My Review: The Law (by Fredrick Bastiat)

[0zzy]

This timely piece on libertarianism by Fredrick Bastiat is yet further evidence that the ideas of liberty do not have an expiration date. The copyright states that this essay was originally published in 1850, yet over 150 years later its message still resonates. Bastiat experienced the socialistic approach in the French government during the early 1800s and knew well of its perversion of law.

Every man, woman, and child has the right to their life and property. The government was created to bring justice and defense to her people and their property, as it should retain. But when laws are put in place to legalize theft, whether it comes from man's personal greed or compassion, then the law ends up directly contradicting herself.

This essay describes two ways the government legalizes theft (or plunder). One way is when a few people plunder many and the other is when everybody plunders everybody. The third option is when nobody plunders anybody, the third option is the option of freedom.

Yet laws are often put into place for humanitarian reasons, whether it be to protect the markets, economy, or people. Though such laws directly contradict the main purpose of the law, to give justice and defense to the people. The government has nothing to give, it can only take from one man and give to another. She cannot better a marketplace or economy by placing tariffs or tweaking interest rates, as it is only the free market that can create the best economy.

Yet the law, as the essay describes, is perverted. By whom? Its legislator. The legislator tends to think that they know better how to run the lives of individuals than the individuals themselves. So they put into place laws to steal from one group to supposedly help another. But what happens when the dissatisfied class gets into power of the legislator? They put laws into place to spite the other! As Bastiate describes it, "...legislation will be a battlefield for everybody's dreams and everybody's covetousness."

This essay is a must read for everyone capable of understanding its message and a must have for every libertarian's library.

[Bradley in DC]

Well done. Now you know why I put it in my signature! ;)

[0zzy]

Any one else read it? :)

[beerista]

Yes, it's a great read. It is probably the very first thing (with the possible exception of a Constitution) that I would hand to someone unfamiliar with, but interested in, the ideas of liberty.

[MS0453]

Yes, it's a great read. It is probably the very first thing (with the possible exception of a Constitution) that I would hand to someone unfamiliar with, but interested in, the ideas of liberty.


Agreed. It's shortiness is another bonus.

Actually, I just thought of something. What if we started some sort of group that donated The Law to schools/libraries/etc. or promoted it's reading in someway?

A quick search on Mises shows that their version sells for $6.

[beerista]

Agreed. It's shortiness is another bonus.

Actually, I just thought of something. What if we started some sort of group that donated The Law to schools/libraries/etc. or promoted it's reading in someway?

A quick search on Mises shows that their version sells for $6.

I think the idea of making sure that a copy is available in school libraries in our respective areas is a good one. As for promoting its use, click the link in Bradley's signature (above) and you'll find it available to read online. Adding that link to ones signature here or elsewhere is maybe a good start. Hey, Bradley, if imitation (or was that theft?) is the sincerest form of flattery, consider yourself flattered.
By the way, I thought I remembered that Mises.org had it available online as well, so I checked real quick. Here is volume one of the "Bastiat Collection," which also contains "That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Unseen":
http://www.mises.org/books/bastiat1.pdf
There's also a Volume Two, but I didn't get to that yet, so I don't know what's in it.
And double by the way, Dr. Paul corrected Rudy's use of the Broken Window Fallacy in a recent interview (don't remember which one). References like that may aid in boosting the deserved popularity of "The Law."

[Bradley in DC]

I think the idea of making sure that a copy is available in school libraries in our respective areas is a good one. As for promoting its use, click the link in Bradley's signature (above) and you'll find it available to read online. Adding that link to ones signature here or elsewhere is maybe a good start. Hey, Bradley, if imitation (or was that theft?) is the sincerest form of flattery, consider yourself flattered.

:o

[MS0453]

Adding that link to ones signature here or elsewhere is maybe a good start.


Noted. :)

[Malakai0]

Public schools will not touch anything related to free market economics. All the economics and civics I was taught in primary school comes down to this.


Big government = Good
Lots of control = Good
Obedience = Good
Socialism = Compassion (of course they never call 'helping' people socialism)


I think what this country needs is a whole lot of us young free minded individuals to become elementary school Social Studies teachers. My entire american history, civics, and economics education might as well have been out of a CFR globalist handbook. The UN is the greatest thing since sliced bread and is the only thing stopping WW3 from happening, I was taught this stuff for years. I went to public school for half my primary education and private the other half, on the issue of social studies it was all socialistic globalist garbage.

