THE LAW excerpts

Title, introductory notes and excerpts selected by James Craig Green

Excerpts from THE LAW by Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850):

1998 version by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

PDF file available as a free download from FEE (www.fee.org)
http://fee.org/library/detail/the-law-3 

Forward by Walter Williams
Introduction by Richard Ebeling

Introductory Bastiat quotes selected by James Craig Green (craig@waterwind.com):

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…

 

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.

 

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 – whatever its political form might be…

 

It can be further stated that, thanks to the non-intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor and population that are caused by legislative decisions.

 

The sources of our existence are made uncertain and precarious by these state-created displacements. And, furthermore, these acts burden the government with increased responsibilities…

 

But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense…

 

Property and Plunder

Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless 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 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 a 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.

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, participating 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.

2002 DROUGHT RESPONSE REQUIRED REASON, NOT HYSTERIA

J. Craig Green, P.E.

Colorado Water Engineer

Introduction

You may not realize it, but 2012 was almost as dry as the record drought year Colorado experienced a decade ago. One reason you haven't heard about it is that water users (cities, farmers, water districts, industries, etc.) have spent large amounts of money on conservation, improved efficiency, water storage and other traditional means of drought planning since then. This routine, self-interested water planning - which takes place every year - largely goes unreported unless there is a compelling reason making it newsworthy. Except for some articles, especially in agricultural cities like Greeley, Pueblo and Grand Junction, 2012 did not create the hysteria of 2002.

In 2003, I drafted the following article in response to the 2002 drought - Colorado's driest year in recorded history (based on a century of streamflow records). More specifically, the article was written in response to an unusually large number of bills proposing to change Colorado Water Law submitted to the Colorado General Assembly (Colorado's legislature) after the drought. Too many of these proposals were poorly thought out, driven by the emotion of a record dry year.

The article was never published, but I offer it here to document the reasons why proposed Referendum A in 2003 was such a bad idea, as I expect this kind of proposal will return to Colorado politics following future drought years. If many large reservoirs on the South Platte River downstream of Denver don't fill this winter and spring, we could be in for a second extremely dry year in a row, making the kind of news stories we saw in 2002.

In 2003, I was particularly struck by the flood of proposed water bills in the 2002-03 legislative session, some of which made no sense at all, as I discussed then:

2003 DROUGHT PROPOSALS

It seems like a political opportunity to address some hot topic commanding the attention of the public-at-large is sometimes so compelling as to encourage abandoning all reason.

DROUGHT RESPONSE: REASON, NOT HYSTERIA

The record drought of 2002 and its aftermath seemed to take a toll on sanity. Water projects normally dismissed as grandiose or infeasible were suddenly models of planning wisdom. Water bills for the 2003 legislative session were stacked up like cordwood. You could almost hear the sucking sound from your checkbook as special interests hovered around the state capitol to propose multi-BILLION dollar slush funds for… well, their promoters couldn’t tell us for what.

In fact, that was what was wrong with Referendum A, soundly defeated by the voters in November of 2003. It would have created a two-to-four billion dollar increase in public debt, completely controlled by one person – the governor. Of course, the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) was to be involved, but who appoints its members? The Governor. As jaded as I sometimes get about voters’ whims, I was pleased to see this gigantic taxpayer rip-off defeated, despite all the drought hysteria under the promise of building water projects. It had nothing to do with building economical, sensible water projects – it was all about pretending to solve water problems, with a complete lack of accountability.

Since 2002, water providers throughout the state have been busy revising their drought projections based on the new realities that 2002 presented them. Water planners for cities continue to figure out what combination of new supplies, better efficiencies and more conservation makes sense in the future. Many water problems have being solved, but the climate is ripe again for legislating promises for cheaper water, which is more often wasted than conserved. Some who realize this try to make water more expensive by law, rather than allow markets set prices based on supply and demand. Politics can be a magnet for hysteria.

Water in Colorado is complicated, but there are some simple facts. Only a small part of Colorado’s water will ever likely be used by cities and industries – most of it will remain in irrigation, which currently accounts for about 85% for all water use in the state. Many farmers and ranchers were hardest hit by the 2002 drought, since their livelihoods depend on a variable, moving resource that hit a modern low that year.

