November 1, 2022 • 13 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 four. With this understanding,let us examine the value, the origin,
and the tendency of this popular aspiration, which pretends to realize the general
good by general plunder. The socialistssay, since the law organizes justice,
why should it not organize labor,instruction and religion. Why because it could
(00:25):
not organize labor, instruction and religionwithout disorganizing justice. For remember that law
is force, and that consequently,the domain of the law cannot properly extend
beyond the domain of force. Whenlaw and force keep a man within the
(00:45):
bounds of justice, they impose nothingupon him but a mere negation. They
only oblige him to abstain from doingharm. They violate neither his personality,
his liberty, nor his property.The only guard the personality, the liberty,
the property of others. They holdthemselves to be on the defensive.
(01:07):
They defend the equal right of all. They fulfill the mission whose harmlessness is
evident, whose utility is palpable,and whose legitimacy is not to be disputed.
This is so true that as afriend of mine wants remarked to me
to say that the aim of thelaw is to cause justice to reign,
(01:29):
is to use an expression that isnot rigorously exact. It ought to be
said the aim of the law isto prevent injustice from reigning. In fact,
it is not justice that has anexistence of its own. It is
injustice the one result from the absenceof the other. But when the law,
(01:49):
through the medium of its necessary agent, force, imposes a form of
labor, a method or subject ofinstruction, a creed, or a worship,
it is no longer negative. Itacts positively upon men. It substitutes
the will of this legislature for theirown will, the initiative of the legislator
(02:12):
for their own initiative. They haveno need to consult, to compare,
or to foresee. The law doesall that for them. The intellect is
for them a useless incumbrance. Theycease to be men. They lose their
personality, their liberty, and theirproperty. Try to imagine a form of
(02:32):
labor imposed by force that is nota violation of liberty, A transmission of
will imposed by force, it isnot a violation of property. If you
cannot succeed in reconciling this, youare bound to conclude that the law cannot
organize labor and industry without organizing injustice. When from the seclusion of his office
(02:58):
a politician takes the view of society, he has struck with the spectacle of
inequality that presents itself. He mournsover the sufferings that are the lot of
so many of our brethren, sufferingswhose aspect is rendered yet more sorrowful by
the contrast of luxury and wealth.He ought, perhaps to ask himself whether
(03:21):
such a social state has not beencaused by the plunder of ancient times,
exercise in the way of conquests,and by plunder of more recent times effected
through the medium of the laws.He ought to ask himself whether, granting
the aspiration of all men to wellbeing and improvement, the reign of justice
(03:42):
would not suffice to realize the greatestactivity of progress and the greatest amount of
equality, compatible with the individual responsibilitythat God has awarded as a just retribution
of virtue and vice. He nevergets this thought. His mind turns toward
combinations, arrangements, legal or factitiousorganizations. He seeks the remedy in perpetuating
(04:10):
and exaggerating what has produced the evil. For justice apart which we have seen,
is only a negation. Is thereany one of these legal arrangements that
does not contain the principle of plunder. You say, there are men who
have no money, and you applythe law. But the law is not
(04:31):
a self supplied fountain. Whence everystream may obtain supplies independently of its society.
Nothing can enter the public treasury infavor of one citizen or one class.
But what other citizens and other classeshave been forced to send to it?
If everyone draws from it only theequivalent of what he has contributed to
(04:55):
it, Your law, it istrue, is no plunderer. It does
nothing for men who want money.It does not promote equality. It can
only be an instrument of equalization asfar as it takes from one party to
give to another, and then itis an instrument of plunder. Examine in
this light the protection of tariffs,subsidies, right to profit, right to
(05:21):
labor, right to assistance, freepublic education, progressive taxation, gratuitousness of
credit, social workshops, and youwill always find at the bottom legal plunder.