We need to teach kids about freedom, liberty, and how big government and international government only serve to take away freedom.

[0zzy]

Public schools will not touch anything related to free market economics. All the economics and civics I was taught in primary school comes down to this.


Big government = Good
Lots of control = Good
Obedience = Good
Socialism = Compassion (of course they never call 'helping' people socialism)


I think what this country needs is a whole lot of us young free minded individuals to become elementary school Social Studies teachers. My entire american history, civics, and economics education might as well have been out of a CFR globalist handbook. The UN is the greatest thing since sliced bread and is the only thing stopping WW3 from happening, I was taught this stuff for years. I went to public school for half my primary education and private the other half, on the issue of social studies it was all socialistic globalist garbage.

We need to teach kids about freedom, liberty, and how big government and international government only serve to take away freedom.

Pretty much what they're teaching me.
"The president doesn't have the power to go to war"
"yes he does."
"the federal reserve just prints money out of thin air"
"but its based on a monetary algorithm!"

etcetc

[Malakai0]

Pretty much what they're teaching me.
"The president doesn't have the power to go to war"
"yes he does."
"the federal reserve just prints money out of thin air"
"but its based on a monetary algorithm!"

etcetc

I already have an associates degree, I could be teaching elementary to high school social studies within 2 years time.

I'm wondering, would I get fired and have wasted 2 years right away for really teaching my students about the philosophy of freedom as the founders intended it?

I mean, social studies was always everyones most boring class, and it shouldn't be. The founders were radicals! We would probably call them terrorists today! The American revolution is an exciting era of rebelling against authority and morality over practicality. The constitution was an exciting experiment in freedom and property rights, I think I would have a blast teaching kids fresh ideas. Kids usually understand these self evident things much better and more easily than adults indoctrinated with bad information for their entire lives.


Would the establishment permit this is my concern. If one of my students starts telling their parents about the awesome and exciting things I'm teaching them, will the school fire me? Or what happens when I teach austrian style economics (which is actually not very complicated, much simpler than our bastardized economy) to a class and they go and find out we do things more like communist Russia than the constitution and the spirit of the founders, I see problems arising with the school and indoctrinated parents.

[ConstitutionGal]

I already have an associates degree, I could be teaching elementary to high school social studies within 2 years time.

I'm wondering, would I get fired and have wasted 2 years right away for really teaching my students about the philosophy of freedom as the founders intended it?

I mean, social studies was always everyones most boring class, and it shouldn't be. The founders were radicals! We would probably call them terrorists today! The American revolution is an exciting era of rebelling against authority and morality over practicality. The constitution was an exciting experiment in freedom and property rights, I think I would have a blast teaching kids fresh ideas. Kids usually understand these self evident things much better and more easily than adults indoctrinated with bad information for their entire lives.


Would the establishment permit this is my concern. If one of my students starts telling their parents about the awesome and exciting things I'm teaching them, will the school fire me? Or what happens when I teach austrian style economics (which is actually not very complicated, much simpler than our bastardized economy) to a class and they go and find out we do things more like communist Russia than the constitution and the spirit of the founders, I see problems arising with the school and indoctrinated parents.

Fired? Nah!! Drawn and quartered would be more likely! :D

You may want to wait until after you get tenue to start actaully 'teaching' something if you want to hold on to your new job.

As an aside - we got copies of "The Law" from the a local chapter of the JBS. Anytime we'd get into a discussion on the proper role of government, we'd loan out one of our copies and have gotten quite a few folks to change their minds about what governemnt should and should not be doing. It's a WONDERFUL teaching tool and is short enough that most folks will actually READ it!

[Malakai0]

Fired? Nah!! Drawn and quartered would be more likely! :D

You may want to wait until after you get tenue to start actaully 'teaching' something if you want to hold on to your new job.

As an aside - we got copies of "The Law" from the a local chapter of the JBS. Anytime we'd get into a discussion on the proper role of government, we'd loan out one of our copies and have gotten quite a few folks to change their minds about what governemnt should and should not be doing. It's a WONDERFUL teaching tool and is short enough that most folks will actually READ it!

Are you involved in education? I could use some info from a ron paul 'insider' who wouldn't dismiss my questions as ridiculous offhand like my teacher aunt does.

[beerista]

I already have an associates degree, I could be teaching elementary to high school social studies within 2 years time.

I'm wondering, would I get fired and have wasted 2 years right away for really teaching my students about the philosophy of freedom as the founders intended it?

