|
|
||
To Alter Or To AbolishChapter 34Legal PlunderWritten by Darrell Anderson. A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It only can exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. Often attributed to Scottish historian Alexander Fraser Tytler The transfer of property titles can be voluntary or forced. Without explicit consent to transfer title, or without any previous trespass to create standing for restitution, any forced transfer of property is expropriation of property and a violation of the two cornerstones of justice. All such forced transfers are trespasses. Such forced transfers void the concepts of self, property, rights, contracts, and consent. Yet, such transfers are condoned routinely. People often fail to realize that many wealth and property title transfers are cleverly hidden forms of legal plunder. What is legal plunder? Plunder is the forceful taking of property. Plunder is known more commonly as theft and pillage. Illegal plunder of property never has been condoned within any civilized culture. The word within is important. Plunder often has been recognized and condoned outside of each society, such as in wars or racial disputes. Legal plunder is the forced taking of property under the color of law. Frédéric Bastiat best described the process:[1] When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it — without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud — to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed. Legal plunder, unlike illegal plunder, has been accepted, condoned, and promoted for ages. Legal plunder is an effort to create virtual perpetual motion through the captured labor of other people. Many individuals do not understand or even recognize legal plunder. Bastiat explained how to recognize legal plunder:[2] But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. The desire to enslave other people is not always a direct result of nefarious thinking. Often the desire is cultivated indirectly, by a lack of understanding of the dynamic processes of human interaction. Legal plunder nicely describes the process of acquiring property under the color of law, but also is explained by the almost universal lack of knowledge about those interactive processes. Widely differing worldviews contribute to that confusion and lack of understanding. However, using as a foundation the two cornerstones of justice and the maxims of non-delegation of powers, understanding the abuse and misapplication of laws becomes straightforward once an individual understands human nature and the concept of legal plunder. Legal plunder often is exercised through political systems, specifically the concept of representation. Many individuals believe that consent is provided through political representation. John Locke accepted such an idea as well as many of the Founders of the United States. William Blackstone[3], whose writings many Founders depended upon, also accepted the idea that consent could be provided through representation:[4] . . . no subject of England can be constrained to pay any aids or taxes even for the defense of the realm or the support of government, but such as are imposed by his own consent, or that of his representative in parliament. [Emphasis added.] Patrick Henry, an opponent of the Constitution during the ratification debates, in his Virginia ratification convention speech accepted the idea that consent could be provided through representatives.[5] However, consent does not mean providing permission through the unbalanced processes of voting schemes or representation. First, voting binds only those individuals who vote.[6] Additionally, a vote binds one only for the period to which the vote applies. If participation in a vote is involuntary, then common sense teaches that the vote is meaningless and invalid. These are fundamental components of contracts, that the contract specifies a period of performance, applicability, and a meeting of the minds. There are additional challenges with voting and so-called representation. With most issues voting is not consent but mob rule. Unless 100 percent of all people participate and 100 percent of all people agree on a particular issue, then consent is not being provided by some individuals. Within political systems often those individuals who have not provided consent through voting schemes are being forced and coerced into forfeiting property; or are being forced to participate in the vote merely as a survival tool.[7] Either way such people are being forced to do something they do not want to do. By definition, and by nature, such schemes cannot be by consent. If there is no meeting of the minds, then there is no agreement. Consider a community of 100 people. Fifty-one people vote to approve a property tax and forty-nine people vote against. By modern observations, many individuals would consider the vote “legal,” but 49 people are being coerced into doing something they do not want. Voluntary cooperation no longer is being practiced, but instead force and coercion. Consent has been violated. Furthermore, if the specific issue is about property rights, then 51 people have “sanctioned” themselves to steal from the other 49. Such is the problem with politicized democracy.[8] Consent is not necessarily provide by representation. This was a fundamental error made by the Framers, as well as the Progressives with their idea of initiatives and referendums. Representation is merely one step removed from direct voting. Consider the same community of 100 people, this time “represented” by 5 individuals. Each representative represents 20 people. Three representatives vote for an issue and two representatives do not. Therefore, 40 people are being coerced. What if, of any 20 people being represented, 15 supported an issue but 5 do not? Regardless of how the representative votes, consent will not be honored for the group of people drawing the short straw. Further insulting is the idea that a “representative” votes “on behalf” of an individual who did not vote for the representative. What if, of the 100 people being “represented,” 65 individuals did not vote or voted for individuals who were not elected? Again, those individuals will be coerced into doing something they did not want, through an individual who cannot be said to represent the affected people. Lastly, what if all 100 people vote, but later one individual changes his or her mind? Arguably, that one individual is “bound” during the period of the vote, but that one individual is now doing something without consent. Voting with one’s feet usually is not an option because of contrived artificial political boundaries. Voting based upon a presumption of force and coercion never changes the underlying presumption. Voting in such an environment merely changes who becomes the majority and who gets to plunder under the color of law.