Organize injustice. You say, thereare men who want knowledge, and
(05:41):
you apply to the law. Butthe law is not a torch that shares
light that originates within itself. Itextends over a society where there are men
who have knowledge and others who havenot, citizens who want to learn,
and others who are disposed to teach. It can only do one of two
things. Either allow a free operationto this kind of transaction, that is,
(06:06):
let this kind of want satisfy itselffreely, or else preempt the will
of the people in the matter,and take from some of them sufficient to
pay professors commissioned to instruct others forfree. But in this second case there
cannot fail to be a violation ofliberty and property. Legal plunder. You
(06:29):
say, here are men who arewanting in immorality or religion, and you
apply to the law. But thelaw is force, and need I say
how far it is a violent andabsurd enterprise to introduce force in these matters
As a result of its systems,of its efforts. It would seem that
socialism, notwithstanding all its self complacency, can scarcely help perceiving the monster of
(06:57):
legal plunder. But does it do? It disguises it cleverly from others and
even from itself, under the seductivenames of fraternity, solidarity, organization,
association. And because we do notask so much at the hands of the
law, because we only ask itfor justice. It alleges that we reject
(07:21):
fraternity, solidarity, organization, andassociation, and they brand us with the
name of individualists. We can assurethem that what we repudiate is not natural
organization but forced organization. It isnot free association, but the forms of
(07:42):
association that they would impose upon us. It is not spontaneous fraternity, but
legal fraternity. It is not providentialsolidarity, but artificial solidarity, which is
only an unjust displacement of responsibility.Socialism, like the old policy from which
(08:03):
it emanates, confounds government and society, and so every time we object to
a thing being done by government,it concludes that we object to its being
done at all. We disapprove ofeducation by the state, then we are
against education altogether. We object toa state religion, then we would have
(08:24):
no religion at all. We objectto an equality which is brought about by
the state, then we are againstequality, etc. Etc. They may
as well accuse us of wishing mennot to eat because we object to the
cultivation of corn by the state.How is it that the strange idea of
making the law produce what it doesnot contain prosperity and a positive sense wealth.
(08:50):
Science religion should ever have gained groundin the political world. The modern
politicians, particularly those of the socialistschool, found their different theories upon one
common hypothesis, and surely a morestrange and more presumptuous notion could never have
entered a human brain. They dividemen kind into two parts. Men in
(09:15):
general except one form the first.The politician himself forms the second, which
is by far the most important.In fact, they begin by supposing that
men are devoid of any principle ofaction and of any means of discernment in
themselves, that they have no initiative, that they are inert matter, passive
(09:39):
particles, atoms without impulse at best, a vegetation indifferent to its own mode
of existence, susceptible of assuming froman exterior will and hand, an infinite
number of forms, more or lesssymmetric, artistic, and perfected. Moreover,
(10:00):
one of these politicians does not hesitateto assume that he himself is under
the names of organizer, discoverer,legislator, institutor, or founder, this
will and hand, this universal initiative, this creative power, whose sublime mission
it is. Together together these scatteredmaterials, that is, men, into
(10:22):
society starting from these data. Asa gardener, according to his caprice,
shapes his tree into pyramids, parasols, cubes, cones, vases, espaliers,
disteps, or fans. So thesocialists, following his chimera, shapes
poor humanity into groups, series,circles, sub circles, honeycombs, or
(10:46):
social workshops, with all kinds ofvariations. And as the gardener to bring
his trees into shape needs hatchets,pruning hooks, saws, and shears,
so the politician to bring society intoshape needs the forces which he can only
find in the laws, the lawof tariffs, the law of taxation,
(11:09):
the law of assistance, and thelaw of education. It is so true
that the socialists look upon mankind asa subject for social experiments, that if
by chance they are not quite certainof the success of these experiments, they
will request a portion of mankind asa subject to experiment upon. It is
(11:31):
well known how popular the idea oftrying all systems is, and one of
their chiefs has been known seriously todemand of the constituent Assembly a parish with
all its inhabitants upon which to makehis experiments. It is thus that an
inventor will make a small machine beforehe makes one of the regular size.