I mean, social studies was always everyones most boring class, and it shouldn't be. The founders were radicals! We would probably call them terrorists today! The American revolution is an exciting era of rebelling against authority and morality over practicality. The constitution was an exciting experiment in freedom and property rights, I think I would have a blast teaching kids fresh ideas. Kids usually understand these self evident things much better and more easily than adults indoctrinated with bad information for their entire lives.


Would the establishment permit this is my concern. If one of my students starts telling their parents about the awesome and exciting things I'm teaching them, will the school fire me? Or what happens when I teach austrian style economics (which is actually not very complicated, much simpler than our bastardized economy) to a class and they go and find out we do things more like communist Russia than the constitution and the spirit of the founders, I see problems arising with the school and indoctrinated parents.

I think you've just described exactly why we have a Department of Education and a No Child Left Behind Act. Sadly, what you fear is the system operating properly and not an unintended consequence of well-meant policies.
The Underground History of American Education (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/) is available to read online. An interesting bit of history, research, and conjecture. Horribly depressing, though.
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/

[Malakai0]

I think you've just described exactly why we have a Department of Education and a No Child Left Behind Act. Sadly, what you fear is the system operating properly and not an unintended consequence of well-meant policies.
The Underground History of American Education (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/) is available to read online. An interesting bit of history, research, and conjecture. Horribly depressing, though.
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/

I try not to get too conspiracy theorist with my general posting. I have zero doubt our system was set up quite intentionally this way. The big picture, the rabbit hole, ect, is indeed depressing.


I guess my biggest dilemma would be can I simultaneously teach my students about REALITY and get them able to pass their state issued tests and exams.


I'll check out your link. It might take me some time but I do read everything people link to me ^^

[fsk]

If you tried to teach the truth as a public school social studies teacher, you would rapidly be fired.

The problem is that with "mandatory testing", you won't have time to spend on topics you consider interesting. All your time must be spent teaching for the test.

If you tried to teach the truth, and someone complained, you would be out of a job.

That is one issue that concerns me: Did the current messed-up system arise by incompetence, or is it part of a larger conspiracy?

If incompetence: we should do our best to remedy the situation.

If conspiracy: we definitely should do our best to remedy the situation.

Either way (conspiracy or incompetence), you should do the best you can given the circumstances.

[Malakai0]

Can you get a job fresh out of college with a private institution not subject to federal testing?


WAY TO SHOOT MY BEAUTIFUL IDEA DOWN GUYS THX

[ConstitutionGal]

Are you involved in education? I could use some info from a ron paul 'insider' who wouldn't dismiss my questions as ridiculous offhand like my teacher aunt does.

We've homeschooled our three children. Does that count? :) I do have several family members that are public school teachers and all of them, especially the ones that have been teaching for 20 years or more, gripe about all the mandates about what and how they must now 'teach'. Most of the older ones who actually like real teaching have been getting more and more frustrated by the garbage in the new textbooks and being expected to regurgitate things they know are wrong.

[MS0453]

I have doubts concerning you being fired, considering how difficult it is to fire public school teachers. The unions are indeed a force to be reckoned with. A private school is a totally different subject however....

[Malakai0]

We've homeschooled our three children. Does that count? :) I do have several family members that are public school teachers and all of them, especially the ones that have been teaching for 20 years or more, gripe about all the mandates about what and how they must now 'teach'. Most of the older ones who actually like real teaching have been getting more and more frustrated by the garbage in the new textbooks and being expected to regurgitate things they know are wrong.

Thanks for info. I want to homeschool my kids when I get some ^^, but (again by design maybe?) I don't see how I could earn a living and have the time for it. Being a guy who would will probably be stuck being the 'bread winner', pretty much indicates 8 hours a day x5 or more to raise a family.


The American Dream eh? Work so much to support an upper middle class family that you barely have any time to spend with them, much less give them a proper education yourself. So depressing.


I have doubts concerning you being fired, considering how difficult it is to fire public school teachers. The unions are indeed a force to be reckoned with. A private school is a totally different subject however....


I certainly wouldn't count on a union helping someone trying to teach the truth. Think of all the ways the neocons running education could spin it to discredit you.

"Teaching the kids lies" "inappropriate for their age" "terrorist ideas" "radical ideologies" "anarchy".

Haven't lots of people in government and presidential candidates (Romney and Giuliani come to mind from the big debates) been talking about fighting "terrorist indoctrination" here in our schools? Pretty fucking scary.

