November 1, 2022 • 11 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 three. This plunder may beonly an exceptional blemish in the legislation of
a people. And in this case, the best thing that can be done
is, without so many speeches andlamentations, to do away with it as
soon as possible, notwithstanding the clamorsof interested parties. But how is it
(00:23):
to be distinguished? Very easily?See whether the law takes from some persons
that which belongs to them, togive to others what does not belong to
them. See whether the law performsfor the benefit of one citizen and to
the injury of others, And actthat this citizen cannot perform without committing a
(00:45):
crime. Abolish this law without delay. It is not merely an iniquity.
It is a fertile source of iniquities, for it invites reprisals. And if
you do not take care, theexceptional case will extend multiply and become systematic.
No doubt, the party benefit willexclaim loudly, he will assert his
(01:10):
acquired rights. He will say thatthe state is bound to protect and encourage
his industry. He will plead thatit is a good thing for the state
to be enriched, that it mayspend the more. And thus shower down
salaries upon the poor workmen. Takecare not to listen to this sophistry,
for it is just by the systematizingof these arguments that legal plunder becomes systematized.
(01:37):
And this is what has taken place. The delusion of the day is
to enrich all classes at the expenseof each other. It is to generalize
plunder under pretense of organizing that.Now legal plunder may be exercised in an
infinite multitude of ways. Hence comean infinite multitude of plans for organization tariffs,
(02:02):
protection, perquisites, gratuities, encouragements, progressive taxation, free public education,
right to work, right to profit, right to ages, right to
assistance, right to instruments of labor, gratuity of credit, etc. Etc.
(02:22):
And it is all these plans takenas a whole, with what they
have in common legal plunder that takesthe name of socialism. Now socialism thus
defined in forming a doctrinal body.What other war would you make against it
than a war of doctrine. Youfind this doctrine false, absurd, abominable,
(02:46):
refute it. This will be allthe easier, the more false,
absurd and abominable. It is aboveall if you wish to be strong,
begin by rooting out of your leguredistillation every particle of socialism which may have
crept into it, and this willbe no light work. Mister Montelambert has
(03:08):
been reproached with wishing to turn bruteforce against socialism. He ought to be
exonerated from this reproach, for hehas plainly said, quote the war that
we must make against socialism must beone that is compatible with the law,
honor and justice close quote. Buthow is it that mister Montelambert does not
(03:34):
see that he is placing himself inefficient circle. You would oppose law to
socialism, But it is the lawthat socialism invokes. It aspires to legal,
not extra legal plunder. It isof the law itself, like the
monopolists of all kinds, that itwants to make an instrument. And when
(03:54):
once it has the law on itsside, how will you be able to
turn the law against it? Howwill you place it under the power of
your tribunals, your gendarmes, andyour presence. What will you do?
Then, you wish to prevent itfrom taking any part in the making of
laws, you would keep it outsidethe legislative palace. In this you will
(04:18):
not succeed by venture to prophesy.So long as legal plunder is the basis
of the legislation within it is absolutelynecessary that this question of legal plunder should
be determined. And there are onlythree solutions of it, One when the
(04:38):
few plunder the many, two wheneverybody plunders everybody else, and three when
nobody plunders anybody, partial plunder,universal plunder, absence of plunder. Amongst
these we have to make our choice. The law can only produce one of
(04:59):
these results, partial plunder. Thisis the system that prevailed so long as
the elective privilege was partial, asystem that is resorted to to avoid the
invasion of socialism universal plunder. Wehave been threatened by this system when the
elective privilege has become universal, themasses having conceived the idea of making law
(05:25):
on the principle of legislators who havepreceded them, absence of plunder. This
is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, conciliation, and
of good sense, which I shallproclaim with all the force of my lungs,
which is very inadequate alas till theday of my death, and in
(05:47):
all sincerity can anything more be requiredat the hands of the law. Can
the law, whose necessary sanction isforced be reasonably employed upon anything beyond securing
to everyone his right? I defyanyone to remove it from this circle without
perverting it and consequently turning force againstright. And as this is the most
(06:13):
faintal, the most illogical social perversionthat can possibly be imagined, it must
be admitted that the true solution,so much sought after of the social problem
is contained in these simple words.Law is organized justice. Now, it
is important to remark that to organizejustice by law, that is to say,
(06:38):
by force, excludes the idea oforganizing by law or by force any
manifestation what error of human activity,labor, charity, agriculture, commerce,
industry, instruction, the fine,arts, or religion, for any one
of these organizings would inevitably destroy theessential organization. How, in fact,
(07:02):
can we imagine force encroaching upon theliberty of citizens without infringing upon justice and
so acting against its proper aim.Here I am taking on the most popular
prejudice of our time. It isnot considered enough that law should be just,
It must be philanthropic. It isnot sufficient that it should guarantee to
(07:27):
every citizen the free and inoffensive exerciseof his faculties apply to his physical,
intellectual, and moral development. Itis required to extend well being, instruction,
and morality directly over the nation.This is a fascinating side of socialism.
