2003 - March Add-on

Slavery By Law

Slavery by Law, or
The case of the mad dog chasing its tail.

This essay reviews a small book, "The Law", written in 1850 by Frederick Bastiat (French). It was translated by Dean Russell and reprinted in 1950 to a total of near 400,000 copies by 1987.

Publisher: "The Foundation for Economic Education, inc.," USA.

The reason that I, a writer devoted to the subject of social order, should review this book as part of my work, is because it says so well what needs to be said that I feel it deserves recognition and some modern comment.

Our world community today has been made so complicated by law directed to social engineering that it is beyond intelligence and people, at every level, are becoming less honest, more demanding and more viscous. Unless we quickly return to simple principles of social community most of those living today will suffer a cultural disintegration.

Ideology has sought to re-invent mankind - the troubles created by social engineering become worse as attempts to correct them bring more, and more complicated, laws.

It should be self-evident to any mind not twisted by self-righteous do-gooding, that the law has only one rightful purpose; that purpose is to maintain justice. Is it not now abundantly clear - with all the trouble in our world - with millions of lives destroyed because of ideology - with protest and suffering growing visibly day by day - that law is being unlawfully used?

It should certainly be clear that those who use the law to enforce social engineering - who presume the right to shape humanity to their personal desire - who use all the power of law to experiment with our lives and force-mould or deform humanity to their twisted ideas in the name of some ideology or other - are criminal or sick. This issue is far more serious than environment, genetic engineering or the economy.

I begin with a statement made near the end of the book, The Law, because it sets out clearly the nature of "true human law" under the heading of "Justice Means Equal Rights". Feminists may like to know that in those times, in general use, "man" was used in the sense of 'mankind' and taken to include both male and female.

Quote: P.71 "Justice Means Equal Rights
Law is justice. And it would indeed be strange if law could properly be anything else! Is not justice right? Are not rights equal? By what right does the law force me to conform to the social plans of Mr. Mimeral, Mr. de Melun, Mr. Thiers, or Mr. Louis Blanc? If the law has a moral right to do this, why does it not, then, force these gentlemen to submit to "my plans"? Is it logical to suppose that nature has not given me sufficient imagination to dream up a utopia also? Should the law choose one fantasy among many, and put the organised force of government at its service only?

"Law is justice. And let it not be said - as it continually is said - that under this concept, the law would be atheistic, individualistic, and heartless; that it would make mankind in its own image. This is an absurd conclusion, worthy only of those worshippers of government who believe the law IS mankind.

"Nonsense! Do those worshippers of government believe that free persons will cease to act? Does it follow that if we receive no energy [direction] from the law, we will receive no energy [direction] at all? Does it follow that if the law is restricted to the functions of protecting the free use of our faculties, we will be unable to use our faculties?

"Suppose that the law does not force us to follow certain forms of religion, or systems of association, or methods of education, or regulations of labour, or regulations of trade, or plans for charity; does it then follow that we shall eagerly plunge into atheism, hermitary, ignorance, misery, and greed?" End Quote.

The importance of "The Law" is that it states a position in plain logic. No doubt most (who have a memory for it) can see that when we lived, even if only in partial freedom from the extreme restraints of law we now accept, we did not totally ignore the needs of others - did not submit to the religious faith in atheism now sweeping the world - were not less enterprising and were certainly more honest and socially less violent. It is use of law to re-create mankind that dehumanises culture! Today 'caring' is the claimed attitude of educators but, in its result, natural caring is being replaced by violence.

We may also see that the plunder of our wages, now taken to reward those who see no need to exert themselves (law enforced charity serves them as well or even better than their own efforts) has resulted in the demeaning or degradation of human life rather than its advance. Self-sufficiency is being replaced by a culture of begging.

Surely there must be questions? Do those who have the arrogance and the ego to claim the right to enslave the whole of mankind for some dreamed-up social experiment, really have any such right? Why are they not classed as criminals, egomaniacs or a very least maniacs? What gives them (or their followers) any rational reason to believe that they can create mankind to a better design than that of creation itself - or even have a right to try?

Are they not themselves beings who were created by this same force? How can they be SO superior to their brothers, sisters, aunts and cousins? And what gives their delusions the right to the backing of law without permission of those on whom they work their experiments?