[9] Transferring the right of explicit consent to a “majority” is impossible, indeed, contradictory. Nobody has the ability to predict the future and therefore, nobody knows for sure how an individual might respond to various issues. Furthermore, people often change their minds about various issues because they are continually redefining their definition of happiness. Legislators cannot be given blanket power to provide consent on behalf of other people or constituents. A true representative is completely accountable to the individual he or she represents. That means representatives can be fired — at any time. As Lysander Spooner discussed, secret ballots deny all so-called representatives from knowing who they represent. Therefore, no representative can claim to know who is represented. There is and can be only one individual who can truly provide consent — the individual person. Empowering another individual to act on behalf of another requires direct explicit consent. Remember the maxims of the non-delegation of powers. If a single individual has no right or power to rob another, then neither do 100 people have this right or power, nor can any group of people empower other people to do the robbing. Because this power does not exist, the power cannot be embedded in the laws of a specific society. Whenever consent is dishonored then an individual is being forced to act or respond through force and coercion. Representation can succeed, but there must be full disclosure, a meeting of the minds, and honoring of explicit consent. Liberty of action requires a high degree of responsibility and self-government. Legal plunder requires only the color of law to take that which is not rightfully owned. Liberty and legal plunder cannot coexist. As Bastiat noted:[10] It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder. Why are laws abused? The answer is straightforward — human nature. History testifies that some humans, left uncontrolled, use the political process to fulfill their natural desire to sustain energy flows. There is no naturally existing law against self-interest. However, political power often is used to satisfy those tendencies and that is where the problem lies. So-called representative politics is little more than representation of self-interests.[11] Political systems easily provide an indirect way to use force and coercion. Legal plunder usually has been easier than a hard day’s work — not more honest or moral, just easier. People improve their standard of living and sustain energy flows through one of two methods. People can produce and cooperatively exchange goods and services, or they can steal. Stealing can be performed directly or indirectly. Using the color of law and hiding behind the cloak of statism greatly enables legal plunder and allows theft indirectly. In an environment of legal plunder, legislation often is enacted that protects or enhances a particular class of people. In such an environment, rarely can a law be enacted to protect one class of people and at the same time not deprive another class of people. In legal plunder environments, laws are seldom enacted that truly protect and enhance the “health, safety, and welfare” of all people. Most political legislation has its origin in one desire: to plunder other people, enslave them, and hold them as property.[12] The process of government does not exist to protect the health, safety, and welfare of special interests, but exists to protect boundaries and promote social order. Almost all societies and cultures have observed the well-known maxim that “Thou shalt not steal.” Rewritten in a positive manner that statement becomes, “All humans have an absolute right to their property.”[13] The principle of “thou shalt not steal” is popularized from the fundamental laws provided by Moses to the Hebrews:[14]
Observant individuals can see how the rules are embedded in the two cornerstones of justice — the fundamental concept of not trespassing and providing a lawful remedy for trespass. The Hebrew law was not so much a list of duties or obligations, but an outline of what an individual can expect when violating the property boundaries of others. To see the effects of such trespasses, merely remove the word not from each of the Hebrew laws and observe the results. Individuals who live by the sword can expect to die by the sword. Individuals who plunder can expect to be plundered.[15] Such an environment is adversarial raw acquisition and not an environment of production and exchange. Legal plunder deprives all participants of the right to property. Such an environment increases uncertainty and fear. Substitute the words “fiat dictatorial law” for the term “legal plunder” and the intent of the previous sentence remains unchanged. Using the Hebrew Law or the words of Bastiat as a guide, an individual can easily inspect any human law to determine whether the right to enjoy property and the fruits of labor are being undermined. Legal plunder is not only a result of people using the political means of sustaining energy flows. An inherent challenge with legal plunder schemes is that after a group of people have been deprived of the rightful ownership to property, that group then naturally looks for ways to restore ownership — the fundamental process of restitution and restoration. Unfortunately, the original property title typically cannot be restored, and fiat dictatorial law rarely provides a process for restitution. The only “legal” method of providing relief and compensation is “self-help” — to steal — under the color of law — the property of other people. Seeking restoration of property titles through the color of law is simply the process in which frustrated individuals seek to remedy the injustice of the original legal plunder. Bastiat recognized this process as universal plunder.