(11:54):
Thus the chemist sacrifices some substances,the agricult culturists, some seed, and
the corner of his field to maketrial of an idea. But think of
the difference between the gardener and histrees, between the inventor and his machines,
between the chemists and his substances,between the agriculturists and his seed.
(12:16):
The socialist things in all sincerity thatthere is the same difference between himself and
mankind. No wonder the politicians ofthe nineteenth century look upon society as an
artificial production of the legislator's genius.This idea, the result of a classical
(12:37):
education, has taken possession of allthe thinkers and great writers of our country.
To all these persons, these relationsbetween mankind and the legislator appear to
be the same as those that existbetween the clay and the potter. Moreover,
if they have consented to recognize inthe part of man a capability of
(13:01):
action, and in his intellect afaculty of discernment, they have looked upon
this gift of God as a fatalone, and thought that mankind, under
these two impulses tended fatally toward ruin. They have taken it for granted that
if abandoned to their own inclinations,men would only occupy themselves with religion to
(13:26):
arrive at atheism, with instruction tocome to ignorance, and with labor and
exchange, to be extinguished in misery. End of Section four
Section four. With this understanding,let us examine the value, the origin,
and the tendency of this popular aspiration, which pretends to realize the general
good by general plunder. The socialistssay, since the law organizes justice,
why should it not organize labor,instruction and religion. Why because it could
(00:25):
not organize labor, instruction and religionwithout disorganizing justice. For remember that law
is force, and that consequently,the domain of the law cannot properly extend
beyond the domain of force. Whenlaw and force keep a man within the
(00:45):
bounds of justice, they impose nothingupon him but a mere negation. They
only oblige him to abstain from doingharm. They violate neither his personality,
his liberty, nor his property.The only guard the personality, the liberty,
the property of others. They holdthemselves to be on the defensive.
(01:07):
They defend the equal right of all. They fulfill the mission whose harmlessness is
evident, whose utility is palpable,and whose legitimacy is not to be disputed.
This is so true that as afriend of mine wants remarked to me
to say that the aim of thelaw is to cause justice to reign,
(01:29):
is to use an expression that isnot rigorously exact. It ought to be
said the aim of the law isto prevent injustice from reigning. In fact,
it is not justice that has anexistence of its own. It is
injustice the one result from the absenceof the other. But when the law,
(01:49):
through the medium of its necessary agent, force, imposes a form of
labor, a method or subject ofinstruction, a creed, or a worship,
it is no longer negative. Itacts positively upon men. It substitutes
the will of this legislature for theirown will, the initiative of the legislator
(02:12):
for their own initiative. They haveno need to consult, to compare,
or to foresee. The law doesall that for them. The intellect is
for them a useless incumbrance. Theycease to be men. They lose their
personality, their liberty, and theirproperty. Try to imagine a form of
(02:32):
labor imposed by force that is nota violation of liberty, A transmission of
will imposed by force, it isnot a violation of property. If you
cannot succeed in reconciling this, youare bound to conclude that the law cannot
organize labor and industry without organizing injustice. When from the seclusion of his office
(02:58):
a politician takes the view of society, he has struck with the spectacle of
inequality that presents itself. He mournsover the sufferings that are the lot of
so many of our brethren, sufferingswhose aspect is rendered yet more sorrowful by
the contrast of luxury and wealth.He ought, perhaps to ask himself whether
(03:21):
such a social state has not beencaused by the plunder of ancient times,
exercise in the way of conquests,and by plunder of more recent times effected
through the medium of the laws.He ought to ask himself whether, granting
the aspiration of all men to wellbeing and improvement, the reign of justice
(03:42):
would not suffice to realize the greatestactivity of progress and the greatest amount of
equality, compatible with the individual responsibilitythat God has awarded as a just retribution
of virtue and vice. He nevergets this thought. His mind turns toward
combinations, arrangements, legal or factitiousorganizations. He seeks the remedy in perpetuating
(04:10):
and exaggerating what has produced the evil. For justice apart which we have seen,
is only a negation. Is thereany one of these legal arrangements that
does not contain the principle of plunder. You say, there are men who
have no money, and you applythe law. But the law is not
(04:31):
a self supplied fountain. Whence everystream may obtain supplies independently of its society.