If we were free within the limitations of a law that is only concerned with justice would we not, more enthusiastically, use our abilities for study, experiment and production? Would this not advance the common good more quickly, equitably and justly, than when we are discouraged because we are robbed of the rewards of our efforts - our production plundered for the benefits of the dishonest and those encouraged to a mindless waste of their lives?

Is it justice for the sick that healthy people be given the money needed for hospitals? Should the lazy be encouraged, and supported by law, to live like leeches on the production of others? What are the consequences of law without justice? Who benefits when citizens are educated to live by artificial ideals?

Quote: P.72 "The Path to Dignity and Progress
Law is justice. And it is under the law of justice - under the reign of right; under the influence of liberty, safety, stability, and responsibility - that every person will attain his real worth and the true dignity of his being. It is only under this law of justice that mankind will achieve - slowly, no doubt, but certainly - God's design for the orderly and peaceful progress of humanity.

"It seems to me that this is theoretically right, for whatever the question under discussion - whether religious, philosophical, political, or economic; whether it concerns prosperity, morality, equality, right, justice, progress, responsibility, cooperation, property, labor, trade, capital, wages, taxes, population, finance, or government - at whatever point on the scientific horizon I begin my researches, I invariably reach the same conclusion: The solution to the problem of human relationships is to be found in liberty." [Meaning, of course, liberty within the law of justice - nature's principles only bend so far. Bastiat also experiences a common response from social engineers.] "You are doing the same thing - trying to reform society to your ideas." End Quote.

Those of clear mind will be aware that the above charge is an adolescent objection. Though some may see no difference between positive and negative, these are opposites. The manipulators treat mankind as cattle to be herded and milked while Bastiat is saying, 'Leave people with only the limitations of moral law and they will create a greater and more rewarding culture'.

There is a world of difference between a human culture that is deliberately trained to an artificial purpose or design, and one left to freely attain the highest possibility available to its nature. It is the difference between slavery and freedom.
However Bastiat provides his own defence:

Quote: P.74 "My attitude towards all other persons is well illustrated by this story from a celebrated traveller: He arrives one day in the midst of a tribe of savages, where a child had just been born. A crowd of soothsayers, magicians and quacks - armed with rings, hooks, and cords, - surround it. One said, "This child will never smell the perfume of a peace-pipe unless I stretch his nostrils." Another said: "He will never be able to hear unless I draw his ear-lobes down to his shoulders." A third said: "He will never see the sunshine unless I slant his eyes." ...
"Stop," cried the traveller. .. God has given organs to this frail creature; let them develop and grow strong by exercise, use, experience, and liberty." End Quote.

Why do we (world-wide) allow social quacks a right to promote their guesses about the human potential - to force on us blind assumptions that rob us of our individual potentials and power of independent decision-making - to restrict our vision to theirs? Why do we allow people with such sick levels of arrogance to control our lives and our culture even as we see the sad results of their meddling?

The law is now being used to reshape humanity to a form that robs all (who are not part of the I-am-god 'elite') of the right and ability to learn the truth about life and the laws of nature that apply to true humanity and its best social order. Robbed of this understanding how can we make decisions in our own best interests? In other words the law is being used to enslave humanity to a humanist religion by convincing the majority to worship ideals and beliefs promoting a man-made god.

Remember, the book "The Law" was written about 150 years ago and before the social engineering experiment was performed by followers of Karl Marx, on a national scale, in the USSR - and more clumsily (but no less disastrously) in other places. It was also written before the greater perversion of English common law that now makes so much of this law a farce.

If European law, even then, was visibly perverted, how low has this creeping cancer of socialist people-shaping now brought us? Certainly the most common complaints I hear are firstly, that the law is an ass, and secondly, that the law now gives more attention to protecting the criminals than protecting the victims.

The law has only one legitimate purpose and I now refer you to the book's opening statement. There are two main, vitally important, and interwoven social problems being exposed by Bastiat:

1. Social engineers are driven by ego and religious faith in their own imagination;
2. They use the force of the law to achieve their designs.

Quote: P.5 "The law is 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." End Quote.