[ConstitutionGal]

Thanks for info. I want to homeschool my kids when I get some ^^, but (again by design maybe?) I don't see how I could earn a living and have the time for it. Being a guy who would will probably be stuck being the 'bread winner', pretty much indicates 8 hours a day x5 or more to raise a family.


The American Dream eh? Work so much to support an upper middle class family that you barely have any time to spend with them, much less give them a proper education yourself. So depressing.

I work part time keeping booking and do website design part time and my husband works 3rd shift so one of us is always home with our youngest (our eldest two are now in their twenties and out of school). I find that where there's a will, there's a way. Of course, we drive old cars that have been paid off for years and don't eat out much but we made a decision about what our priorities are and are doing our best to stick to it. It's not all a bed of roses but when I listen to my children (even our 8 year old) talking to other adults about politics, the economy and history, I'm reminded that we made the RIGHT decision for us and for our children.

[beerista]

I try not to get too conspiracy theorist with my general posting. I have zero doubt our system was set up quite intentionally this way. The big picture, the rabbit hole, ect, is indeed depressing.


I guess my biggest dilemma would be can I simultaneously teach my students about REALITY and get them able to pass their state issued tests and exams.


I'll check out your link. It might take me some time but I do read everything people link to me ^^

If you read everything people link you to, no wonder it would take a while. :)
As far as the link I posted, yes, it has elements that strike me as uncomfortably circumstantial (in spite of the excessive documentation, hence my comment about "conjecture"), but the book is written by a guy who taught in the public schools of New York for thirty years and (more than once, if I remember correctly) received the New York State Teacher of the Year award. So, aside from the analysis of the public school system as a tool to achieve pretty much what we've gotten from it, there is also the autobiographical element of a teacher trying to work within the system while working against it. You may or may not find that aspect illuminating, or just depressing.
And I promise not to be offended if you never get to it. I've got a couple of shelves of books that I really want to read that are currently staring at me every time I walk by and making me feel terribly guilty. But I'd be remiss if I didn't share.

[ConstitutionGal]

Besides John Taylor Gatto I would HIGHLY recommend Charlotte Taylor Iserbyte's book The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America. (main website is www.deliberatedumbingdown.com ) It's a little longer than Gatto's Underground History of American Education but is told from a different perspective. Ms Iserbyte was the Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first Reagan Administration, where she first blew the whistle on a major technology initiative which would control curriculum in America's classrooms. Her book can also now be downloaded free at: http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/MomsPDFs/DDDoA.pdf

I spent several hours talking with Ms. Iserbyte several years ago when we were fighting with our local school system about some policy changes. She was MOST informative and, I must admit, that particular battle was what starting opening my eyes to what was happening to our Nation. She is a great lady and a great patriot in my humble opinion and you can't go wrong with reading anything that she's written.

[nexalacer]

This timely piece on libertarianism by Fredrick Bastiat is yet further evidence that the ideas of liberty do not have an expiration date. The copyright states that this essay was originally published in 1850, yet over 150 years later its message still resonates. Bastiat experienced the socialistic approach in the French government during the early 1800s and knew well of its perversion of law.

Every man, woman, and child has the right to their life and property. The government was created to bring justice and defense to her people and their property, as it should retain. But when laws are put in place to legalize theft, whether it comes from man's personal greed or compassion, then the law ends up directly contradicting herself.

This essay describes two ways the government legalizes theft (or plunder). One way is when a few people plunder many and the other is when everybody plunders everybody. The third option is when nobody plunders anybody, the third option is the option of freedom.

Yet laws are often put into place for humanitarian reasons, whether it be to protect the markets, economy, or people. Though such laws directly contradict the main purpose of the law, to give justice and defense to the people. The government has nothing to give, it can only take from one man and give to another. She cannot better a marketplace or economy by placing tariffs or tweaking interest rates, as it is only the free market that can create the best economy.

Yet the law, as the essay describes, is perverted. By whom? Its legislator. The legislator tends to think that they know better how to run the lives of individuals than the individuals themselves. So they put into place laws to steal from one group to supposedly help another. But what happens when the dissatisfied class gets into power of the legislator? They put laws into place to spite the other! As Bastiate describes it, "...legislation will be a battlefield for everybody's dreams and everybody's covetousness."

This essay is a must read for everyone capable of understanding its message and a must have for every libertarian's library.

Great analysis, but I have a few questions for anyone willing to field them.

