The Law

[stebo0728]

Ok, Ive quoted this book a few times on here, but those were recycled quotes. Now I have read it for myself, and may I say it comes with only the greatest amount of suggestion for you to read it yourself, its not too long, and its freely read here:

The Law - by Frederic Bastiat
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

Theres next to NO way anyone with good conscience can read this, and still come away feeling in any way aligned with socialist or progressive legal philanthropic notions.

The strange thing is, this was written for the French audience just after the 1848 Revolution, but EVERYTHING it says echoes through time to speak DIRECTLY to our nation today.

I will roll along later with some quotes, but please, in any free time you might have, give this a good read. Its WELL worth it.

[AppleBonker]

I'll look into it when I get the chance. But your post makes it sound like people are currently aligned with socialist ideals?

[stebo0728]

I'll look into it when I get the chance. But your post makes it sound like people are currently aligned with socialist ideals?

Some are. Read the book and you'll understand. Many are and dont realize it. Many are with the best of intentions, but we all know which road is paved with good intentions.

[stebo0728]

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

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 an extension of our faculties? 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. 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 own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to 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 organized combination of the individual forces?

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

First quote I felt like listing. Out legal system is out of control, and both major parties are to blame for it. The law, OUR law, had been perverted from its natural state of justice, and the protection of liberty.

[IBCoupe]

I worry that this part, right here, undermines anything he has to say. This is what I went into the piece looking for, and I was not surprised to find it:

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.

I haven't gotten very far, but this seems to be a dead give-away: Bastiat did not undermine leftist thought, he simply started from a different set of assumptions. I applaud you, Stebo, for exploring classical works (because, lord knows, I should find the effort to do the same), but I think this piece, thorough as it is, illustrates one theory. His criticism of "socialists" seems to find its basis in a fundamental assumption that individuals, if left to their own devices, will develop an efficient and fundamentally just world.

Social progress will result, Bastiat assumes, because everything will be judged according to its own merits. I'm not going to disagree with him, but I will suggest that where Bastiat (and you with him, probably) and "socialists" part is not in the estimation of where government should be limited, or what style of government works best. You will certainly differ on those issues, but it's not because you like one better than the other, it's because "socialists" operate from a different fundamental assumption about the world we live in. If left to our own devices, individuals will seek to put down others as much as they will seek to raise up themselves and (this is key) their offspring.

It's the classic disagreement: do the circumstances of your birth dictate, to any extent, your future life? A classic liberal like Bastiat (in the traditional definition of the term) will tell you that they, for the most part, do not. Those who disagree with him will tell you that the effects of your birth, in a world where individuals have "unrestricted use" of their "faculties," the circumstances of your birth will often (but not always) control your life.

It doesn't surprise me at all to find that Bastiat came from a relatively wealthy family and made his way to work in the French Government. I'm not saying that those are negative traits, I'm simply suggesting that someone who was born to a family farm, instead of a family of merchants, would probably have a different understanding of how far individual merits will carry you in an unregulated world.

[IBCoupe]

Cliff's Notes:

Bastiat would argue, "Because individuals should be judged by their merits, and because we live in a fundamentally just world, government should let individuals demonstrate those merits."

Opponents would argue, "Because individuals should be judged by their merits, and because we live in a fundamentally unjust world, government should create an environment where individual merits can be demonstrated."

Bastiat judges "socialists" through the filter of his own assumptions, not through the filter of theirs. He may not be wrong about his assumptions, but it's dishonest to argue the way he does.

[stebo0728]

Well, I have to say, I pretty much agree with your assessment in regards to the fundamental disagreement. I think the framing of the argument may be a bit off base though. Indeed Bastiat does have the assessment of man as you describe, its not the main point. The main point is that the law, the government, should only work from the position of defending liberty. When the law begins to acost one man's liberty for the sake of another man, that is the perversion. Regardless of whether man is inherently just, or inherently unjust makes no real difference to the position that the law must needs only defend liberty. If man is indeed inherently unjust, the law is within moral parameter to deal with said injustice, but it is not within moral parameter to create injustice of its own upon one man for the sake of another. The one term of greatest importance in this work is "legal plunder". Legal plunder must not be allowed to exist, yet it runs rampant in our legal system.

Side Note: I think my next read is going to be "The Road to Serfdom".