Yes, we do have a moral duty! The creation has given us the miracle of life. But not only of life! Also intelligence, love, compassion, self-awareness, and the physical means to use these gifts creatively. All this to a degree far above that of all other life forms. Would you deny we have a moral duty to defend and use these gifts?

Would you deny that we do not know what new miracles we may yet discover if we do use and defend these gifts? Do you deny that it would be the most detestable and cruel desecration of our potential if we should allow the most selfish of us to lead us and to lead our future generations to stagnation and self-destruction?

If, in addition to the above, we also have a marvellous world with raw materials for use in achieving new understanding and social development - could we be forgiven, or forgive ourselves, if we disgrace our potential? No doubt there will be many who will continue to parrot what has been taught, but the evidence is that people can be more logical, if they try. Others will object that the majority cannot be trusted or that we need only follow religious teachings. But I say; who knows how the public will respond if given responsibility - until they are given responsibility? I ask which religion and religious interpretation? Open minds learn and Christianity reminds us that we can know all that may be known of God (and ourselves) by study of the creation! Let's learn a little more from Frederick Bastiat:

Quote: P. 6 "What is Law?
What then is law? It is the collective organisation of the individual right to lawful defence.

"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 the extension of our faculties? [Intellectual-life, liberty and property are interdependent].

"If every person has a 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 organise 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 individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given 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 organised combination of the individual forces?

"If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organisation of the natural right of lawful defence. 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.

P.7 "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 ...

P.9 "The 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 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 [animal] instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.

P.10 "Property and Plunder
Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless [continuing] 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 the law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of 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 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 he holds." End Quote.

That is so! But to whom have we given power?
We, in so called democracies/republics, have been happy to give power out of our own hands and into the hands of those most egocentric, best liars and most devoted to the attainment of power - the very ones most likely to rob us! We then walk around the streets complaining because they act just as we should expect.

Quote: P.11 "Victims of Lawful Plunder
Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organised by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter - by peaceful means or revolution - into 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. [Today we form new political parties or vote for independents according to their promises. As we are deceived about social principles, our choice - our desired use of power - is plunder; i.e. the 'legal' robbery of others of the product of their labour and relief for ourselves.] 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 posses.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests. [When that point is reached we then have the true socialist/communist state. But that State is unnatural and unsustainable. The leaders quickly turn the use of their position to their own ends. So the new establishment soon becomes a more despotic version of capitalism.] 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.

P.12 "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." End Quotes.

Don't forget that "The Law" was written some 150 years ago. Its warnings are now confirmed. We see (and shall see) that, to many people, law can make what is immoral - moral. We have seen the rise and fall of "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" and the general demise of openly admired socialism.

Meanwhile capitalism goes from strength to strength; but did the sudden and peaceful collapse of one of the two most powerful nations seem unreal to you? By any test of philosophy we find that we live in a world that (whatever its claimed form of government) it is really socialist capitalism. It is the ultimate capitalist solution and calls itself democracy. This is a façade! Although you may not want to believe it, we, in the 'west' are lied to and manipulated by a science more sophisticated and effective than used on the citizens of the USSR. See Globalism Brainwash Ch. 3.

What logic reveals as most likely is that, when the leaders of the USSR saw that capitalist plunder of the product of the producers was more efficient, they simply came to an agreement with the capitalist 'west' to join the 'party'? The party system!

Quote: P.28 "Law Is Force
"Since the law organises justice, the socialists ask why the law should not also organise labor, education, and religion.

"Why should not law be used for those purposes? Because it could not organise 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 is used improperly it forces on us improper behaviour but…]
"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." End Quotes.

The early leaders of socialism may have had honest intent even if they did not have the vision and human understanding to see that socialism was inefficient, unworkable and would deny the common democracy it pretends. Or that, being by nature inefficient, it would require force of law against the majority to achieve working efficiency.

They may not even have seen that this use of force would lead to a dominant master class that would rape the productivity of the misled for its own benefit i.e. capitalism.
Can we now see that both 'isms' must inevitably lead to a mind manipulated culture?
When egoists seize power and discover that their ideas are unworkable, they turn naturally to plunder of those led, this then leads to the ultimate enslavement.