About half the water used in Colorado cities is for growing bluegrass lawns, golf courses and parks. Buffalo grass takes a lot less water, withstands drought better, and would go a long way to reduce summer water demands. Cities such as Denver and Colorado Springs have led the way with their “xeriscape” programs to plant native, drought-tolerant plants and other landscaping features that use less (or no) water. In addition, cities and water districts around the state have found that putting meters on old accounts has significantly reduced water use. Ask any municipal water department manager in the state about the effect of water meters on consumption.

Less than one percent of the water used inside your house is for drinking and cooking, so claims of “thirsty” citizens as we saw in 2002 are usually exaggerated, though many lawns went brown. Denver and other municipalities have already developed financial incentives for installing low flow devices in homes and have implemented new pricing structures to encourage conservation.

Though many people want to restrict water rights sales from farmers to cities, those cities frequently provide a higher market value for water rights that agriculture could not otherwise afford. It makes sense for some farmers and ranchers to sell (or temporarily lease) water to cities, especially in dry years, but this should be done without injuring other water right owners. Colorado’s existing water court system (developed mostly from common law and free markets in water) and most water plans approved by the State Engineer are designed to prevent this injury. They sometimes fail, but the current system works well, and should not be changed to accommodate the short-sighted emotion that so often drives the political process.

Cities and other water providers (including irrigation ditch companies) have a huge incentive to solve their own problems because they answer directly to water customers. Several municipal water providers reported savings from 10 to 30 percent in 2002’s record dry summer, so the last thing they need is the State of Colorado or the feds telling them how to run their water systems. If they still don’t have enough water, they may have to conserve more – just like you conserve money when your checkbook balance is low. As cities’ experience with water meters has shown – artificially cheap (below market) water encourages waste.

The Fish

I don’t know how, but apparently a few humpback chubs and native brown trout have elected some people to represent them. They think more water for fish should be taken away from people with legal rights to that water, because cities do terrible things like irrigate golf courses. They forget cities often help fish by transferring upstream irrigation water rights to downstream cities (increasing streamflows in between), although cities, ranchers and farmers compete with fish elsewhere to reduce streamflows. Rather than buy senior water rights to protect fish (a fair solution), their representatives often ask the legislature and federal agencies to suddenly make old, senior water rights subordinate to their tasty constituents. Since Colorado water rights are property rights, this is like asking the legislature to steal your neighbor's car, which it may do if a large enough mob of voters or lobbyists wants it.

Cries of “save our water” echo at the Colorado/Utah state line as the Colorado River drops an average of about 4.6 million acre feet a year into downstream states. An acre foot is one acre of water (about the size of a football field), one foot deep - about 326,000 gallons. Colorado is entitled to use a lot more water from the Colorado River than it does now, through old (1922 and 1948) interstate agreements called compacts. Southern California’s growing demand (supplied largely from the Colorado River) could jeopardize this right in the future, because Californians are using this water (for free) and we Coloradans aren’t. Interstate water issues are the domain of Congress, not the State, so you can imagine how rational and sane those issues will be in the future. California has 53 congressional districts to Colorado’s 7, so Coloradans have a lot more control over their own city councils and state legislature than Congress. If Colorado water users don’t need or can’t afford to build the facilities they want for future demands, why not sell part of Colorado’s compact entitlement to California? There, I’ve said it. Slap my face and get the tar and feathers. Selling part of Colorado’s claim to water it will likely never use could provide the funds for developing water it can use, without taxing Colorado citizens. But, anything dealing with the feds can be touch-and-go.

Hopefully sanity will return, but as long as citizens keep running to the state capitol for more soggy handouts, I wonder. The Colorado General Assembly will probably be asked to force taxpayers to fund poorly thought out water projects and to change water laws without understanding the consequences. Will its members display the statesmanship necessary to avoid these destructive tendencies as it has in the past? Only time will tell, but I am now warning you against other, more expensive, and even insane, proposals for changing Colorado Water Law in the future such as this one, which didn't collect enough signatures to get on the ballot in 2012:

DON'T ASK STATE TO CONFISCATE WATER RIGHTS

Please be careful, and don't let uninformed promoters of political dogma destroy a beneficial water law and allocation system that has worked well for 160 years.

 

THE LAW by FREDERIC BASTIAT

by James Craig Green


I cannot overemphasize the importance of Frederic Bastiat's elegant masterpiece THE LAW. Published in 1850 - the year of his death, it was the most powerful critique of Karl Marx's COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, published two years before (1848).

