Skip to comments.
The Law
LexRex.com ^
| June, 1850
| Claude Frederic Bastiat
Posted on 07/02/2003 7:42:01 PM PDT by dcwusmc
The Law
The law 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.
Life Is a Gift from God
We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life -- physical, intellectual, and moral life.
But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.
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.
What Is Law?
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.
Continue | Back
to Table of Contents
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: bastiat; thelaw
...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. Would anyone care to tell me that the Constitution for the United States (Click to read it) was NOT intended as the embodiment of the principles laid out by Mr. Bastiat? True, he was born in 1801, but the principles are timeless, though seldom as well stated as he laid them out.
1
posted on
07/02/2003 7:42:01 PM PDT
by
dcwusmc
To: dcwusmc
TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY.
How the principle of the sovereignty of the people is to be understood--Impossibility of conceiving a mixed government--The sovereign power must exist somewhere--Precautions to be taken to control its action --These precautions have not been taken in the United States --Consequences.
I hold it to be an impious and detestable maxim that, politically speaking, the people have a right to do anything; and yet I have asserted that all authority originates in the will of the majority. Am I, then, in contradiction with myself?
A general law, which bears the name of justice, has been made and sanctioned, not only by a majority of this or that people, but by a majority of mankind. The rights of every people are therefore confined within the limits of what is just. A nation may be considered as a jury which is empowered to represent society at large and to apply justice, which is its law. Ought such a jury, which represents society, to have more power than the society itself whose laws it executes?
When I refuse to obey an unjust law, I do not contest the right of the majority to command, but I simply appeal from the sovereignty of the people to the sovereignty of mankind. Some have not feared to assert that a people can never outstep the boundaries of justice and reason in those affairs which are peculiarly its own; and that consequently full power may be given to the majority by which it is represented. But this is the language of a slave.
A majority taken collectively is only an individual, whose opinions, and frequently whose interests, are opposed to those of another individual, who is styled a minority. If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach? Men do not change their characters by uniting with one another; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with their strength.3 For my own part, I cannot believe it; the power to do everything, which I should refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any number of them.
I do not think that, for the sake of preserving liberty, it is possible to combine several principles in the same government so as really to oppose them to one another. The form of government that is usually termed mixed has always appeared to me a mere chimera. Accurately speaking, there is no such thing as a mixed government in the sense usually given to that word, because in all communities some one principle of action may be discovered which preponderates over the others. England in the last century, which has been especially cited as an example of this sort of government, was essentially an aristocratic state, although it comprised some great elements of democracy; for the laws and customs of the country were such that the aristocracy could not but preponderate in the long run and direct public affairs according to its own will. The error arose from seeing the interests of the nobles perpetually contending with those of the people, without considering the issue of the contest, which was really the important point. When a community actually has a mixed government--that is to say, when it is equally divided between adverse principles--it must either experience a revolution or fall into anarchy.
I am therefore of the opinion that social power superior to all others must always be placed somewhere; but I think that liberty is endangered when this power finds no obstacle which can retard its course and give it time to moderate its own vehemence.
Unlimited power is in itself a bad and dangerous thing. Human beings are not competent to exercise it with discretion. God alone can be omnipotent, because his wisdom and his justice are always equal to his power. There is no power on earth so worthy of honor in itself or clothed with rights so sacred that I would admit its uncontrolled and all-predominant authority. When I see that the right and the means of absolute command are conferred on any power whatever, be it called a people or a king, an aristocracy or a democracy, a monarchy or a republic, I say there is the germ of tyranny, and I seek to live elsewhere, under other laws.