But I repeat it. These twomissions of the law contradict each other.
(07:51):
We have to choose between them.A citizen cannot at the same time
be free and not free. Misterde Lamartine wrote to me one day thus,
quote, your doctrine is only thehalf of my program. You have
stopped at liberty. I go onto fraternity close quote. I answered him.
(08:16):
Quote the second part of your programwill destroy the first close quote.
And in fact, it is impossiblefor me to separate the word fraternity from
the word voluntary. I cannot possiblyconceive fraternity legally in force without liberty being
legally destroyed and justice legally trampled underfoot. Legal plunder has two roots.
(08:43):
One of them, as we havealready seen, is in human greed.
The other is in misconceived philanthropy.Before I proceed, I think I ought
to explain myself upon the word plunder. I do not take it as it
often is taken in a vague,undefined, relative or metaphorical sense. I
(09:05):
use it in its scientific acceptation,and as expressing the opposite idea to property.
When a portion of wealth passes outof the hands of him who has
acquired it without his consent, andwithout compensation to him who has not created
it, whether by force or byartifice, I say that property is violated,
(09:30):
that plunder is perpetrated. I saythat this is exactly what the law
ought to repress. Always and everywhere. If the law itself performs the action
it ought to repress, I saythat plunder is still perpetrated, and even
in a social point of view,under aggravated circumstances. In this case,
(09:52):
however, he who profits from theplunder is not responsible for it. It
is the law, the law giver, society itself, and this is where
the political danger lies. It isto be regretted that there is something offensive
in the word I have sought invain for another. For I would not
(10:13):
wish at any time, and especiallyjust now, to add an irritating word
to our disagreements. Therefore, whetherI am believed or not, I declare
that I do not mean to impugnethe intentions, nor the morality of anybody.
I am attacking an idea that Ibelieve to be false, a system
(10:35):
that appears to me to be unjust. And this is so independent of intentions
that each of us profits by itwithout wishing it, and suffers from it
without being aware of the cause.Any person must write, under the influence
of party spirit or of fear,who would call into question the sincerity of
protectionism, of socialism, and evenof communism, which are the one and
(11:01):
the same plant in three different periodsof growth. All that can be said
is that plunder is more visible byits partiality in protectionism, and by its
universality in communism. Whence it followsthat of the three systems, socialism is
still the most vague, the mostundefined, and consequently the most sincere.
(11:28):
Be that, as it may,to conclude that legal plunder has one of
its roots in misconceived philanthropy, isevidently to put intentions out of the question.
End of Section three
Section three. This plunder may beonly an exceptional blemish in the legislation of
a people. And in this case, the best thing that can be done
is, without so many speeches andlamentations, to do away with it as
soon as possible, notwithstanding the clamorsof interested parties. But how is it
(00:23):
to be distinguished? Very easily?See whether the law takes from some persons
that which belongs to them, togive to others what does not belong to
them. See whether the law performsfor the benefit of one citizen and to
the injury of others, And actthat this citizen cannot perform without committing a
(00:45):
crime. Abolish this law without delay. It is not merely an iniquity.
It is a fertile source of iniquities, for it invites reprisals. And if
you do not take care, theexceptional case will extend multiply and become systematic.
No doubt, the party benefit willexclaim loudly, he will assert his
(01:10):
acquired rights. He will say thatthe state is bound to protect and encourage
his industry. He will plead thatit is a good thing for the state
to be enriched, that it mayspend the more. And thus shower down
salaries upon the poor workmen. Takecare not to listen to this sophistry,
for it is just by the systematizingof these arguments that legal plunder becomes systematized.
(01:37):
And this is what has taken place. The delusion of the day is
to enrich all classes at the expenseof each other. It is to generalize
plunder under pretense of organizing that.Now legal plunder may be exercised in an
infinite multitude of ways. Hence comean infinite multitude of plans for organization tariffs,
(02:02):
protection, perquisites, gratuities, encouragements, progressive taxation, free public education,
right to work, right to profit, right to ages, right to
assistance, right to instruments of labor, gratuity of credit, etc. Etc.
(02:22):
And it is all these plans takenas a whole, with what they
have in common legal plunder that takesthe name of socialism. Now socialism thus
defined in forming a doctrinal body.What other war would you make against it
than a war of doctrine. Youfind this doctrine false, absurd, abominable,
(02:46):
refute it. This will be allthe easier, the more false,
absurd and abominable. It is aboveall if you wish to be strong,
begin by rooting out of your leguredistillation every particle of socialism which may have
crept into it, and this willbe no light work. Mister Montelambert has
(03:08):
been reproached with wishing to turn bruteforce against socialism. He ought to be
exonerated from this reproach, for hehas plainly said, quote the war that
we must make against socialism must beone that is compatible with the law,
honor and justice close quote. Buthow is it that mister Montelambert does not
(03:34):
see that he is placing himself inefficient circle. You would oppose law to
socialism, But it is the lawthat socialism invokes. It aspires to legal,
not extra legal plunder. It isof the law itself, like the
monopolists of all kinds, that itwants to make an instrument. And when
(03:54):
once it has the law on itsside, how will you be able to
turn the law against it? Howwill you place it under the power of
your tribunals, your gendarmes, andyour presence. What will you do?
Then, you wish to prevent itfrom taking any part in the making of
laws, you would keep it outsidethe legislative palace. In this you will
(04:18):
not succeed by venture to prophesy.So long as legal plunder is the basis
of the legislation within it is absolutelynecessary that this question of legal plunder should
be determined. And there are onlythree solutions of it, One when the
(04:38):
few plunder the many, two wheneverybody plunders everybody else, and three when
nobody plunders anybody, partial plunder,universal plunder, absence of plunder. Amongst
these we have to make our choice. The law can only produce one of
(04:59):
these results, partial plunder. Thisis the system that prevailed so long as
the elective privilege was partial, asystem that is resorted to to avoid the
invasion of socialism universal plunder. Wehave been threatened by this system when the
elective privilege has become universal, themasses having conceived the idea of making law
(05:25):
on the principle of legislators who havepreceded them, absence of plunder. This
is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, conciliation, and
of good sense, which I shallproclaim with all the force of my lungs,
which is very inadequate alas till theday of my death, and in
(05:47):
all sincerity can anything more be requiredat the hands of the law. Can
the law, whose necessary sanction isforced be reasonably employed upon anything beyond securing
to everyone his right? I defyanyone to remove it from this circle without
perverting it and consequently turning force againstright. And as this is the most
(06:13):
faintal, the most illogical social perversionthat can possibly be imagined, it must
be admitted that the true solution,so much sought after of the social problem
is contained in these simple words.Law is organized justice. Now, it
is important to remark that to organizejustice by law, that is to say,
(06:38):
by force, excludes the idea oforganizing by law or by force any
manifestation what error of human activity,labor, charity, agriculture, commerce,
industry, instruction, the fine,arts, or religion, for any one
of these organizings would inevitably destroy theessential organization. How, in fact,
(07:02):
can we imagine force encroaching upon theliberty of citizens without infringing upon justice and
so acting against its proper aim.Here I am taking on the most popular
prejudice of our time. It isnot considered enough that law should be just,
It must be philanthropic. It isnot sufficient that it should guarantee to
(07:27):
every citizen the free and inoffensive exerciseof his faculties apply to his physical,
intellectual, and moral development. Itis required to extend well being, instruction,
and morality directly over the nation.This is a fascinating side of socialism.
But I repeat it. These twomissions of the law contradict each other.
(07:51):
We have to choose between them.A citizen cannot at the same time
be free and not free. Misterde Lamartine wrote to me one day thus,
quote, your doctrine is only thehalf of my program. You have
stopped at liberty. I go onto fraternity close quote. I answered him.
(08:16):
Quote the second part of your programwill destroy the first close quote.
And in fact, it is impossiblefor me to separate the word fraternity from
the word voluntary. I cannot possiblyconceive fraternity legally in force without liberty being
legally destroyed and justice legally trampled underfoot. Legal plunder has two roots.
(08:43):
One of them, as we havealready seen, is in human greed.
The other is in misconceived philanthropy.Before I proceed, I think I ought
to explain myself upon the word plunder. I do not take it as it
often is taken in a vague,undefined, relative or metaphorical sense. I
(09:05):
use it in its scientific acceptation,and as expressing the opposite idea to property.
When a portion of wealth passes outof the hands of him who has
acquired it without his consent, andwithout compensation to him who has not created
it, whether by force or byartifice, I say that property is violated,
(09:30):
that plunder is perpetrated. I saythat this is exactly what the law
ought to repress. Always and everywhere. If the law itself performs the action
it ought to repress, I saythat plunder is still perpetrated, and even
in a social point of view,under aggravated circumstances. In this case,
(09:52):
however, he who profits from theplunder is not responsible for it. It
is the law, the law giver, society itself, and this is where
the political danger lies. It isto be regretted that there is something offensive
in the word I have sought invain for another. For I would not
(10:13):
wish at any time, and especiallyjust now, to add an irritating word
to our disagreements. Therefore, whetherI am believed or not, I declare
that I do not mean to impugnethe intentions, nor the morality of anybody.
I am attacking an idea that Ibelieve to be false, a system
(10:35):
that appears to me to be unjust. And this is so independent of intentions
that each of us profits by itwithout wishing it, and suffers from it
without being aware of the cause.Any person must write, under the influence
of party spirit or of fear,who would call into question the sincerity of
protectionism, of socialism, and evenof communism, which are the one and
(11:01):
the same plant in three different periodsof growth. All that can be said
is that plunder is more visible byits partiality in protectionism, and by its
universality in communism. Whence it followsthat of the three systems, socialism is
still the most vague, the mostundefined, and consequently the most sincere.
(11:28):
Be that, as it may,to conclude that legal plunder has one of
its roots in misconceived philanthropy, isevidently to put intentions out of the question.
End of Section three
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