[stebo0728]

Furthermore, we wonder why we see the outright warfare on the political front. The smearing, the fighting, the out and out war for power. I'll tell you what the major reason is. Its because we have given into "legal plunder" in our legal system. We have made our government a weapon that can be used by one class against another. Therefore all classes must needs struggle to try and control that weapon, and since the course of action of the day is to use said weapon, both sides, or all classes have found moral ground to do so. If we want to see less political strife, we MUST disarm the legality of plunder we have come to adore.

[stebo0728]

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! 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 possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.

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.

This speaks to my last post, that once legalized plunder becomes common place, everyone fights to get a piece of the political power, to steer the plunder toward their favor.

[stebo0728]

And I will say, this system of legalized plunder from which we have fallen prey does not stem solely from the left. If you read this work, Bastiat seems to use the democrat term as derogatory. Although Republican and Democrat then werent quite what they are today, they were quite similar. But today, both sides share in the plunder. There is though, a quite significant difference between the two. Democrats tend to plunder to supplement lower class individuals. Republicans tend to plunder to supplement business or industry. Neither side is in the right. Both seek to better an audience that might otherwise fail. But the purpose of government should never be to prop up any audience against the wear and tear of life. Again, as the theme is so often repeated, the true purpose of law should be ONLY to protect the life, liberty, and property of all men equally. ALL men EQUALLY. (where the term men is of course meant as a genderless term)

[AppleBonker]

law should be ONLY to protect the life, liberty, and property of all men equally. ALL men EQUALLY

Purely because I'm interested in your response...

So we are offering equal protection. I'm going to try to make this insanely simple (though I do understand it is far more complex). Everyone is alive, so that seems equal. Everyone is free to do what they want (as long as it doesn't interfere with the other two ideas). This is also equal. But not everyone has the same amount of property. So how would you suggest protecting property equally? Say you have 2,000 times as much "stuff" as I do. How to we protect this equally?

[stebo0728]

law should be ONLY to protect the life, liberty, and property of all men equally. ALL men EQUALLY

Purely because I'm interested in your response...

So we are offering equal protection. I'm going to try to make this insanely simple (though I do understand it is far more complex). Everyone is alive, so that seems equal. Everyone is free to do what they want (as long as it doesn't interfere with the other two ideas). This is also equal. But not everyone has the same amount of property. So how would you suggest protecting property equally? Say you have 2,000 times as much "stuff" as I do. How to we protect this equally?

Interesting question....Im not quite sure I quite get what your asking but I am going to attempt to respond. By the term "equal protection" I do not mean actual physical protection. I simply mean a structure of laws that prohibit any injustice to that property. This protection does not require quantity, merely existence. In other words, probably the simplest way to express this notions, is by saying that everyone has equal rights, and those rights exist only to the point that they intersect my rights. That is where law becomes necessary, to deal with that intersection of rights. So that necessarily requires a somewhat specific definition of rights, as in what constitutes a right, and what doesnt. A right is an expression of freedom, and can only apply to areas where equality exists in nature. Examples: we are all alive, and as such we have a right to keep that life, and law rightly protects that right, by dealing with anyone who interferes with your right to live. BUT you do not have a right to ABSOLUTE possession of anything required for you to sustain that life. You have a right to the availability of such, but not to the acquisition of such. The acquisition is up to you to handle, your right is only in the access. But you dont have the right to cause injustice upon another individual in the acquisition of these things. Quite simply, you have the right to pursue education, to pursue healthcare, to pursue a home, to pursue a vehicle, or other ammenities of life. YOU ABSOLUTELY DO NOT have ANY right to HAVE these things just because you are a person. We've dealt with slavery, we've dealth with sufferage, we've dealt with various other discriminations. All of those discriminations are understandable roadblocks to some segment of peoples' inalienable rights, and that we were able to snuff those roadblocks out is great, but to further the notion that "everyone should have an equal amount of stuff" just by divine right, presents an unavoidable injustice to others.

[IBCoupe]

Stebo,

With respect, it looks like you misunderstood my comments: of course his particular worldview was not central to his arguments, but his arguments only make sense if you already agree with his worldview. If you accept that the alternative worldview is an equally valid (or at least, equally plausible) interpretation of how man interacts with man, then the supposition that government should only be out to defend liberty is not so incongruous with the idea of legalized plunder. If you see liberty as meaning two fundamentally different things because you see the world as two fundamentally different places, then as much as he vilifies the opposition, it appears to stems from an apparent misunderstanding of the way that opposition sees the world.

Again, I'm not saying he's wrong - if his worldview is correct, then his arguments follow logically, and his opposition to "socialist" ideas also follow. But if you accept that his worldview is wrong, or at least could be wrong, then you have to acknowledge that, in all reality, he's only preaching to the choir.

He's the Glenn Beck of Napoleonic France - giving a lot of people who already agree with him even more reasons to agree with him.

[AppleBonker]

By the term "equal protection" I do not mean actual physical protection

But if people have differing amounts of possessions, wouldn't it not be equal protection? Assuming you're looking at it purely from a cost perspective. If you have far more possessions, you are more likely to get robbed (and preventing that robbery requires more resources). Also, it would be reasonable to assume you'd be a more likely victim of other violent crime that accompanies said robbery. How does this cost get balanced "equally"?

[stebo0728]

But if people have differing amounts of possessions, wouldn't it not be equal protection? Assuming you're looking at it purely from a cost perspective. If you have far more possessions, you are more likely to get robbed (and preventing that robbery requires more resources). Also, it would be reasonable to assume you'd be a more likely victim of other violent crime that accompanies said robbery. How does this cost get balanced "equally"?

Ahh I see where you are going. The law only needs to set the framework that punishes anyone who attempts to, or succeeds in robbing you. The law should also defend your liberty to defend yourself from said robbery. The amount of your "stuff" does not really matter at this point. Its when you start to develop a centralized form of law ENFORCEMENT that you start getting into your argument. The law, and law enforcement are 2 separate entities, the law is universal and MUST exist at any given point in a society. Law enforcement is the codified summation of everyone's desire to have the law enforced, thus a centralized enforcement system is developed. Fair taxation can handle law enforcement needs just fine without resorting to plunder.

[AppleBonker]

Sorry. I obviously don't explain my points as eloquently as IB. I guess the heart of the issue is that people are NOT equal. So how to we determine what is equal in terms of protecting their rights? "Separate but equal" was valid during the civil rights struggle. The problem became that things truly weren't equal.

So my path of questioning was an attempt (clearly a poor one) at simplifying a complex situation to prove a point. I would be interested to see what you think would be "fair taxation" in the above scenario. Speaking only of possessions (and their protection), how would you set up tax code to compensate for the higher crime rates in the inner cities (with lower average wealth) and lower crime rates (with higher average wealth) in the suburbs? What would you make equal? The level of safety and protection? Or the resources available in both locations?

[stebo0728]

Heres another way to think about my position. One of the most important things about government that you have to remember is that it must needs use force to accomplish its goals. Its the only entity tolerated to use force to accomplish its goals, because said force is the only means it has to do so. Because of this fact, the use of force, we must be diligent to always use extreme prejudice in placing things into the control of the government. An example, and probably one of my more extreme positions. Licensing. I do not agree with placing the responsibility of licensing in the hands of the government. Licensing doctors, licensing drivers, licensing who can fish, any of it. Does that mean we just let anyone and everyone do whatever they like? Certainly not. Of course you dont wanna just go into just anyones basement for healthcare. But the private sector must needs retain control of these matters, as the private sector is NOT tolerated the use of force. When you place feudal matters in the control of the government, you greatly increase the feudal nature of the government itself. Rather than citizens using the law to correct injustice, the citizens begin fighting for the power to use the law to create further injustice.

[stebo0728]

Dont worry, my eloquence is quite missing as well most times.

Is everyone equal? Certainly not, but part of my point is that equality is not the responsibility of the law. I implore you to finish reading the referenced material, as it much more eloquently makes the points I am trying to make. But basically, the law is only responsible to maintain equality of life and liberty. We are all born, and in such have an inherent equality of life, until someone would try to change that through violence, and that is a protection withing the jurisdiction of law. Being alive grants us an equal right to liberty, again withing the jurisdiction of the law to protect should anyone try to abridge our liberty through injustice. The law does NOT have the responsibility to provide any kind of balance. We must strive to better ourselves on our own, without depending on the aid of the law, as the law can only supplement one man at the expense of another man, thereby abridging the former's liberty.