1) It says laws are put into place but by whom? If laws are not natural and made by someone, then that would be government, correct? If the government puts laws into place, why do they have nothing to offer?

2) If we assume that the government's proper role is to put forward the laws of society, then what are we to do about the fact that the individuals in the government, the legislators, pervert the laws they are supposed to put forward for society?

3) If the government and the legislators are perverting the laws of society, why do we give them that power in the first place?

[beerista]

Besides John Taylor Gatto I would HIGHLY recommend Charlotte Taylor Iserbyte's book The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America. (main website is www.deliberatedumbingdown.com ) It's a little longer than Gatto's Underground History of American Education but is told from a different perspective. Ms Iserbyte was the Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first Reagan Administration, where she first blew the whistle on a major technology initiative which would control curriculum in America's classrooms. Her book can also now be downloaded free at: http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/MomsPDFs/DDDoA.pdf

I spent several hours talking with Ms. Iserbyte several years ago when we were fighting with our local school system about some policy changes. She was MOST informative and, I must admit, that particular battle was what starting opening my eyes to what was happening to our Nation. She is a great lady and a great patriot in my humble opinion and you can't go wrong with reading anything that she's written.

Thanks. Downloaded. Heard great things about this book but never read it. Just now skimmed over the pdf and, My God, but this woman does believe in citations, doesn't she? A good thing, especially considering the resistance one is likely to experience.

By the way, I came across your signature a few days ago and it's been bothering me ever since. I'm no Voltaire scholar, so I guess it's not surprising that I wasn't familiar with that quote. But it's always humbling to find that a thought one has been struggling to articulate adequately for years was perfected long before one was born.

What was the original topic, anyway? I've forgotten. :D Sorry.

[0zzy]

Great analysis, but I have a few questions for anyone willing to field them.

1) It says laws are put into place but by whom? If laws are not natural and made by someone, then that would be government, correct? If the government puts laws into place, why do they have nothing to offer?

By the Legislator.
Laws are made by the collective force of man.
Government puts laws into place to give defense and justice to the people, something that helps all people. But when they distribute wealth, that doesn't benefit everyone.

2) If we assume that the government's proper role is to put forward the laws of society, then what are we to do about the fact that the individuals in the government, the legislators, pervert the laws they are supposed to put forward for society?
Get new legislators.

3) If the government and the legislators are perverting the laws of society, why do we give them that power in the first place?
To defend and give justice to her people.

dgf

[ConstitutionGal]

Thanks. Downloaded. Heard great things about this book but never read it. Just now skimmed over the pdf and, My God, but this woman does believe in citations, doesn't she? A good thing, especially considering the resistance one is likely to experience.

By the way, I came across your signature a few days ago and it's been bothering me ever since. I'm no Voltaire scholar, so I guess it's not surprising that I wasn't familiar with that quote. But it's always humbling to find that a thought one has been struggling to articulate adequately for years was perfected long before one was born.

What was the original topic, anyway? I've forgotten. :D Sorry.

I'm not sure about the original context of the quote but I got it from here:

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/v/voltaire136298.html

I think this started out as a discussion of "The Law" and we hi-jacked to education :eek:

Who cares right now anyway? I'm just trying to kill time 'til midnight central time just to be on the safe side :o

[nexalacer]

By the Legislator.
Laws are made by the collective force of man.
Government puts laws into place to give defense and justice to the people, something that helps all people. But when they distribute wealth, that doesn't benefit everyone.


Absolutely, distribution of wealth does not benefit everyone and we are quite in agreement on that point of view. But, I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused by your first two answers.

First, what is the "collective force of man"? Are the laws that are made by this force a subjective opinion or are they objective truths?

Now, ignoring those questions, if the laws are made by the "collective force of man," why do legislators need to be involved in the process of putting the laws in effect?

If the laws do not help all people (such as forced public education, various types of prohibition, or gun control), can we say that the government is giving justice?

I'm also curious, what has the American government "protected" in the last 200 years? Besides Pearl Harbor, which was an attack on a US territory that was provoked by Roosevelt's embargo of Japan and was known about in advance by Roosevelt, when has America actually been under threat of invasion since the war of 1812?


Get new legislators.

Well, the most recent example of this tactic was 2006... people got new legislators to attempt to stop the unwanted war in Iraq... and you know the result of that.

Can you give me any examples of when a change in legislators actually led to a decrease in government power and entitlements? I've read a few books on the subject and I can't seem to recall any.


To defend and give justice to her people.