Marx's Manifesto was primarily a critique of European monarchies - which deserved to be criticized - but went much too far down the road of collectivism, which has been, arguably, the most successful political philosophy of the last two centuries. I argue strenuously that this "success" in the minds of too many Americans today came at the cost of freedom and individual rights - the tenets of the founders' American Republic. The intoxicating promises of Marx' utopian vision for the future of Europe were compelling ideas at a time of the radical political reforms which still dominate American universities - and our society - today. Little did he know it would flourish first in Russia - not Western Europe.

Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union - the ultimate expression of Marxism - today's western democracies still cling to the dangerous and destructive ideas of Marx' philosophy. What most Americans don't know is the Soviet Union collapsed economically in the 1920's, to be saved by American industrialists like Armand Hammer.

Today, American government continues to be corrupted by Marxian ideas, including the further expansion of the welfare state (now bankrupting America), a powerful central bank that has destroyed the dollar by a century of inflation, and most importantly - the idea that democratic government is the ultimate, and best, form of government.

It was the rejection of democracy that drove the American founders' ideals. 

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. - Thomas Jefferson

See: THE PROBLEM WITH DEMOCRACY


I sincerely hope serious students of history, philosophy and government will read both Bastiat's THE LAW and Marx' COMMUNIST MANIFESTO - to contrast their fundamental tenets. Marx' manifesto, of course, was the driving force behind failed socialist states around the world like the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba and many South American banana "republics." Today's Communist China would have likely already collapsed were it not for capitalist reforms to limit the damage, including taking back capitalist Hong Kong in 1997, to generate profitable capitalist trade for China. Most western democracies today are mixed economies, as much fascist as socialist. By allowing private property to exist - heavily regulated to provide a productive cash cow - modern democratic states such as the US are still blind to the long term dangers of TRILLIONS of dollars of public debt and the apparent growth of governments which are collapsing everywhere we look - even in US cities like Detroit, Chicago and Washington D.C. The American - and World - economies cannot continue their Soviet-like policies without the most severe long term consequences.

There is NO contradiction between Marxism and Democracy (Marx' COMMUNIST MANIFESTO promoted winning the battle of democracy). BOTH are forms of collectivism - the idea that the individual is subordinate to the will of the mob (politely called the majority). This was the unfortunate legacy of the French Revolution, in which the collective was supreme over the indiviual. This led to the Reign of Terror, the Guillotine and finally, the Emperor Napoleon. This is contrasted to the American Revolution, whose elegant Declaration of Independence, Constitution and the Bill of Rights exalted the rights of individuals above that of lynch mobs, monarchies and yes, democracies - which had always been tried and had always failed.

See: MADISONS CRITIQUE OF DEMOCRACY


THE ESSENCE

The primary focus of Bastiat's THE LAW is recognition of John Locke's individual rights of life, liberty and property - the complete opposite of Marx' failed collectivism. The success of the American Revolution was its recognition of INDIVIDUAL rights as being superior to collective rights. Bastiat recognized these individual rights as necessary precursors to these fraudulent "collective rights" depending on plunder, rather than production. As socialist states around the world have repeatedly discovered... without private property, there is soon no wealth to redistribute.

See:  THE LAW online.

Following are excerpts from Bastiat's masterpiece which I hope will motivate you into reading this short book, and other brilliant economic works by Bastiat (Economic Sophisms, Petition of Candlemakers, etc). The best current version of THE LAW of which I am aware is published by LAISSEZ FAIRE BOOKS. If you like this little 5 dollar book as much as I do, why not purchase copies to hand out to your friends?


EXCERPTS FROM:

The Law

Frédéric Bastiat
(1801-1850)


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.

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.

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 — whatever its political form might be.

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.

It can be further stated that, thanks to the non-intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions.

The sources of our existence are made uncertain and precarious by these state-created displacements. And, furthermore, these acts burden the government with increased responsibilities.
 

The Complete Perversion of the Law

But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?
 

Perverted Law Causes Conflict

As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose — that it may violate property instead of protecting it — then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious. To know this, it is hardly necessary to examine what transpires in the French and English legislatures; merely to understand the issue is to know the answer.

