November 1, 2022 • 10 mins
View our full collection of podcasts at our website: https://www.solgoodmedia.com
or YouTube channel: https://www.solgood.org/subscribe
or YouTube channel: https://www.solgood.org/subscribe
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Section two. Another effect of thisdeplorable perversion of the law is that it
gives to human passions, and topolitical struggles, and in general, to
politics properly so called an exaggerated importance. I could prove this assertion in a
thousand ways, but I shall confinemyself, by way of an illustration,
(00:22):
to bringing it to bear upon asubject which has of late occupied everybody's mind.
Universal suffrage, whatever may be thoughtof it by the adepts of the
school of Rousseau, which professes tobe very far advanced, by which I
considered twenty centuries behind. Universal suffrageTaking the word in its strictest sense is
(00:43):
not one of those sacred dogmas withrespect to which examination and doubt are crimes.
Serious objections may be made to it. In the first place, the
word universal conceals a gross suffism.There are in France six million inhabitants.
To make the right of suffrage universal, thirty six million electors should be reckoned.
(01:07):
The most extended system reckons only ninemillion. Three persons out of four
then are excluded, and more thanthis they are excluded by the fourth upon
What principle is this exclusion founded uponthe principle of incapacity. Universal suffrage then
means universal suffrage of those who arecapable. In point of facts, who
(01:32):
are the capable are age, sex, and judicial condemnations, the only conditions
to which incapacity is to be attached. On taking a nearer view of the
subject, we may soon perceive thereason why the right of suffrage depends upon
the presumption of incapacity, the mostextended system differing from the most restricted in
(01:55):
the conditions on which this incapacity depends, and which constitute not a difference in
principle but in degree. This motiveis that the elector does not stipulate for
himself, but for everybody. If, as the republicans of the Greek and
Roman tone pretend, the right ofsuffrage has fallen to the lot of everyone
(02:17):
at his birth, it would bean injustice to adults to prevent women and
children from voting. Why are theyprevented because they are presumed to be incapable,
And why is incapacity a reason forexclusion? Because the elector does not
reap alone the responsibility of his vote, Because every vote engages and affects the
(02:39):
community at large, Because the communityhas a right to demand some assurances as
regards the acts upon which its wellbeing and its existence depend. I know
what might be said in answer tothis, I know what might be objected.
But this is not the place tosettle a diversity of this kind.
(03:00):
What I wish to observe is thisthat this same controversy, in common with
the greater part of political questions,that agitates, excites, and unsettles the
nations, would lose almost all itsimportance if the law had always been what
it ought to be. In fact, if law were confined to causing all
(03:22):
persons, all liberties, and allproperties to be respected, if it were
merely the organization of individual right andindividual defense, if it were the obstacle,
the check the chastisement opposed to alloppression, to all plunder. Is
it likely that we should dispute muchas citizens, on the subject of greater
(03:44):
or lesser universality of suffrage. Isit likely that it would compromise that greatest
of advantages the public peace. Isit likely that the excluded classes would not
quietly wait for their turn. Isit likely that the enfranchised classes would be
very jealous of their privilege? Andis it not clear that the interest of
(04:09):
all being one and the same,some would act without much inconvenience to the
others. But if the fatal principleshould come to be introduced, that,
under pretense of organization, regulation,protection, or encouragement, the law may
take from one party in order togive to another, help itself to the
(04:30):
wealth acquired by all the classes,that it may increase that of one class,
whether that of the agriculturalists, themanufacturers, the ship owners, or
artists and comedians. Then certainly,in this case there is no class which
may not try, and with reasonto place its hand upon the law,
that would not demand with fury itsright of election and eligibility, and that
(04:55):
would overturn society rather than not obtainit. Even beggars and vagabonds will prove
to you that they have an incontestabletitle to it. They will say,
we never buy wine, tobacco,or salt without paying the tax. And
a part of this tax is givenby law in perquisites and gratuities to men
(05:16):
who are richer than we are.Others make use of the law to create
an artificial rise in the price ofbread, meat, iron, or cloth.
Since everybody trafficks in law for hisown profit. We should like to
do the same. We should liketo make it produce the right to assistance,
which is the poor man's plunder.To effect this, we ought to
(05:39):
be electors and legislators that we mayorganize on a large scale alms for our
own class, as you have organizedon a large scale protection for yours.
Don't tell us that you will takeour cause upon yourselves and throw to us
six hundred thousand francs to keep usquiet, like giving us a bone to
(06:00):
pick. We have other claims,and at any rate we wish to stipulate
for ourselves as other classes have stipulatedfor themselves. How is this argument to
be answered? Yes, as longas it is admitted that the law may
be diverted from its true mission,that it may violate property instead of securing
(06:23):
it, everybody will be wanting tomanufacture law, either to defend himself against
plunder or to organize it for hisown profit. The political question will always
be prejudicial, predominant, and absorbing. In a word, there will be
fighting around the door of the legislativepalace. The struggle will be no less
(06:45):
furious within it. To be convincedof this, it is hardly necessary to
look at what passes in the chambersin France and in England. It is
enough to know how the question stands. Is there any need to prove that
this odious perversion of law is aperpetual source of hatred and discord, that
it even tends to social disorganization?Look at the United States. There is
(07:12):
no country in the world where thelaw is kept more within its proper domain,
which is to secure to everyone hisliberty and his property. Therefore,
there is no country in the worldwhere social order appears to rest upon a
more solid basis. Nevertheless, evenin the United States, there are two
questions, and only two, thatfrom the beginning have endangered political order.
