs resources. Once again, Bastiat says it best:

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,” written over 150 years ago, has eternal truth as the precepts are the same. Despite what our postmodern secular Darwinist friends may say, today we have the same needs, desires, and temptations that existed thousands of years ago. Like many other important writings, academia long forgot and banished Bastiat’s treatise. For sure it would be anti-Woke and incite the clarion call of racism. Nevertheless, one can in one sitting read The Law. You will conclude that this literature is even more applicable to today’s world than to that in which it was originally written. All the above aside, if one is a hard-core Darwinist Bastait’s writing means nothing, like our “living breathing Constitution.”

For balance in writing, the other big brother deserves a mention. Like the leviathan government, big business has its problems too. Crony capitalism can crush the lifeblood of society — small business. Powerful people seek favors from the government. Thus, they make more money creating extreme inequality. The politicians and government officials use state power for “legal” privileges in return for financial and political support. The huge rewards reaped upon by the super-rich during the Covid-1984 events are legend. Think about how many super-rich proclaim to be “liberal.” Enough said.

In closing, it is prudent to mention that Bastiat writes negatively about Montesquieu: [3]

Those who are subject to vulgar infatuation may exclaim: “Montesquieu has said this! So it's magnificent! It's sublime!” As for me, I have the courage of my own opinion. I say: What! You have the nerve to call that fine? It is frightful! It is abominable! These random selections from the writings of Montesquieu show that he considers persons, liberties, property -- mankind itself -- to be nothing but materials for legislators to exercise their wisdom upon.

Notes:

The computer application used to write this blog suggests a more inclusive term. It is Woke!
For more information about the hidden tax called inflation check out Creature From Jekyll Island.
Charles Louis Joseph de Secondat, the Baron of Montesquieu of France (1689 – 1755) was often cited by the Founding Fathers from his best-known work, “The Sprit of Laws.” He taught in French universities during the time of enlightenment and because of this many writers say he was a Deist. However, Montesquieu was born a Catholic and died a Catholic. In his works, Montesquieu showed that he believed that all law has its source in God. In The Spirit of Laws, he declared that “. . . a modern government is most agreeable to the Christian Religion, and a despotic Government to the Mahommedan.” James Madison often referenced Montesquieu in his many contributions to the Federalist Papers.

Author and Publisher, Frederick R. Smith

Editor, Sean Tinney

Recommended Websites (bold is top shelf)

Recommend (serious) Humor

The Peoples Cube

Recommended Videos (all top shelf)

Frederick R. Smith Speaks

Wednesday, December 16, 2020

The Law and Socialism

No comments:

Post a Comment