Is there any need to offer proof that this odious perversion of the law is a perpetual source of hatred and discord; that it tends to destroy society itself? If such proof is needed, look at the United States [in 1850]. There is no country in the world where the law is kept more within its proper domain: the protection of every person's liberty and property. As a consequence of this, there appears to be no country in the world where the social order rests on a firmer foundation. But even in the United States, there are two issues — and only two — that have always endangered the public peace: stupid greed and false philanthropy...


 

JUNKIE NATION

By James Craig Green

 

America is addicted to Government - and it's debt - like a junkie to heroin.

Bankers create unlimited new money for loans to "stimulate" the economy. Deceptively-labeled "anti-drug" laws finance an out-of-control gang and illegal drug culture, like Prohibition financed Al Capone. Americans today worship the false gods of prosperity without effort, endless “free” benefits at the expense of everyone else and the upside-down idea that you are responsible for everyone else, but not yourself. More and more, once-productive businesses have become wards of the State, hoping to exploit bailouts while foisting their losses off on the public.

A 2008 article in the Denver Post titled Big Government Benefits the West, clearly showed what is wrong with America today. Attempting - but failing - to make the case that the West gets many benefits from Washington, the authors completely ignored the fact that these benefits are funded mostly by escalating and unsustainable public debt - the most dangerous narcotic in America's history. Furthermore, since 1995, my state (Colorado) has paid more to the federal government than it has received. This is a net loss, not a gain. I continue to be astounded by the sloppy thinking and lack of honest accounting when it comes to promoting government benefits to the public, which magically seem to be "free." As you can see in the Wikipedia article below (scroll to table) in 2007, Colorado - A Net Loser - paid $45.4 billion in federal taxes, while collecting only $34.8 billion in federal spending.

See: FED TAXES VS SPENDING IN COLORADO 

The American Republic was created from the 1787 U.S. Constitution, as modified in 1791 by an elegant Bill of Rights. It strove to protect individuals from the democratic tyranny of the mob, but tragically during the twentieth century succumbed to the most politically successful idea of all time – the seductive scourge of the “public interest.” Since its founding, the federal government of the United States has continually usurped and expanded the limited powers granted to it by the Constitution. From the Civil War, to the New Deal, to today’s unprecedented monetary inflation and military adventurism, the narcotic of easy government money has corrupted business and American society with a seemingly endless free lunch mentality.

See PRIVATE PROPERTY PUBLIC PLUNDER

America's military spends more than the next 13 countries combined. By what insane logic is this called "defense?"

See: US MILITARY SPENDING

America is addicted to government, growing out of control. Government spending, like any narcotic, feels good at first, but the pain of withdrawal doesn't come until later, as during the 2008-2009 financial collapse, from which our economy has yet to recover. Although many people think those evil free markets are the culprits, government has massively escalated both control of and subsidies to private business interests for more than a century. Every war, skirmish, depression and recession in living memory has been an excuse for government to grow, without admitting its enabling (and destructive) role. Big government is big "business," but not the entrepreneurial kind sustained by markets. No, this kind of "business" supports a bloated (mostly non-defensive) military-industrial complex about which President - formerly General - Eisenhower warned us, along with other corporate welfare and fantasy-based entitlement programs. Some popular pundits, including our economically - and reality - challenged President, call this the "private sector." What part of "tax, control, subsidize and confiscate" do they not understand?

By subsidizing and controlling industries while promising Americans prosperity with little or no effort, the U.S. Government was already worse than broke before the recent meltdown - and the current President. The recent housing crisis was largely caused by the expansion of credit by the Federal Reserve, the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act and Congress' aggressive arm-twisting of bankers to loan money to people who couldn't pay it back. Government-created companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributed to the illusion that "easy" credit was somehow sustainable. This was powerfully documented - and refuted - in Thomas Sowell's 2009 bestseller, "The Housing Boom and Bust."

See THE HOUSING BOOM-BUST


ENTER OCCUPY AMERICA 

It is ironic that those most concerned with the sustainability of the planet ignore or eschew the sustainability of the private economy that provides the wealth that supports us all, including ALL government jobs and programs. In short, without a competitive, robust private sector based on market-driven economics, government could not exist. Similarly, those who publicly claim to support free markets are too often interested in government contracts, subsidies and protection from competition, rather than market risk and true sustainability. The real strength of markets, beside their innovation, adaptability and productivity, is their ruthless, indiscriminate risk of failure. When government provides banks, insurance, mortgage, auto and other companies with (combined) trillion dollar bailouts, free markets should be the last thing to blame. Unfortunately, the media - among the worst junkies of all - rarely make this link. To anyone with half a brain, this shouldn't be surprising.