(07:39):
And what are these two questions?That of slavery and that of tariffs?
That is, precisely the only twoquestions in which, contrary to the general
spirit of this republic, law hastaken the character of a plunderer. Slavery
is a violation sanctioned by law ofthe rights of the person. Protection is
(08:01):
a violation perpetrated by the law uponthe rights of property. And certainly,
it is very remarkable that, inthe midst of so many other debates,
this double legal scourge, the sorrowfulinheritance of the old world, should be
the only one which can and perhapswill, cause the rupture of the Union.
(08:22):
Indeed, a more astounding fact inthe heart of society cannot be conceived
than this, that law should havebecome an instrument of injustice. And if
this fact occasions consequences so formidable tothe United States, where there is but
one exception, what must it bewith us in Europe, where it is
(08:43):
a principle a system. Mister Montelambert, adopting the thought of a famous proclamation
of mister Collier, said we mustmake war against socialism, and by socialism
according to the definition of mister CharlesJapine, he meant plunder. But what
plunder did he mean? For thereare two sorts extra legal and legal plunder.
(09:11):
As to extra legal plunder, suchas theft or swindling, which is
defined, foreseen and punished by thepenal code, I do not think it
can be adorned by the name ofsocialism. It is not this that systematically
threatens the foundations of society. Besides, the war against this kind of plunder
has not waited for the signal ofmister Bontelambert or mister Cordier. It has
(09:37):
gone on since the beginning of theworld. France was carrying it on long
or before the Revolution of February,long before the appearance of socialism, with
all its ceremonies of magistry, police, jean d'armorie, prisons, dungeons and
scaffolds. It is the law itselfthat is conducting this war, and it
(09:58):
is to be wished, in myopinion, that the law should always maintain
this attitude with respect to plunder.But this is not the case. The
law sometimes takes its own part.Sometimes it accomplishes it with its own hands,
in order to save the parties benefited, the shame, the danger and
the scruple. Sometimes it places allthis ceremony of magistracy, police, gendarmerie
(10:24):
and prisons at the service of theplunderer, and treats the plundered party when
he defends himself as a criminal.In a word, there is a legal
plunder, and it is no doubtthis that is meant by mister Montalambert end
of Section two
Section two. Another effect of thisdeplorable perversion of the law is that it
gives to human passions, and topolitical struggles, and in general, to
politics properly so called an exaggerated importance. I could prove this assertion in a
thousand ways, but I shall confinemyself, by way of an illustration,
(00:22):
to bringing it to bear upon asubject which has of late occupied everybody's mind.
Universal suffrage, whatever may be thoughtof it by the adepts of the
school of Rousseau, which professes tobe very far advanced, by which I
considered twenty centuries behind. Universal suffrageTaking the word in its strictest sense is
(00:43):
not one of those sacred dogmas withrespect to which examination and doubt are crimes.
Serious objections may be made to it. In the first place, the
word universal conceals a gross suffism.There are in France six million inhabitants.
To make the right of suffrage universal, thirty six million electors should be reckoned.
(01:07):
The most extended system reckons only ninemillion. Three persons out of four
then are excluded, and more thanthis they are excluded by the fourth upon
What principle is this exclusion founded uponthe principle of incapacity. Universal suffrage then
means universal suffrage of those who arecapable. In point of facts, who
(01:32):
are the capable are age, sex, and judicial condemnations, the only conditions
to which incapacity is to be attached. On taking a nearer view of the
subject, we may soon perceive thereason why the right of suffrage depends upon
the presumption of incapacity, the mostextended system differing from the most restricted in
(01:55):
the conditions on which this incapacity depends, and which constitute not a difference in
principle but in degree. This motiveis that the elector does not stipulate for
himself, but for everybody. If, as the republicans of the Greek and
Roman tone pretend, the right ofsuffrage has fallen to the lot of everyone
(02:17):
at his birth, it would bean injustice to adults to prevent women and
children from voting. Why are theyprevented because they are presumed to be incapable,
And why is incapacity a reason forexclusion? Because the elector does not
reap alone the responsibility of his vote, Because every vote engages and affects the
(02:39):
community at large, Because the communityhas a right to demand some assurances as
regards the acts upon which its wellbeing and its existence depend. I know
what might be said in answer tothis, I know what might be objected.
But this is not the place tosettle a diversity of this kind.
