Pete's Place

Randomness... Theology... Philosophy... Politics...

My Photo
Name:
Location: Washington, United States

I'm a 16-year-old conservative homeschooler with a passion for sports, philosophy, and theology. Eschatologically you could place me closer to the Amillenial position than anything else... I'm a Reformed Presbyterian, so what did you expect? :)

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

The Law: Part I

Well, for starters, I’m terribly sorry it’s been a few weeks since my last update… Just keep in mind that it’s my blogging motto not to just post for the sake of posting. I need to have something worthwhile to say if I’m going to post at all. Oh, and by the way, ORANGE ROCKS! :)

Given that premise, today’s “worthwhile subject” is actually sort of a book review/informal essay on law—what it is, why it is needed, and what it protects against in terms of malevolent behavior. But I also want to talk a bit about how under the protection of law, immoral and inhumane establishments have been instituted by the lawmakers. Hope this is of at least some interest to ya’ll!

Okay, I mentioned that this is also like a book review in a sense… The book is an amazingly excellent little treatise mainly about how socialism inevitably leads to complete communism. Now, maybe you’re thinking right now that, “What does that have to do with law?” Well, as it turns out, it has a great deal to do with it. In fact, the unavoidable demise of socialism/communism has so much to do with law, that this book is indeed entitled “The Law.” It was written, surprisingly, some short time before 1850 which was the year that it was first published. The genius behind the authoring of it appeared in the form a man named Frederic Bastiat—a Frenchman who lived through the “glorious” revolution of France and tried desperately to stop his country’s plunge into the socialistic structure of government and culture. Sadly, he had a short life of only 49 years which ended the same year that this book was published.

Well, now that you’ve got a little background, allow me to begin. :)

First of all, what is law? How should it be defined? It is, as Bastiat puts it, “The collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.” He goes on to say that every man has the God-given right to protect the three most important qualities of life: a person’s faculties, his liberty, and his property. These basic elements are inseparable. To preserve one is to preserve them all. “For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

Now, it is based upon this premise above that the law was initially established by men. After all, if one man has as much of a right as another man to protect these three possessons, then it is perfectly permissible that a corporate system be formed to protect these rights.

But, as Mr. Bastiat goes on to say, the law certainly does not fail to surpass it’s proper limitations; limitations which would keep it doing only that which it was founded for. Namely, protecting the rights of those who formed it. Historically however, it always ends up giving “legal” protection for acts which go completely against it’s foundations truths and purposes. How does this happen and what are the results? Law becomes distorted into an indistinct mess of good and bad rules by two main evils of mankind: greed and false philanthropy.

Man is forever trying to find ways to gain the most advantage with the least effort. This means that the means by which he makes any gain at all is often by the sweat of another man’s brow. Monopolies, dishonesty in trade, slavery, and wars all result from some man or some men whose greed pushes them to squeeze the greatest from other with the least amount of effort.

So what’s the easiest way dishonestly take the most at another man’s expense (in terms of labor and pain)? Make the taking legal, of course. If someone can legalize stealing, who would work? We would all just go to someone’s house and take whatever we want and they would do the same to us. Society and culture would go down the drain if that happened, no? Obviously, this was an example. Nothing quite so drastic has ever really been done, but nevertheless, lawful plunder is, even now, pervading countries around the world. Income tax, property tax, product tax, these are synonymous with stealing when the money is used for purposes beyond the protection of property, liberty, and human faculties. And it is particularly evil when it is used to promote immoral practices that go against the conscience of the tax payer. All it is is a nice way to say the bitter truth, that’s all.

Now, man naturally is inclined to go to great measures to avoid pain, right? And since pain is equal to labor, men will always resort to stealing whenever it is easier and less painful than work. Obviously, then, it becomes apparent that the law’s true purpose is always to make stealing painful and thus eliminating the mass plunder factor inevitable in any society where physical means are crucially necessary for even just basic existence (and since this defines every single society on earth, heaven is the only place where prevent of evil by means of law will be unnecessary).

Unfortunately, there is only ever one man or a group of men who tend to the laws and make new ones. And since man’s natural desire is for gain without pain, a corrupt corporation of men is hardly avoidable at some point in a country’s history. This group of men can easily make legal the act of stealing and initiate harmless sounding programs such as the “graduated income tax” which started so small that no-one could feel it. Now, however, there is such a thing as a 60% overall tax bracket for a single income. 60% people! So now what started as something to stop the act of stealing and other lawlessness has become its own invincible enemy. Justified stealing can hardly be fought by the common man when it comes in the form of automatic exacting from a monthly paycheck. He can’t pull out a gun and tell it to leave his house. And if he refuses to pay (something which, in and of itself, would be quite hard to arrange), jail or worse stares him in the face.

And yet, even if all men unite to fight the commonly felt evil of legal plunder, then those who rebel to take over the tyrants then themselves suddenly feel the power of government and proceed to participate in the justified stealing they had just fought to destroy. Their excuse is that they are punishing the domineering class which had so recently plundered them. Greed and want of power will never cease to be a pervading problem in the world until the return of Christ, so the cycle has repeated itself many times.

What is a viable proposition of reform to address to this huge problem of legalizing crime? To restrict the law itself. If the law is, by law, restricted to exclusively protecting human rights and properties, what person, as Bastiat says, “would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?

I found Mr. Bastiat’s short remarks about the state of the USA (written in 1850, mind you) of particular interest and I will end part I of this topic with this quotation:

…Even in the United States, there are two issues-and only two-that have always endangered the public peace. What are these two issues? They are slavery and tariffs. These are the only two issues where, contrary to the general spirit of the republic of the United States, law has assumed the character of a plunderer. Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property. It is a most remarkable thing that this double legal crime-a sorrowful inheritance from the Old World-should be the only issue which can, and perhaps will, lead to the ruin of the Union.

I have to give it to this man that he had incredible vision. I mean, if you look at the state of affairs in the US today, exactly what he said would happen, has happened. That’s not to say that this still isn’t the best place to live when given a choice of nationality, but just look at the amount of graduated income tax Americans now have to pay! It’s insane!

I’ll just say something else really quick: I’ve heard many Christians say that, since Christ said that we are to “render unto Caesar that which is Caesars” we should pay our taxes without question. But have they stopped and thought about exactly what those taxes go toward? We are beyond rendering unto Caesar what is due him. We are now funding things which directly contradict the teachings of Christ. Is that something He would say to continue doing without question? Just take a look at our school system. Evolution, sex, and other abominations are rampant in today’s schools. And not only that, but these things are promoted and taught! It’s definitely something to think about.

Thoughts anybody? Don’t hesitate to bring up things you think I’m wrong on. I’m completely open to correction where I may (indeed, most likely) have failed in my deductions!

Signing off…

|