THE LAW by Frederick Bastiat

What follows is a few excerpts from this classic treatise which is the often praised [usually by conservatives, populists and libertarians] but seldom practiced defense of liberty. Then follows my own comments:

Begin Quote:

The Proper Function of the Law
And, in all sincerity, can anything more than the absence of plunder be required of the law? Can the law -- which necessarily requires the use of force -- rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right.

This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution -- so long searched for in the area of social relationships -- is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice.

Now this must be said: When justice is organized by law -- that is, by force -- this excludes the idea of using law (force) to organize any human activity whatever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy the essential organization -- justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being used against the liberty of citizens without it also being used against justice, and thus acting against its proper purpose?

The Seductive Lure of Socialism
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. And I repeat again: These two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.

Enforced Fraternity Destroys Liberty
Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: "Your doctrine is only the half of my
program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him: "The second half of your program will destroy the first."

In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. 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.

At this point, I think that I should explain exactly what I mean by the word plunder.*
*Translator's note: The French word used by Mr. Bastiat is spoliation.

Plunder Violates Ownership
I do not, as is often done, use the word in any vague, uncertain, approximate, or metaphorical sense. I use it in its scientific acceptance -- as expressing the idea opposite to that of property [wages, land, money, or whatever]. When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it -- without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud -- to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed.

I say that this act is exactly what the law is supposed to suppress, always and everywhere. When the law itself commits this act that it is supposed to suppress, I say that plunder is still committed, and I add that from the point of view of society and welfare, this aggression against rights is even worse. In this case of legal plunder, however, the person who receives the benefits is not responsible for the act of plundering. The responsibility for this legal plunder rests with the law, the legislator, and society itself.
Therein lies the political danger.

End Quote.

My Comments:

THE PROPER FUNCTION OF THE LAW FOR OUR TIME

I agree with Mr. Bastiat's definition of the proper function of the law. I do however disagree with Mr. Bastiat's view that laws concerning justice [protection of the innocent from plunder] in the realms of any and all human activities must necessarily translate to legalized plunder. My view of ethical socialism is not about the enforcement of a certain way or organization onto these areas of life as Jewish socialism is but rather is merely an extension of the very same principle of organized justice of which Mr. Bastiat writes. Extended beyond the mere protection of individual rights to include group rights. Especially those rights or freedoms a people must have in order to pursue a path or organize their own lives in such a way as to ensure the long term survival and advancement of their extended racial family.

THE SEDUCTIVE LURE OF JEWISH SOCIALISM

On the seductive lure of socialism of which Mr. Bastiat speaks again I must make clear the distinction between Jewish socialism [whether in the form of Marxism, Communism, or International Usury/Monopoly Capitalism] and the true ethical socialism I advocate. The kind of socialism he fears is the kind that is hard coded into law and thus made into a tyranny over men. That isn't at all what I mean by socialism. In a sense I am not even referring to any type of government or economic system but rather of a certain kind of underlying value system which ought to be promoted by every aspect of a healthy people's culture, media and information outlets, enterainment industries, schools, churches and homes. I agree with Bastiat's warnings of the seductive lure of Jewish socialism in all of its deceptive forms.

Today the law protects the rights of corporate monopolies before it protects the rights of individuals and special interest groups or protected classes [such as blacks or Jews] enjoy a monopoly on legal protections which are denied to only one group: Whites. Whites by rights should be legally protected from all forms of genocide no matter how seemingly slow and soft. Any threat to our existence as a race, nation, culture and civilization ought to be protected above all else. If the White race goes so does everything we hold sacred - including the freedoms Bastiat so passionately defended.

ENFORCED INTERRACIAL-FRATERNITY DESTROYS LIBERTY

While I understand Mr. Bastiat's point about enforced vs. voluntary fraternity we must understand the different times and circumstances in which he lived and wrote. He lived through the turbulent years leading up to the french revolution and witnessed it's aftermath. For him, the thought of a multicultural racially integrated society never entered his mind.

His concern was intra-racial [within the White race] social interaction rather than inter-racial. I have no doubt in my mind that he would make an exception to his rule against forcing any kind of fraternity by rule of law in the case of a nation besieged by endless waves of unassimilable immigration compounded by a culture that promotes the forced integration of the races. He would argue just as passionately against forced integration and not have to change a thing in his defense of liberty vs. fraternity while at the same time I know he would make the necessary exception to his rule and argue the need to make genocide through immigration, multiculturalism, integration and miscegenation illegal.

Similar to how the writings of early American forefathers have been taken out of context and re-interpreted according to politically correct thinking [such as the declaration that 'all men are created equal'] I believe Mr. Bastiat had no other society in mind when he warned of the dangers of enforced fraternity than a homogenous mono-racial one in which inter-racial fraternity was not even an option.

It is painfully obvious to modern day White Americans that it is forced racial integration that threatens our liberties and White rights today even while we enjoy all the freedom of voluntary association advocated by Bastiat [unless you are specifically assembling for the promotion of White interests at which point you are then called evil racist haters who do not deserve the same rights as other fraternities].

What we need now more than ever is lawful protection of our race and homelands from intrusion and integration and protection of our right to voluntarily assemble and organize and fraternize under the banner of mutual racial brotherly love - racial brother and sisterhood.

IF LEGALIZED PLUNDER IS BAD CORPORATE MONOPOLY IS WORSE!

As for legal plunder I agree but again there is that matter of historical differences between his time and ours. Bastiat had no knowledge of a world dominated and monopolized by global international corporations operating safely under the legal protection of the very same principles of law and capitalism which Bastiat defended so passionately. He would be absolutely horrified to see the abuses now perpetuated in his name today! Surely he would demand some kind of legal limit to corporate power not mention other monopolies such as the ownership and control of the mass media just as he demanded there be limits to federal or government power. Apparently the only sort of tyranny Bastiat imagined and feared was that of the corruption and abuse of governmental powers. He did not forsee the many other forms of tryanny we now endure today.