Why don't the people defend and give justice to themselves? If the government is of, by, and for the people, why do they get special powers that the people themselves are not free to have?

[0zzy]

Laws are put into place to give justice and defense to all people under the eyes of the law. They are made to protect one man from violating another man's life or property, or an outside nation from invading. In a Republic where you have apathetic and uninformed people, you'll end up with results like 2006.

[beerista]

Great analysis, but I have a few questions for anyone willing to field them.
1) It says laws are put into place but by whom? If laws are not natural and made by someone, then that would be government, correct? If the government puts laws into place, why do they have nothing to offer?
I believe the implication is that government has nothing material of its own to offer. That is, anything that government may use to bribe the subjects for their acquiescence must first be taken from someone else. Hence, government is "that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else."


2) If we assume that the government's proper role is to put forward the laws of society, then what are we to do about the fact that the individuals in the government, the legislators, pervert the laws they are supposed to put forward for society?
This problem is the origin of the phrase "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance." We understand, or should understand, human nature well enough to know that we should never once take our eyes off of those who would seek to hold power.


3) If the government and the legislators are perverting the laws of society, why do we give them that power in the first place?
Personally, I think this is great question and my personal jury is still out on whether it's a good idea to do so. But the general idea is that we fear the individual actions of our neighbors more than we fear the concerted actions of our representatives. Again, I'm not sure that our fears aren't misplaced. Perhaps the logic here is that a large gang may be more powerful than a bunch of small gangs, but at least it's easier to keep an eye on?

[nexalacer]

Laws are put into place to give justice and defense to all people under the eyes of the law.

This is a tautological definition. It does not answer my questions.


They are made to protect one man from violating another man's life or property, or an outside nation from invading.

Do laws keep one man from violating another man's life or property? I don't think so. They do provide punishment in the case of such a violation, but protection?

How do laws protect an outside nation from invading? And again, when was the last invasion of the American mainland?


In a Republic where you have apathetic and uninformed people, you'll end up with results like 2006.

Well, the two major Republics in the history of the world, America and Rome, both ended up with apathetic and uniformed people. The people in the government have always known the effects of "bread and circuses" to keep people apathetic and even in today's hi-tech media, since it's controlled by said government through the FCC and licenses, of course the people are uninformed.

So let's look further back in history. When people were MORE informed, the early 19th century (before the drop in literacy that came with public education), can you find an example of the American government actually decreasing its power through the election of better legislators?

[0zzy]

This is a tautological definition. It does not answer my questions.



Do laws keep one man from violating another man's life or property? I don't think so. They do provide punishment in the case of such a violation, but protection?

How do laws protect an outside nation from invading? And again, when was the last invasion of the American mainland?



Well, the two major Republics in the history of the world, America and Rome, both ended up with apathetic and uniformed people. The people in the government have always known the effects of "bread and circuses" to keep people apathetic and even in today's hi-tech media, since it's controlled by said government through the FCC and licenses, of course the people are uninformed.

So let's look further back in history. When people were MORE informed, the early 19th century (before the drop in literacy that came with public education), can you find an example of the American government actually decreasing its power through the election of better legislators?

STOP QUESTING ME! READ THE BOOK! IM JUST A BOY!

:D

[nexalacer]

I believe the implication is that government has nothing material of its own to offer. That is, anything that government may use to bribe the subjects for their acquiescence must first be taken from someone else. Hence, government is "that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else."

Ahh, then even its sole "righteous" purposes, defense and justice, are funded by that which is taken from someone else. Would you agree that a universal moral principle can be stated as, "you should not steal"? If this is the case, what change occurs that makes this universal moral principle invalid for the people in the government who must steal in order to maintain their "righteous" purposes? If they use an unrighteous means to secure the righteous ends, are the ends still righteous?


This problem is the origin of the phrase "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance." We understand, or should understand, human nature well enough to know that we should never once take our eyes off of those who would seek to hold power.

Of course, this quote would be absolutely true even if there was not a government, I am quite sure. The interesting question is, if we understand human nature well enough to know that we should never take our eyes off of those who would seek to hold power, why do we not just take the next logical step and not give them the opportunity to hold the power in the first place?


Personally, I think this is great question and my personal jury is still out on whether it's a good idea to do so. But the general idea is that we fear the individual actions of our neighbors more than we fear the concerted actions of our representatives. Again, I'm not sure that our fears aren't misplaced. Perhaps the logic here is that a large gang may be more powerful than a bunch of small gangs, but at least it's easier to keep an eye on?