Instead of being worshipped like rock stars and courted for freebies, politicians should be constrained, mistrusted and carefully watched by everyone, because their job is to spend other people's money taken by force. This LEGAL kind of crime is far more destructive than other "criminal" elements, who seem like amateurs by comparison to this political class. They should be held to a much higher standard than any private citizen, because No One (with rare exceptions) can be trusted with political power. Throughout history, such power, in each and every form and government, has been continually expanded and abused by almost everyone who held it. I had hoped that America was better than that, but the exponential growth of government during our lifetimes is nothing less than depressing. The junkies are in charge of the rehab center. For these reasons, an important reform would be to limit members of Congress to one term at a time - in other words, no re-election of ANY member - ever, without sitting out at least one term before running again. Career politicians are the problem; not the solution. Of course, this would take a constitutional amendment - which means most Americans would have to want it. Perhaps the next Depression will provide ample incentives...

See SUBORDINATE ACTS

Despite constitutional checks and balances including the Bill of Rights, the federal government has broken the chains that used to bind it repeatedly since its founding. Long ago, businessmen learned they could make more money - with less risk - by creating government-supported businesses than suffering the risk of loss in the marketplace. Government-business partnerships bring out the worst in both public and private sectors - demanding more public spending while reducing the productive incentive of businesses with government contracts.

The U.S. Constitution - even after 27 amendments - STILL describes a government limited to a few tasks, with none of the massive government interventions taking place today. The "general welfare" clause - the subject of many Supreme Court cases - has morphed into the specific welfare of well-connected groups (like banks, unions and auto companies) and away from the American Republic's founding principles limited only to policies that benefit all. Only by reducing the size and influence of the consuming public (government) sector and freeing up the productive (private) sector without subsidy, while emphasizing freedom and private property rights protection, can American government begin to find its rightful place again.

I'm not going to hold my breath...

Make government what it ought to be, and it will support itself –Thomas Paine

 

THE TRAGEDY OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

by James Craig Green


The tragedy of American Democracy is that the founding fathers rejected it more than 200 years ago for good reasons, but "the people" and their favorite self-serving politicians cheerfully brought it back.

For two decades now, I have written about how fundamentally different the American Revolution was from the French Revolution. America was founded on limited government, individual freedom and respect for individual rights. The French Revolution was founded on almost pure democracy, which led to the Guillotine, the Reign of Terror and finally, the emperor Napoleon. "Collective rights" are no rights at all, because the majority can outvote any individual. The Soviet Union, Communist China and the Cuba of Fidel Castro are what you get when collective rights are enshrined into law as superior to individual rights.

As I discussed in April 2011's post UNCHAIN THE BUILDERS 4, the American Republic was NOT based on democracy, but has unfortunately devolved into one. It took more than 200 years of corrupting history, but now the U.S. has become a democracy, since there are more people who are net takers from government than net payers, as I explained in THE PROBLEM WITH DEMOCRACY (June 2011).

Thomas Jefferson, who was in France at the time the U.S. Constitution was being created, understood as well as his fellow Virginian James Madison, the dangers of democracy:

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not

once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny

Democracy may be the most addicting - and most destructive - narcotic ever invented. It allows people who contribute nothing to dominate those who produce everything. This is why at least since 2004 (according to the Tax Foundation), the majority of Americans vote for a living, as I explained in May 2011's  WHO BENEFITS AND WHO PAYS FOR GOVERNMENT?. The 2007 Tax Foundation study described there, based on tax and spending data for all levels of government ending in 2004, shows how three-fifths of Americans receive more than they contribute to American government. This is pure democracy in action, as Thomas Jefferson perceptively warned against at the beginning of the American Republic more than two centuries ago.

As I have stated many times, the best example of a democracy is a lynch mob - only one dissenting vote.

Have you ever wondered why America's Founders REJECTED democracy in the Presidency and the Senate, but only allowed it in the House of Representatives? One brilliant insight into this question was provided by James Madison, drafter of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and fourth President of the United States. In  FEDERALIST NO. 10 , Madison clearly explained, as he called it, the "mischiefs of faction." By this term, he meant majorities tyrannizing minorities. This was precisely why he recommended a democratic House of Representatives, but NOT a democratic Senate, nor a democratically-elected President. Each of these were supposed to be immune to the majoritarian passions of the mob. Unfortunately, the Senate's structure was converted to a democratic form in 1913, with the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. The rejection of direct democracy by the founders was also exhibited in the Electoral College which elects the President.