[stebo0728]

And as for your question of "fair taxation", the only fair form of taxation in my opinion, is consumption based taxation. Pure, unaltered consumption based taxation. Income tax, although upheld by the SCOTUS, is a form of direct taxation, and is not an equitable form of taxation. That does not directly address your taxation for equal protection question, except to say that the best form of taxation in regard to any matter, in my opinion, is consumption based taxation. I think probably the best direct answer to your question, is that the law enforcement has a responsibility (by proxy of the citizens) to provide some nominal level of equal protection across the board, and any further required protection would be at the behest of the individual. So someone who has little, functions well protected at the nominal level, while someone who has much, must provide additional protection for his/herself over and above that provided by law enforcement. Of course this additional protection must remain within the confines of the law, in that it must not abridge anyone elses life or liberty unjustly.

[AppleBonker]

Is everyone equal? Certainly not, but part of my point is that equality is not the responsibility of the law

I'm not saying the law should make everything equal. I was pointing out that you are claiming the only responsibility of law is to provide equal protection/rights/whatever. My point is simply that I do not know what constitutes equal protection/rights when the people receiving them are inherently unequal.

I think probably the best direct answer to your question, is that the law enforcement has a responsibility (by proxy of the citizens) to provide some nominal level of equal protection across the board, and any further required protection would be at the behest of the individual

But in a high-crime area, wouldn't that nominal level of protection be at a different cost? Who finances that imbalance?

Edit: the consumption-based taxation has been beat to death, so I'm not going into that here.

[stebo0728]

People are not unequal, their stature may be unequal, but again, thats not the responsibility of the law. The law can only operate to maintain equality where inherent equality already exists.

Your argument for the high crime area is a good reason why taxation support for law enforcement should come from the local level. The local area taxation will be at whatever necessary level to maintain the nominal protection necessary.

And I agree, lets just save the tax debate for another thread

[AppleBonker]

Your argument for the high crime area is a good reason why taxation support for law enforcement should come from the local level. The local area taxation will be at whatever necessary level to maintain the nominal protection necessary.

Fair enough. Now suppose that high crime area has higher local taxes (and they are consumption taxes as you would like). A lot of those areas are currently poor. How do those people get past their financial struggles? If everything were privatized as you wish, it now becomes cost-prohibitive for them to get any schooling whatsoever, as the cost of goods has become so high (due to the elevated local consumption tax) that there is just not enough money left. Or, the consumption taxes only hit luxury items, and drive the cost so high that no one can afford said luxury item. This then cuts off large amounts of funding for the local government and they can't operate because they are too far into the red. I'm just not sure how you would see any of that working.

And, more importantly, how that sounds fair when a child is born into that climate with no control over the wealth of its caretakers. That child is at a distinct disadvantage (regardless of personal drive/intelligence/whatever) when compared to a child born of wealthy individuals, no?

[stebo0728]

Well this may or may not be completely responsive to your argument, but alot can be said about the areas you are concerned about, in that our progressive legal plunder has fostered at dependency in a certain class of peoples, a class that mostly resides in the areas you are referring to. How do we fix that? Well I dont know exactly, but I know that mankind is alot more resilient than having to let the government do everything for them, as this class has come to expect. As a society we have allowed this class to fall into dependancy so I suppose we owe them at least some sort of additional aid to rise back above this dependancy, but it should be a definite rising out, with a finite lifeline on the aid. This will undoubtedly lead to some of these class members trying to push the envelope and trying to rely on the aid past its lifespan. We have to, for the better interest of the whole, and future generations, be able to tell these professional moochers, to eventually put up or shut up. I dont have the perfect plan to achieve this, but if it is the goal, it can be accomplished.

[AppleBonker]

I see your point and all, but there is no way to legitimately conclude this debate. I wish I could take you and put you into one of those low-income situations right now (or, more accurately, at birth). And then let you go through and "rise above" to prove how easy it should be (I mean, right now they are being gifted everything from the government, right?). Obviously, this isn't possible. Maybe it would be simple. I don't know. I attempt to refrain from passing judgment until I have personal experience.

[IBCoupe]

You two illustrate exactly what I'm talking about.

Adam, it looks like you would disagree with Bastiat's and Stebo's fundamental assumption about how societies greater than twenty people intra-relate. You asked,

Now suppose that high crime area has higher local taxes (and they are consumption taxes as you would like). A lot of those areas are currently poor. How do those people get past their financial struggles? If everything were privatized as you wish, it now becomes cost-prohibitive for them to get any schooling whatsoever, as the cost of goods has become so high (due to the elevated local consumption tax) that there is just not enough money left. Or, the consumption taxes only hit luxury items, and drive the cost so high that no one can afford said luxury item. This then cuts off large amounts of funding for the local government and they can't operate because they are too far into the red.