[16] Economists euphemistically refer to this behavior as rent seeking. Rent seeking: actions by individuals and interest groups designed to restructure public policy in a manner that will either directly or indirectly redistribute more income to themselves.[17] Legal plunder provides no practical escape except to suffer or join the circus. Legal plunder is a proverbial snowball. Non-productive individuals use more and more force and coercion to extract from productive people. That effort promotes a desire for more political power or to be aligned with those who possess political power. Property rights become meaningless. Examples of this behavior are overwhelmingly evident: tax exemptions and credits, protective tariffs, public projects, loan guarantees, grants and endowments, and the various levels of social welfare. Other examples include “civil rights” (privileges) legislation where one group of people suffer at the benefit of another group.[18] Civil or legislated privileges deny fundamental natural and contractual rights to create a social system of status and privilege. Illustrations include forced representation through collective bargaining statutes,[19] minimum wage laws, or “affirmative action” laws. Once this madness gains momentum, stopping the insanity is almost impossible. Eventually every individual wants a cut of the pie. Legal plunder is like watching the proverbial dog chase its tail — a vicious cycle. Because legal plunder is institutionalized, people cannot defend against this theft.[20] In short, legal plunder increases social disorder, rather than secure social order. Legal plunder encourages the abuse often found in political system management and the collection and spending of revenues. Because people tend to seek efficient methods for sustaining energy flows, legal plunder tends to increase an individual’s time preferences. Because each individual is concerned with the loss of property through legal plunder, each individual seeks ways to consume more quickly rather than preserve wealth that can be coercively redistributed. As time preferences increase, so does each individual’s desire to enact self-serving laws. That is exactly the challenge now facing America. There are approximately 300 million special interest groups or factions, and 544 different political parties,[21] all attempting through political processes to enslave other people. That number represents the 100 senators and 435 representatives of Congress and the 9 justices of the Supreme Court. The picture represents only a national focus — the same problem exists within state and local political systems. Each group is named “me.” Each group wants a cut of the legal plunder action. All because people fail to understand basic energy flows. All because people have forgotten or forsaken the two cornerstones of justice and the fundamental purpose of the concept of government: to protect boundaries. Consider how Bastiat described the problem more than 150 years ago:[22] The oppressor no longer acts directly by his own force on the oppressed. No, our conscience has become too fastidious for that. There are still, to be sure, the oppressor and his victim, but between them is placed an intermediary, the state, that is, the law itself. What is better fitted to silence our scruples and — and what is perhaps better considered more important — to overcome all resistance? Hence, all of us, with whatever claim, under one pretext or another, address the state. We say to it: “I do not find that there is a satisfactory proportion between my enjoyments and my labor. I should like very much to take a little property of others to establish the desired equilibrium. But that is dangerous. Could you not make it a little easier for me? Could you not find me a good job in the civil service or hinder the industry of my competitors or, still better, give me an interest-free loan of the capital you have taken from its rightful owners or educate my children at the public expense or grant me incentive subsidies or assure my well-being when I shall be fifty years old? By this means I shall reach my goal in all good conscience, for the law itself will have acted for me, and I shall have the advantages of plunder without enduring either the risks or the odium.” Legal plunder is a masked form of adversarial raw acquisition — ”might makes right.” Finis. Next: Chapter 35 — The Free Rider Fallacy Endnotes [1] Bastiat, The Law, p. 26. [2] Bastiat, The Law, p. 21. [3] William Blackstone, 18th century legal philosopher and author of Blackstone’s Commentaries on The Laws of England. [4] Cited by Herbert Spencer, Social Statics, “The Right to Ignore the State,” p. 190. [5] Ketcham, editor, The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Debates, p. 211. [6] Spooner, The Lysander Spooner Reader, “No Treason, No. VI,” Section II. [7] Spooner, The Lysander Spooner Reader, “No Treason, No. II,” p. 75. [8] The argument changes, of course, for explicit voluntary association. [9] Calhoun, A Disquisition on Government, p. 31. [10] Bastiat, The Law, p. 12. [11] Veblen, Thorstein, “The Theory of Business Enterprise,” 1904, reprinted in Views on Capitalism, p. 286. [12] Spooner, The Lysander Spooner Reader, “Vices are not Crimes,” p. 22. [13] Barnard, Draining the Swamp, p. 83. [14] Exodus 20. Only those rules affecting human interaction are listed. [15] Ellul, Anarchy and Christianity, p. 39–40. [16] Bastiat, The Law, p. 23. [17] Gwartney and Stroup, Economics, Private and Public Choice, p. 75. [18] Llewellyn H. Rockwell, “Civil Rights Laws Increase Freedom,” Clichés of Politics, pp. 27–29. [19] Charles W. Baird, “We Must Abide by the Majority. That’s Democracy,” Clichés of Politics, pp. 31–32. [20] Hoppe, Democracy, pp. 13. [21] Naisbitt, Megatrends, p. 177. [22] Bastiat, Selected Essays on Political Economy, “The State.” |
||