To say American Government was founded on democracy is one of the most damaging but widespread myths about the federal government. Of the three branches of the federal government:

1. Legislative (Congress, consisting of the House and Senate)
2. Executive (The President, chosen by the electoral college), and
3. Judicial (Supreme Court, appointed by the President, ratified by the Senate),

...only one half of one branch was created as a democracy. Arguably, this may be thought of as only one-sixth of the federal government as the founders' originally intended it to be.

Democracy-Gone-Wild

Today, the mob is in control of everything. Since at least 2004 (shown by the Tax Foundation study), more people receive net benefits from government than they contribute. This was what Jefferson meant by his famous quoted above... The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Democracy is destroying America, because those who, on balance, produce useful goods and services can have their income, production and assets stolen by those who don't. By on balance, I mean that the majority who receives more from government than it contributes, as explained in WHO BENEFITS AND WHO PAYS FOR GOVERNMENT, has no incentive to cut government spending. This is destroying America from within. The best current proof of this is annual budget deficits for the federal government that exceed ONE AND ONE HALF TRILLION DOLLARS. That's EVERY year, not a lump sum over several years. This is called Bankruptcy elsewhere, but to the feds and their large contingent of dependents (most Americans), such language is considered impolite at least, and treasonous at worst.

American government has accrued AT LEAST 50 TRILLION DOLLARS of public debt in our lifetimes, with Republicans, Democrats and those who voted for them directly to blame. Since only about one-out-of-five Americans elect the President and Congress, the 80 percent who don't continue to be screwed at an alarming rate. I should note that the 50 TRILLION DOLLAR figure is a low estimate, generated by former Comptroller General of the U.S. David Walker. A much higher estimate of 120 TRILLION DOLLARS, published by the Cato Institute, reflects even more insanity by U.S. Governments and their most ardent supporters.

We should be ashamed of ourselves for letting it get this bad...

CRAIG'S SEVEN PREMISES

My first premise is that people are inherently selfish.

This was a necessary characteristic of each and every one of your ancestors, as proven by your existence. It is a good thing if not taken to the extremes of narcissism or aggressive pursuits that harm others. But, respect for others does not include allowing yourself to be manipulated, sacrificing yourself for others, or accepting other demands on your life without your consent. The Dutch philosopher Spinoza and others called this selfish struggle of life CONATUS.

Ayn Rand, in The Virtue of Selfishness, wrote:

Since nature does not provide man with an automatic form of survival, since he has to support his life by his own effort, the doctrine that concern with one's own self interest is evil means that man's desire to live is evil - that man's life, as such, is evil. No doctrine could be more evil than that.

I don't claim that all people act selfishly all the time, but it is a prudent, default assumption until proven wrong in individual cases. To clarify, I include mutual, non-monetary benefits that both parties to a friendship or association gain to be evidence of a healthy, selfish relationship, without contradiction. I do not distinguish between "selfish" and "self-interest," as some people do.

My second premise, as discussed in my mid-nineties LifePower articles SEEK JOY, CREATE VALUE  and LIFE IS EGOCENTRIC, is that honestly self-aware and self-motivated people make the most productive, supportive and happiest friends, neighbors, associates and yes, even citizens - when left alone to pursue their selfish interests - as long as they do not deny or restrict the equal right of others to pursue theirs.

My third premise is that people own themselves, which means they have a right to their lives, liberty and property, which deserve to be protected against aggressive force, theft or fraud. These rights are not granted by any human authority, but are inherent in human nature, as most powerfully described by the English philosopher John Locke in a section called OF PROPERTY in Chapter II of his TWO TREATISES OF GOVERNMENT. Locke's concept of human rights was one of the primary inspirations for the American Declaration of Independence. I draw a sharp distinction between aggressive and defensive force.

My fourth premise is that government as we know it (a legal but coercive monopoly of force against innocents) works against most of its citizens when it exceeds its proper authority to protect individual rights - the only legitimate justification for its collective force. Please read the section, WHAT IS LAW? in Frederic Bastiat's 1850 masterpiece, THE LAW. Government cannot protect your property by giving it to others.