People miseducated to work without social understanding soon appear stupid. Those more arrogant than ignorant then find it easy to see 'common' people as animals and to treat them accordingly - do not forget this. Today we see that we increasingly accept that we are only animals and must be loyal to our masters. See article, The Stockholm Syndrome.

We now approach a situation of helplessness. To avoid it humanity must seize its small window of opportunity to form true democratic governments from where we may access the truth of our heritage.

Capitalism has long understood exactly what it is about, in so far as the goal was attainment of total power. When socialists demonstrated the popular enthusiasm for the idea of, "getting something for nothing" capitalism took it up. By combining this with improved scientific understanding of behaviour, capitalism was able, more rapidly, to approach its goal of world government.

So the capitalist dictators socialise law to more effectively rob those productive. Some of this plunder is used to promote and strengthen the chains of deceit; some to bribe the unproductive and maintain 'balance of power'. The remains, of course they use as they want until such time as the ignorance of the masses and the power of the army, enable safe deletion of the inevitable surplus of workers.

Before that happens will unmanageable manipulation and complexity cause the structure of lies to fall - or will mankind awaken sufficiently to install true democracy?

Quote: P.28 "Law Is a Negative Concept
The harmlessness of the mission performed by law and lawful defence is self-evident; the usefulness is obvious; and the legitimacy cannot be disputed.
. . . [In proper use law is neutral and cultural response to this is positive.]
But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes on men a regulation of labor, a method or 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 or human instincts; 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. [When law is used positively as force to control then humanity turns negative.]

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 organise labor and industry without organising injustice." End Quote.

If you were to read the whole of "The Law" then I think you would feel irritated. In fact many readers may already feel irritated. A purely logical law is today so far away - so far from today's understanding - that "The Law" could hardly have been published today. We have been so brainwashed by concepts of social justice that are in principle unjust and lead to increasing problems, that to imagine the logical concept of pure law being applied today may, to many, at first appear anti-social and unacceptable.

But just think: at the very time I am writing this there is being acted out somewhere an argument between labour and employer. Now think, if you will, how deeply entrenched has become the law enforcing regulation of labour and how eagerly this has been accepted because, for a time, it appeared to favour labour unionism.

Do behind scenes forces that rule under the name of "world government" now feel they have successfully imposed such a level of ignorance and such stagnation of intelligence (as a result of their use of law as a force for regulation of education, news and public attitude) that they can now use law to its totality?

Why should they not feel confident? Not only is the general public ignorant and unused to using intelligence as nature intended but, the injustice generated by having a large section of the labour force given the protection of law for so many years can now be (in part) made visible to the disadvantaged. World government will win whatever the outcome. It will create further divisions and increase regulation of production because one section of the community can be played against another - and all are further confused and divided to the benefit of Globalist government.

What we see is a ratchet-like undermining of public unity and understanding. Misuse of law has left the community socially confused and living in stupidity. My present vision of the world community is of a mad dog chasing its tail. In rapidly decreasing circles, it latches on and falls; bites savagely, whines in pain; bites again, whines again; bites-whines, bites ..... ...

The egomaniacs have outgrown their passion for wealth; their addiction now - power! Should the reader still not understand how this creeping irrationality has been inflicted then try this: in a circle arrange;
- public education - social law - mass media - party politics -.

If we start at the 'party-politics' part of the circle (the political system organised and controlled by money) we see they then also have a 'free' public education. Contaminate education to a small degree with false philosophy and we can choose as servants, lawyers or others trained in the new ideas. By introducing law that appeals to the community - robbing some to give to others - the mass media can claim to reflect public opinion while promoting further misuse of law. This is called 'gradualism'! So the spiral of deceit begins, then proceeds like the coils of a boaconstrictor, to squeeze (generation after generation), the free life out of the nation.

What is revealed in this essay is another element of the process of social enslavement. Abuse of law becomes easy as society (controlled by the morally disabled) is blinded by education to false principles. For the many who will surely claim that we cannot change the situation, or that we will have to start from some other position, I offer these thoughts: "If you want change you have to begin change - if you want to go somewhere then you have to start from where you are". This is where we are!