(03:00):
What I wish to observe is thisthat this same controversy, in common with
the greater part of political questions,that agitates, excites, and unsettles the
nations, would lose almost all itsimportance if the law had always been what
it ought to be. In fact, if law were confined to causing all
(03:22):
persons, all liberties, and allproperties to be respected, if it were
merely the organization of individual right andindividual defense, if it were the obstacle,
the check the chastisement opposed to alloppression, to all plunder. Is
it likely that we should dispute muchas citizens, on the subject of greater
(03:44):
or lesser universality of suffrage. Isit likely that it would compromise that greatest
of advantages the public peace. Isit likely that the excluded classes would not
quietly wait for their turn. Isit likely that the enfranchised classes would be
very jealous of their privilege? Andis it not clear that the interest of
(04:09):
all being one and the same,some would act without much inconvenience to the
others. But if the fatal principleshould come to be introduced, that,
under pretense of organization, regulation,protection, or encouragement, the law may
take from one party in order togive to another, help itself to the
(04:30):
wealth acquired by all the classes,that it may increase that of one class,
whether that of the agriculturalists, themanufacturers, the ship owners, or
artists and comedians. Then certainly,in this case there is no class which
may not try, and with reasonto place its hand upon the law,
that would not demand with fury itsright of election and eligibility, and that
(04:55):
would overturn society rather than not obtainit. Even beggars and vagabonds will prove
to you that they have an incontestabletitle to it. They will say,
we never buy wine, tobacco,or salt without paying the tax. And
a part of this tax is givenby law in perquisites and gratuities to men
(05:16):
who are richer than we are.Others make use of the law to create
an artificial rise in the price ofbread, meat, iron, or cloth.
Since everybody trafficks in law for hisown profit. We should like to
do the same. We should liketo make it produce the right to assistance,
which is the poor man's plunder.To effect this, we ought to
(05:39):
be electors and legislators that we mayorganize on a large scale alms for our
own class, as you have organizedon a large scale protection for yours.
Don't tell us that you will takeour cause upon yourselves and throw to us
six hundred thousand francs to keep usquiet, like giving us a bone to
(06:00):
pick. We have other claims,and at any rate we wish to stipulate
for ourselves as other classes have stipulatedfor themselves. How is this argument to
be answered? Yes, as longas it is admitted that the law may
be diverted from its true mission,that it may violate property instead of securing
(06:23):
it, everybody will be wanting tomanufacture law, either to defend himself against
plunder or to organize it for hisown profit. The political question will always
be prejudicial, predominant, and absorbing. In a word, there will be
fighting around the door of the legislativepalace. The struggle will be no less
(06:45):
furious within it. To be convincedof this, it is hardly necessary to
look at what passes in the chambersin France and in England. It is
enough to know how the question stands. Is there any need to prove that
this odious perversion of law is aperpetual source of hatred and discord, that
it even tends to social disorganization?Look at the United States. There is
(07:12):
no country in the world where thelaw is kept more within its proper domain,
which is to secure to everyone hisliberty and his property. Therefore,
there is no country in the worldwhere social order appears to rest upon a
more solid basis. Nevertheless, evenin the United States, there are two
questions, and only two, thatfrom the beginning have endangered political order.
(07:39):
And what are these two questions?That of slavery and that of tariffs?
That is, precisely the only twoquestions in which, contrary to the general
spirit of this republic, law hastaken the character of a plunderer. Slavery
is a violation sanctioned by law ofthe rights of the person. Protection is
(08:01):
a violation perpetrated by the law uponthe rights of property. And certainly,
it is very remarkable that, inthe midst of so many other debates,
this double legal scourge, the sorrowfulinheritance of the old world, should be
the only one which can and perhapswill, cause the rupture of the Union.
(08:22):
Indeed, a more astounding fact inthe heart of society cannot be conceived
than this, that law should havebecome an instrument of injustice. And if
this fact occasions consequences so formidable tothe United States, where there is but
one exception, what must it bewith us in Europe, where it is
(08:43):
a principle a system. Mister Montelambert, adopting the thought of a famous proclamation
of mister Collier, said we mustmake war against socialism, and by socialism
according to the definition of mister CharlesJapine, he meant plunder. But what
plunder did he mean? For thereare two sorts extra legal and legal plunder.
(09:11):
As to extra legal plunder, suchas theft or swindling, which is
defined, foreseen and punished by thepenal code, I do not think it
can be adorned by the name ofsocialism. It is not this that systematically
threatens the foundations of society. Besides, the war against this kind of plunder
has not waited for the signal ofmister Bontelambert or mister Cordier. It has
(09:37):
gone on since the beginning of theworld. France was carrying it on long
or before the Revolution of February,long before the appearance of socialism, with
all its ceremonies of magistry, police, jean d'armorie, prisons, dungeons and
scaffolds. It is the law itselfthat is conducting this war, and it
(09:58):
is to be wished, in myopinion, that the law should always maintain
this attitude with respect to plunder.But this is not the case. The
law sometimes takes its own part.Sometimes it accomplishes it with its own hands,
in order to save the parties benefited, the shame, the danger and
the scruple. Sometimes it places allthis ceremony of magistracy, police, gendarmerie
(10:24):
and prisons at the service of theplunderer, and treats the plundered party when
he defends himself as a criminal.In a word, there is a legal
plunder, and it is no doubtthis that is meant by mister Montalambert end
of Section two
Popular Podcasts
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com