My fifth premise is while coercive, monopolistic government exists, its purpose should be strictly limited to the protection of people and their property, including police and/or defensive military and impartial courts. For the federal government, other duties authorized by the U.S. Constitution would be included as part of necessary goals and limitations for much less oppressive government toward which the current government should gravitate. See my article SUBORDINATE ACTS.

My sixth premise is that coercive, monopolistic government should not be involved in the economy at all, except for adjudicating disputes in civil cases, since it almost always makes the economy worse, not better. See CHAPTER 1 of Henry Hazlitt's ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON. Coercive government's complete ignorance of 1) market economics and 2) the productive nature of the unsubsidized private sector is both striking and unconscionable for an organization that claims to represent the people. See CHAPTER 3 of FOR A NEW LIBERTY by Murray Rothbard to understand the nature of coercive, monopolistic government.

My seventh premise is that about 90 percent of knowledge is dogma. This idea began as a joke several years ago, due to my frustration to make sense of large inconsistencies I found in so many fields, like philosophy, science, religion, law, politics, economics, dog training and both contemporary and alternative medicine. In every field of knowledge I have studied, there are far more unknowns than knowns. An honest search for more and better knowledge must include the attitude that what we know today is only our best current approximation, to be improved by further knowledge gained later. Please spend some time at the SIMANEK PAGES, for which you will be richly rewarded. The four points below are a sample of Donald Simanek's summary and conclusions page:

• Logic (and mathematics) alone tell us nothing about the natural world.
• Through our senses we form a mental picture of what we call the "real world". It's just a name, and inquiry into the "reality" of this world or our perceptions is futile philosophizing.
• This "real world" shows regular patterns and behavior, so we can express these as "things" and "laws", often with mathematical precision.
• The reliable regularity of natural laws allows us to do science. We can't even imagine a universe that had no regularity at all, or one whose behavior unexpectedly changed in unpredictable ways without warning of any kind.

I CALL THESE PREMISES BECAUSE human knowledge is so often dominated by arrogance, vanity, chauvinism, uncritical repetition and dishonesty. Premises sometimes called self-evident "truths" are just assumptions with which to begin investigations. Most philosophies, professions, religions, sciences and other bodies of knowledge are often dominated by dogma and blind conformity to authority or custom, which people adopt to avoid changing existing beliefs. Changing beliefs is often a sign of maturity, unless done in a haphazard, unthinking manner. As I understand the current science of sub-atomic particles, that big rock you and others see is mostly empty space.

Uncertainty is the beginning of knowledge.

Certainty is the end. - James Craig Green

Simplify - Eliminate the Non-Essential - Bruce Lee

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - Arthur C. Clarke

  

As always, I welcome disagreements, criticism and alternative viewpoints. I frequently learn more from those with whom I disagree than those who pat me on the back. All I ask is that you are polite and show me the same respect you would like to receive.

CONSTITUTIONAL TOUR-DE-FORCE

by James Craig Green


On Sunday, May 15, 2011, the Independence Institute held a Constitutional seminar in Lakewood, Colorado with presentations from its two expert legal scholars, David Kopel and Rob Natelson. A hundred people embarked on a breathtaking journey of the Constitution's origins and original meanings, as well as a history of important Supreme Court cases since its first ten Amendments (Bill of Rights) were ratifed in 1791. Before I report on the event in more detail however, let me introduce you to these two outstanding legal scholars:

ROB NATELSON served 23 years as a professor of law at the University of Montana, after 11 years of private practice in Colorado. He has spent much of his career researching the history and meaning of the U.S. Constitution. He is a Senior Fellow at the Independence Institute and Director of its Constitution Project. Unlike too many law professors, Rob considers the Constitution itself to be the primary authority on constitutional law, as opposed to Supreme Court cases that have ignored, reviled or re-interpreted it to fit philosophical or political agendas. His new book, The Original Constitution - What it Actually Said and Meant, is a brilliant presentation of the Constitution and its founding documents, as well as other writings from its founders, framers and ratifiers, including both Federalists and their critics, often referred to as anti-federalists.