I'm always amazed when people tell me they fear their neighbors more than the government. I mean, do your neighbors put a gun in your face and demand ~50% of your income every year on threat of death? Does even the local mafia or gang do this?

People like to talk about the violent nature of human beings, but the number of homicides in the 20th century were approximately 8.5 million, by very rough estimates. The number of deaths at the hands of government is between 170 and 260 million. Even if the murders were off by a factor of 5, that is still a difference of 650% in favor for the state as the most dangerous entity to mankind in the world.

Then look at your own life. How many people do you know in your own life that use violence to achieve their ends? Do you demand a rent decrease from your landlord at gunpoint? Did you enter your relationship with your significant other by means of your trusty .45? Do you threaten your children with death if they don't do their homework? Do you know ANYONE who does any of these things or anything even CLOSE to these things? Human beings are, as a rule, non-violent. There are environmental and genetic factors that can alter this rule, but there are always exceptions to rules.

As far as giving one gang power in order to watch over them rather than manage a bunch of smaller gangs, I, too, am concerned that our fears are misplaced. First of all, in the 20th century, all of the power of the smaller gangs has been increased by government laws enacting prohibition. The mafia deals mostly with and gets their income from prostitution, gambling, and narcotics. Prohibition covers prostitution, gambling, and narcotics. I don't think that's a coincidence.

Secondly, if local gangs are a problem, why give any other GANG the authority to demand payment for their protection. Why not HIRE a company, whom you can drop at anytime, to provide such services? If they only exist by your satisfaction that continues to bring them income, they will not abuse your good graces because you would simply choose another company to provide your protection.

[nexalacer]

STOP QUESTING ME! READ THE BOOK! IM JUST A BOY!

:D

Ah, then your mind is much more capable of asking these questions than my own. ;)

I encourage you to find the answers to these questions and never stop asking questions until you are satisfied with the answers. :D

[beerista]

Of course, this quote would be absolutely true even if there was not a government, I am quite sure. The interesting question is, if we understand human nature well enough to know that we should never take our eyes off of those who would seek to hold power, why do we not just take the next logical step and not give them the opportunity to hold the power in the first place?

I'm reminded of one of my favorite quotes from Jefferson: "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." I often think that history has answered this question pretty well.


People like to talk about the violent nature of human beings, but the number of homicides in the 20th century were approximately 8.5 million, by very rough estimates. The number of deaths at the hands of government is between 170 and 260 million. Even if the murders were off by a factor of 5, that is still a difference of 650% in favor for the state as the most dangerous entity to mankind in the world.

I think it's entirely appropriate to talk about the violent nature of man. But I think that, as I imagine the Jefferson quote above to illustrate, we should specify that man is particularly violent toward man when he feels he has power over him. Obviously numbers like those you've posted above are notoriously difficult to pin down. The subset of the figure you site that I find particularly interesting is the number of people murdered not just by government, but by their own government, which I've heard various figures for, but those figures hover between 100 million and 150 million. The devil's bargain of hiring one gang to save us from others seems just that much more ill-advised in light of such figures.

All that being said, and while I flirt with the idea of minarchy at times, I'll happily settle for a good constitutional republic... if we can keep it.

Pardon me: my time zone just came up and I've got to go give the good doctor some money.

[Malakai0]

I work part time keeping booking and do website design part time and my husband works 3rd shift so one of us is always home with our youngest (our eldest two are now in their twenties and out of school). I find that where there's a will, there's a way. Of course, we drive old cars that have been paid off for years and don't eat out much but we made a decision about what our priorities are and are doing our best to stick to it. It's not all a bed of roses but when I listen to my children (even our 8 year old) talking to other adults about politics, the economy and history, I'm reminded that we made the RIGHT decision for us and for our children.

You guys are fine Americans. I will endevour to as good a job as a parent as you guys have <3.


This thread turned out great. Intellectual discourse at it's finest! And 2 good writings to check out.

[Bradley in DC]

Laws are put into place to give justice and defense to all people under the eyes of the law. They are made to protect one man from violating another man's life or property, or an outside nation from invading. In a Republic where you have apathetic and uninformed people, you'll end up with results like 2006.

Law originally was the enforcement of custom (often religiously based) which is the source of law (ius commune). Then there was a transition toward individual responsibility, property rules and evolution of contracts. These eventually become codified over time but were not the creation of governments or "lawmakers."