In my opinion, the main evil of the present democratic institutions of the United States does not arise, as is often asserted in Europe, from their weakness, but from their irresistible strength. I am not so much alarmed at the excessive liberty which reigns in that country as at the inadequate securities which one finds there against tyranny. an individual or a party is wronged in the United States, to whom can he apply for redress? If to public opinion, public opinion constitutes the majority; if to the legislature, it represents the majority and implicitly obeys it; if to the executive power, it is appointed by the majority and serves as a passive tool in its hands. The public force consists of the majority under arms; the jury is the majority invested with the right of hearing judicial cases; and in certain states even the judges are elected by the majority. However iniquitous or absurd the measure of which you complain, you must submit to it as well as you can.4
If, on the other hand, a legislative power could be so constituted as to represent the majority without necessarily being the slave of its passions, an executive so as to retain a proper share of authority, and a judiciary so as to remain independent of the other two powers, a government would be formed which would still be democratic while incurring scarcely any risk of tyranny.
I do not say that there is a frequent use of tyranny in America at the present day; but I maintain that there is no sure barrier against it, and that the causes which mitigate the government there are to be found in the circumstances and the manners of the country more than in its laws.
Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 16
2
posted on
07/02/2003 7:55:59 PM PDT
by
KDD
To: dcwusmc
"Formerly we suffered from crimes; now we suffer from laws." -- Publius Cornelius Tacitus
3
posted on
07/02/2003 7:59:26 PM PDT
by
LibKill
(MOAB, the greatest advance in Foreign Relations since the cat-o'-nine-tails!)
To: dcwusmc
"I YAM da law!" Sylvester Stallone, Judge Dredd
4
posted on
07/02/2003 8:02:31 PM PDT
by
strela
("Each of us can find a maggot in our past which will happily devour our futures." Horatio Hornblower)
To: dcwusmc
The words Spellcheck and Edit come to mind.
5
posted on
07/02/2003 8:07:07 PM PDT
by
yooper
To: yooper
Then by all means USE them... if you refer to portions of my post, please be specific... and bear in mind that this is a translation of a booklet written over 150 years ago when language usage was somewhat different than what you may be used to on the streets.
6
posted on
07/02/2003 8:18:57 PM PDT
by
dcwusmc
("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
To: KDD
Very good. Thanks. His was a VERY accurate view of things, as was Bastiat's...
7
posted on
07/02/2003 8:26:23 PM PDT
by
dcwusmc
("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
To: dcwusmc
To understand the state of a society, one must discover the extent to which a given philosophy has been institutionalized and has penetrated the spirits of its citizens. On this basis, one can then explain a society's history--and forecast its future. This is what makes intelligible the fact of Hitler's rise, and the inevitability of America's decline.
If you have been taught--and accept--that oppression is proper, then you will participate in a form of gradual social suicide. You will, as a matter of course, help to spread within your society the attitudes that must be nourished in order to accept oppression. (They are, after all, your own attitudes.) As a result, a greater and greater percentage of the population will come to embrace social institutions that eventuate in the self- destruction of society. (Thus the continual victories of collectivist politics.)
For example: Starting with the premise that sacrifice is a fundamental requirement of human existence, it is inevitable that laws will be passed mandating sacrifices. The unwillingness of an individual to accept the sacrifices that "the law" demands will be perceived as a violation of civilized decency. Thus even if a man starts out as benevolent, a consistent application of the collectivist principle of sacrifice will drive him, against all his better feelings, to accept the necessity of violating individual rights. Here you see the indirect--and largely unrecognized-- influence of philosophy on human existence.
David King
A man living under a totalitarian government, who has no real knowledge of what freedom is, will suffer a condition of enslavement, but if he does not misperceive his situation, then his only burden is that of being a slave.
8
posted on
07/02/2003 8:45:16 PM PDT
by
KDD
To: dcwusmc
read later
To: LiteKeeper
Bump
10
posted on
07/06/2003 9:09:33 PM PDT
by
dcwusmc
("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
To: dcwusmc; Dane; Roscoe; robertpaulsen; Neil E. Wright
PINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
11
posted on
07/06/2003 9:11:34 PM PDT
by
dcwusmc
("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
To: dcwusmc
This old post bears reading again in light of the up comeing elections. The leopard hasn't changed its spots.
12
posted on
10/04/2003 6:52:22 PM PDT
by
fella
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson