The Law Perverted!

The Law

Frederic Bastiat

Translated by Dean Russell

“The law perverted! And the police powers of the state along with it!” Bastiat opens with this bold, cutting statement in response to French government swinging increasingly towards socialism following the revolution in 1848. He asserts that man has a natural right to his person, his liberty, and his property given by God to all. Each individual has a right to defend, by force, these rights. Law establishes an organization of these rights into framework that allows societies to exist and maintain rights for the individual.

Plunder, as defined by Bastiat, is when the property of a person or group is violated for the gain of another; as this right has been given by God, the government no more of a claim to an individual’s property than a thief does. He extends this idea to illustrate his belief that any advance by the government on one’s property, no matter the reason, is plunder as well. In establishing laws like protective tariffs, taxes, guaranteed jobs, and welfare programs, governments have perpetrated “legal plunder.” The taking of wealth from some and redistributing to others is analogous to individual thievery.

If plunder has been legalized in this way, it leads to innumerable threats to individual rights. The first of which, is a clash between those with power and those without. This can manifest by means of restricted voting, as with United States with women and slavery. It can also lead to undue pressure by legislators to attempt to accomplish what they think is best for society. If legal plunder is protected by law, it leaves the door open to a myriad of possible infringements on a person’s liberty as well. Bastiat takes aim at contemporaries like Montesquieu, Rousseau, and others, calling them presumptuous. How, he asks, do these men know better than others what is good for society and the individual?

He concludes his thoughts by arguing that once the law has been perverted to infringe on one these three natural, God given rights, the door is open and no clear line delineates where the infringement should stop. He argues that justice is a negative concept, that is to say, justice is achieved only by the absence of injustice. Law should not dictate morals, redistribute wealth, protect certain industries, or provide public welfare. Law’s proper place is to solely ensure the absence of injustice.

Bastiat’s work stands opposite to the Communist Manifesto on the spectrum of political organization. In the work he points to America as the best example of what an ideal body of laws should be, aside from the blemishes of slavery and tariffs. Today, the United States has moved farther away from the minimalist law that Bastiat admired. Social security, welfare, public schools, and health care are all things he vehemently opposed. An America that conformed to his ideals would need to exclude all of these things as well as minimum wage, workers rights laws, and public works projects. I find it hard to imagine an America without any of these things and wonder how our nation would have progressed without any of them. Although I don’t believe in such a strict minimalist law like Bastiat, his warning is very clear, with these types of laws the US is infringing on the rights of one or another groups of people. As he also pointed out, once the law does that, it’s nearly impossible to find where the line should be. A dilemma emerges-how much personal property can be taken away from an individual for the good of society as a whole? Moving forward, we as voters must understand and realize the consequences of our actions and decide just how much we want our government to preside over our daily lives.

Great article on the '3-D Hurricane'

Check it out here:

http://www.investorsinsight.com/downloads/otb/mwo062711.pdf

Looking Forward In Wisconsin

With the glorious victory of the Green Bay Packers in Super Bowl 45, the state of Wisconsin had reached the peak of unity, growing closer than it had since the glorious victory in New Orleans 14 years prior with a quarterback whose name now eludes me. Only weeks later, the state would be thrown into a mild form of chaos. In response to Governor Scott Walker's controversial budget bill that effectively stripped public employees of their right to collectively bargain, hundreds of thousands of protesters streamed to the state's capitol with witty signs created by teacher unions, firefighters, students, and plumbers.

Yesterday, on June 25th, 2011, Scott Walker signed his budget bill into law, solidifying the curtailment of collective bargaining as well as hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to public education, all in the name of fixing a four billion dollar budget shortfall. Even as Walker signed the bill, the same divisiveness and controversy that defined the initial proceedings continued, as protesters streamed to Green Bay where the bill was signed, and as conservative state supreme court justice David Prosser allegedly choke slammed anyone that did not share his emphatic support of Walker's ultra-conservative ideals (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/us/26judge.html). Clearly, this entire budget proceeding has left a trail of frustration, disillusionment, and in many cases, confusion.

But it could have been different. In fact, Walker likely could have passed a similar budget, with similar curtailments to collective bargaining, with a political strategy based on openness and honesty as opposed to closed door proceedings and circumvention of traditional procedure (although in all fairness, neither side on this issue was particularly keen on traditional political etiquette...). Walker's biggest failure was and is his lack of political transparency. And when a government takes such bold measures, transparency, accountability, and prudence are absolute essentials.

As an active of observer of the budgetary proceedings from February to the present, I have noticed that just about all of those who oppose the plan over collective bargaining are frustrated because they feel a basic civic right has been taken from them. And while the discussion on whether or not collective bargaining truly is a civic right is a necessary conversation to have, let us just assume for the sake of argument that collective bargaining truly is a civic right.

Conversely, let us assume, again for the sake of argument, that taking away the civic right of collective bargaining will in fact be a long term economic fix for the state of Wisconsin- that it will save the state money, cut down on bureaucracy, and make room for new jobs.

The question we must discuss is this: When is it ethical and proper for a government to remove a right for the purposes of economic gain?

There is no clear answer to this question. But it is a question that needs to be addressed in discussions by public workers, government officials, fiscal conservatives and liberal Democrats.

I am convinced that had Walker been more transparent about his plans to curtail collective bargaining in his campaign that we would be in a different position as a state- one with less name calling and fewer bruised necks in the Supreme Court chambers.

In times of economic hardship, sacrifices will need to be made on all ends of the political spectrum. Controversy will arise as budgets are tightened, as programs are cut, as some programs are funded more fully. But in situations wherein a right is taken away for a forecasted economic gain, we must have more discussion to determine the truly ethical path to take.

With the budget passed, my frustrations over the last few months can be set aside. We cannot change what has transpired- but what we can certainly bring about is a more open and honest discourse in future situations when it becomes necessary to weigh the importance of economic gain versus the presence of long established rights and privileges.

What is the EN?

With Michael Jackson on the front page of CNN.com and Glenn Beck crying about god-knows-what each night on Fox News, it is increasingly difficult to sift through popular media sources to find material that is accurate, informative and thought-provoking.  Political debate in this country is divided between two groups that refuse to acknowledge any merits of the other side's point.  While the American public likes to blame Congressional leaders for their stubbornness, uncompromising debate on political and economic issues is just as common on Main Street as it is on Capitol Hill.  For this reason, this blog will dissect the 'issues' individually and not along party lines.

The EN blog and its parent website, www.theeconnexus.com, will provide content in a collaborative framework to hopefully bring its posters and casual readers to, if not a more level-headed perspective, one which has at least been tested by a different way of looking at the problem.

The main focus will be on the Political Economy.  Aristotle opens his Oeconomicus with, "Between Housecraft (the art of governing a Household or Home) and Statecraft (the art of governing a Nation) there are differences corresponding to those between the two kinds of community over which they severally preside. "  The intersection of the State and the Individual within the Economy thus has an inherent and inevitable tension.  That is why we are at the Nexus.  The point where the laws of economics meet the influence of politics, of war, of culture-- so on and so forth.  

Contributors and commentators on this website will be able to sharpen and expound on their perspectives in a number of ways:

1) Periodical submissions of longer essays, posted on the main page in a pdf format.

2) Post under your own profile on this blog.

3) Monthly "classics" book club that reviews the most important texts from our field of study, to be summarized and discussed on the blog.  Keeping up on the readings will push us to continually challenge ourselves and pass our time with meaningful reflection.

Please email me at lars@theeconnexus.com if you would like to accept the challenge and become a contributor.