(There are three types of law, actually: Ecclesiastical or Cannon law of the Church, civil law, and the Lex Mercatoria or Law Merchant which includes maritime law.)

Yes, the customs developed and were reinforced so that the punishment for breaking them became a deterrent and source of protection.

[JaylieWoW]

I believe the implication is that government has nothing material of its own to offer. That is, anything that government may use to bribe the subjects for their acquiescence must first be taken from someone else. Hence, government is "that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else."

I think this statement should be used as the definition of what government is in every dictionary! The bolded portion specifically.

I also have read The Law by Bastiat and it is an awesome read not only for the ideas but also because (as stated above) it is short and to the point.

The "cause" that brought me around to Ron Paul is the rights of parents. Specifically, how non-custodial parents, who are no harm to their children, experience the very worst government has to offer. In fact, I'd say the plight of non-custodial parents shows exactly how invasive the government has become.

I've started myself a notebook of my "studies". In it I am collecting essays, books and other information specifically related to, as Mises put it, human action and the Austrian school of thought. I can't even begin to tell you how thrilled I am at the resources available for free from the Mises organization.

My notebook starts off with the following page:

http://www.cagle.com/working/011010/bennett.jpg

The first section of my notebook is The Law by Frederic Bastiat (http://www.mises.org/studyguide.aspx?action=subject&Id=117).

The next section is The Income Tax: Root of all Evil by Frank Chodorov.

I also liked, The Rise and Fall of Society from Chodorv as well.

Basically when someone recommends something I check it out, thus the reason I jump around a lot from author to author. I am also reading Economics for Real People by Gene Callahan (http://www.mises.org/store/Economics-for-Real-People-An-Introduction-to-the-Austrian-School-2nd-edition-P116C0.aspx) which is an introduction to the Austrian School of Economics. I have not finished it yet, but thus far it is an excellent read with modern day examples (the TV show Survivor even) of human action. The link takes you to the Mises store, but the entire E-book is available in .pdf format for download (for free though if you can afford to purchase the publisher volume it would certainly help the Mises organization out). (Note: I don't work for Mises, I just like to spread the word about them, the more people that start considering the Austrian point of view the better).

I highly recommend all of these in your "liberty" lessons.

Bastiat (et al) is a subject that considerably interests me but I'd like to point out that I was much happier when I didn't consider any of the things I now know about. :D

[MS0453]

That's a good list Jaylie. Economics in One Lessons is also a great intro book (great all around really) for people to add to their "libraries".

[m4ff3w]

End the plunder!

The Law is my favorite book.

[beerista]

I think this statement should be used as the definition of what government is in every dictionary! The bolded portion specifically.
Yeah, I wish I could take credit for the bolded portion. :(

The "cause" that brought me around to Ron Paul is the rights of parents.
I've heard a number of parents "testify" that this is what brought them around. Frankly, I'm amazed that more parents don't become outraged into awareness.

I can't even begin to tell you how thrilled I am at the resources available for free from the Mises organization.
I particularly like all the audio lectures available for lazy people like me. :)

My notebook starts off with the following page:
http://www.cagle.com/working/011010/bennett.jpg
I LOVE that image. Is it proprietary? Can I steal it?

I am also reading Economics for Real People by Gene Callahan (http://www.mises.org/store/Economics-for-Real-People-An-Introduction-to-the-Austrian-School-2nd-edition-P116C0.aspx) which is an introduction to the Austrian School of Economics.
I'll second this recommendation; turns the big, scary subject of economics :eek: into common sense.

I'd like to point out that I was much happier when I didn't consider any of the things I now know about. :D
LOL, LOL. Yeah, weren't we all? Back when I was more concerned about toeing the Rush party line and lung power, I "won" a lot more arguments, too. :o

[murrayrothbard]

The only problem with Bastiat in this essay is that his "Legislator" that lays down the "Law" must also be an individual or a group of them, which in order to go about their "Lawgiving" must engage in the very act of plunder that Bastiat so eloquently decries. So how can this dilemma be resolved?

Note: nexalacer i know what you are up to... ;)

[nexalacer]

The only problem with Bastiat in this essay is that his "Legislator" that lays down the "Law" must also be an individual or a group of them, which in order to go about their "Lawgiving" must engage in the very act of plunder that Bastiat so eloquently decries. So how can this dilemma be resolved?

Note: nexalacer i know what you are up to... ;)

:o Just a little Socratic method.... nothin' wrong with that ;)

[Omnis]

"The Law" was what guided me to Liberty.