Which is a perfectly valid point, and it speaks to the heart of the assumptions behind Bastiat's reasoning. But Stebo responded with a non-response (much to Stebo's credit: if we were all honest enough to admit that we were doing so, like Stebo did here, our conversations would all be a lot more constructive), and that's because the hypothetical you raise is incongruous with the aforementioned assumptions.

Stebo's response is about the best you could expect - the implication that, were the world to start over from scratch and restructure itself to be arranged more to the likings of classic liberal thinking, we wouldn't see the sharp geographical and sociological divergences of rich and poor, like we see in today's world. My intuition is that we would see exactly the same thing develop over time: the utopia that Stebo describes where everyone has equal opportunity from the get-go would probably exist, but for the first generation only, and then it would devolve.

But that's because I see a world without a certain minimum level of social intervention as one that is inherently unjust, where the circumstances of one's birth determine, to a great extent, the circumstances of one's life. It seems that you would agree with me, Adam, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I should add that recognizing that the world is so, and agreeing that we should do something about it, are two completely different steps. Believing that the world is inherently unjust doesn't mean that you care enough to fix it. In much the same way, believing that the world is inherently just doesn't necessarily mean that you can't be in favor of using government to help people out.

[AppleBonker]

IB, I am definitely in agreement with you. I just lack the ability to state my opinion so well.

were the world to start over from scratch and restructure itself to be arranged more to the likings of classic liberal thinking, we wouldn't see the sharp geographical and sociological divergences of rich and poor

Also, this may be the case. Unfortunately, we don't live in a world where everyone has started on equal footing. We never have. Classes have existed as long as mankind has been around. The difference is that now we are a bit more compassionate in our response...

[stebo0728]

I wish I could take you and put you into one of those low-income situations right now (or, more accurately, at birth). And then let you go through and "rise above" to prove how easy it should be

You are making a dangerous assumption here. You know nothing of me other than what I've revealed through posts. You have no way of knowing that I didnt overcome some of these difficulties you describe, in my own life.

[AppleBonker]

Maybe so. The fact is, I haven't gone through it. And part of why I feel I've been successful in my life (so far) is that I was fortunate to grow up in an excellent area. I had all of the best everything available to me. I know people who didn't who were equally competent that struggled. Some made it through; others didn't. It's easy to say what should/shouldn't be easy from the outside. Until you've gone through it though, it doesn't really hold water.

On that note, I've been watching a couple of specials lately on people climbing Everest. In watching them, I'm quite confident I could do it. But I haven't yet, so it's impossible for me to claim it would be easy (or even possible).

[stebo0728]

IB - well stated. Lets further the argument then to the necessary next level. We have a conflicting world view, which is fine, but for each world view, we need to work out each's presumptions on rights. So let me try to break it down.

Left - everyone is entitled to an equal opportunity in life. This right to opportunity shall be extended to a right to education, to adequate dwelling arrangements, and to adequate nutritional requirements. These provisions must needs be supplied, regardless of the social implications of the provision. In other words, these rights to equal opportunity provisions supercede and individuals rights to the protection of their life, liberty, and property.

Right - everyone is entitled to an equal opportunity in life. This right to opportunity only extends in so far as ensuring that no man shall be denied an opportunity that is henceforth afforded to another man. The chief rights to protection of life, liberty, and property are to be respected above any other.

Im sure you will find fault in this, and its admittedly a bit simplified, but the most important aspect of contention is how do you treat the protection of liberty, and private property? To truely hold a socialistic stronghold, you must be able to admit that you do not value liberty and private property.

[stebo0728]

Maybe so. The fact is, I haven't gone through it. And part of why I feel I've been successful in my life (so far) is that I was fortunate to grow up in an excellent area. I had all of the best everything available to me. I know people who didn't who were equally competent that struggled. Some made it through; others didn't. It's easy to say what should/shouldn't be easy from the outside. Until you've gone through it though, it doesn't really hold water.

On that note, I've been watching a couple of specials lately on people climbing Everest. In watching them, I'm quite confident I could do it. But I haven't yet, so it's impossible for me to claim it would be easy (or even possible).

Great point, but we do have many example of people who HAVE made it to the peak of Everest. Have many failed? Yes, but with good planning, and a good portion of human persistence, it is possible. So is the climb from poverty.