DAVID KOPEL, Research Director for the Independence Institute, is also Director of its Second Amendment Project. He was the lead attorney on the team that successfully argued its pro-second amendment position in the Heller case before the U.S. Supreme Court. David has been a tireless advocate of human liberty for decades, as the author of ten books, hundreds of newspaper and magazine articles, and over three dozen scholarly journal articles. His recent book, Aiming for Liberty: The Past, Present and Future of Freedom and Self Defense, discusses the Washington, D.C. gun ban, modern American gun control, the agendas behind anti-gun legislation and the Heller decision. The book also covers the right to self defense from Judeo Christian principles, United Nations attempts on gun control and law enforcement abuses and solutions. You can see David's website HERE.

SEMINAR SYNOPSIS

Rob Natelson kicked off the afternoon with a 45-minute blast on the history and background of the Constitution, pointing out that most Americans at the time were very well versed in legal principles. They debated, rejected and then embraced the document, after holding out for the addition of a Bill of Rights. They had just fought an extended war with the most powerful army on the planet after declaring the dissolution of "political bands" that connected them to Great Britain. Naturally, their recent history was one of loyal British subjects, who expected all the legal rights of English citizens, going back to King Henry I, even before the Magna Carta in 1215. They met in taverns, town squares, public buildings and each others' homes to give this new, unprecedented document the greatest of scrutiny and consideration. Active criticisms of the new document were presented by many influential Americans, who thought the Constitution was a grave threat to liberty. The Constitution was adopted by the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787, which began the debate on its adoption. With encouragement from the persuasive Federalist Papers and other documents, the Constitution's first ten amendments (Bill of Rights) were ratified by the states on December 15, 1791. Rob says the original meaning of the Constitution can only be derived from this date backwards, not forward.

I later learned from Rob it is somewhat more complicated than this, depending on whether the subject is the unamended Constitution, or some early Supreme Court cases up to about 1796 that were uncontroversial. But, the idea seems to be not to confuse what people said after the fact with the document itself.

David Kopel picked up where Rob left off, taking us on a whirlwind tour of constitutional history since the 1791 ratification, including many important court cases that set legal precedents. Then, he proceeded to describe the modern progressive movement, beginning in about 1890. David explained four progressive constitutional amendments, including the 16th (income tax), 17th (direct election of senators), 18th (prohibition) and 19th (women's suffrage). Although the income tax was sold to the American people as a small tax on only the most wealthy, it has since escalated to its present level, which almost certainly would not have been approved in 1913. The 17th Amendment, which took 14 years of struggle between states and Congress, provided for the direct election of Senators to deal with the sluggishness of state legislatures, which even included delaying the election of Senators. The 18th Amendment, prohibition, was later repealeld by the 21st Amendment, but represented a cornerstone of the progressive platform of ever-larger government. Of course, the 19th Amendment, women's suffrage, corrected a long injustice by eliminating formal discrimination against half the population. Another byproduct of the progressive movement though, was its destructive re-interpretation of the 14th Amendment's provision of equal protection under the law. Later, the New Deal would become the crown jewell for progressives, including massive re-interpretation of the Constitution to allow unprecedented expansion of government power. David also discussed several New Deal decisions.

After their opening salvos, both Rob and David explained several other interesting pieces of history, including the Englishman Edmund Burke's observation that more Americans had read England's Blackstone Law Dictionary than Englishmen, for whom it was written. Overwhelming impressions I got from this presentation were 1) how incredibly knowledgeable and involved most Americans were in the mid to late 1700's, and 2) how destructive to the Constitution the Supreme Court and Congress were after it was ratified. As Rob pointed out in response to a question from an attorney, today's American law schools focus primarily on Supreme Court decisions, rather than the document itself. Rob also explained (here and in his book) why it was important for the President to be a natural born citizen - so he would be loyal to the traditions and principles of America.

Multiple discussions from a lengthy question and answer session followed, including topics such as whether the U.S. is a "Christian Nation" (Rob says no, but it was created as a theisitic nation, since the actual meaning of oaths of office was an oath to god). After the seminar, I asked Rob about the language in Article VI, which says no religious test is required to hold public office. Rob said this was clarified in the ratification debates to mean no test OTHER than the oath.

From my perspective as a layman student of the U.S. Constitution, I could not have been more impressed with David, Rob and the audience. Some people I met in the parking lot walking toward the building were from rural areas of Colorado, and there were many attorneys in attendance as well. When Mike Krause, Operations Director of the Independence Institute closed the event, he asked how many people would come to another such event, and bring two or three friends. Almost every hand went up, including mine.