Nothing can enter the public treasury infavor of one citizen or one class.
But what other citizens and other classeshave been forced to send to it?
If everyone draws from it only theequivalent of what he has contributed to
(04:55):
it, Your law, it istrue, is no plunderer. It does
nothing for men who want money.It does not promote equality. It can
only be an instrument of equalization asfar as it takes from one party to
give to another, and then itis an instrument of plunder. Examine in
this light the protection of tariffs,subsidies, right to profit, right to
(05:21):
labor, right to assistance, freepublic education, progressive taxation, gratuitousness of
credit, social workshops, and youwill always find at the bottom legal plunder.
Organize injustice. You say, thereare men who want knowledge, and
(05:41):
you apply to the law. Butthe law is not a torch that shares
light that originates within itself. Itextends over a society where there are men
who have knowledge and others who havenot, citizens who want to learn,
and others who are disposed to teach. It can only do one of two
things. Either allow a free operationto this kind of transaction, that is,
(06:06):
let this kind of want satisfy itselffreely, or else preempt the will
of the people in the matter,and take from some of them sufficient to
pay professors commissioned to instruct others forfree. But in this second case there
cannot fail to be a violation ofliberty and property. Legal plunder. You
(06:29):
say, here are men who arewanting in immorality or religion, and you
apply to the law. But thelaw is force, and need I say
how far it is a violent andabsurd enterprise to introduce force in these matters
As a result of its systems,of its efforts. It would seem that
socialism, notwithstanding all its self complacency, can scarcely help perceiving the monster of
(06:57):
legal plunder. But does it do? It disguises it cleverly from others and
even from itself, under the seductivenames of fraternity, solidarity, organization,
association. And because we do notask so much at the hands of the
law, because we only ask itfor justice. It alleges that we reject
(07:21):
fraternity, solidarity, organization, andassociation, and they brand us with the
name of individualists. We can assurethem that what we repudiate is not natural
organization but forced organization. It isnot free association, but the forms of
(07:42):
association that they would impose upon us. It is not spontaneous fraternity, but
legal fraternity. It is not providentialsolidarity, but artificial solidarity, which is
only an unjust displacement of responsibility.Socialism, like the old policy from which
(08:03):
it emanates, confounds government and society, and so every time we object to
a thing being done by government,it concludes that we object to its being
done at all. We disapprove ofeducation by the state, then we are
against education altogether. We object toa state religion, then we would have
(08:24):
no religion at all. We objectto an equality which is brought about by
the state, then we are againstequality, etc. Etc. They may
as well accuse us of wishing mennot to eat because we object to the
cultivation of corn by the state.How is it that the strange idea of
making the law produce what it doesnot contain prosperity and a positive sense wealth.
(08:50):
Science religion should ever have gained groundin the political world. The modern
politicians, particularly those of the socialistschool, found their different theories upon one
common hypothesis, and surely a morestrange and more presumptuous notion could never have
entered a human brain. They dividemen kind into two parts. Men in
(09:15):
general except one form the first.The politician himself forms the second, which
is by far the most important.In fact, they begin by supposing that
men are devoid of any principle ofaction and of any means of discernment in
themselves, that they have no initiative, that they are inert matter, passive
(09:39):
particles, atoms without impulse at best, a vegetation indifferent to its own mode
of existence, susceptible of assuming froman exterior will and hand, an infinite
number of forms, more or lesssymmetric, artistic, and perfected. Moreover,
(10:00):
one of these politicians does not hesitateto assume that he himself is under
the names of organizer, discoverer,legislator, institutor, or founder, this
will and hand, this universal initiative, this creative power, whose sublime mission
it is. Together together these scatteredmaterials, that is, men, into
(10:22):
society starting from these data. Asa gardener, according to his caprice,
shapes his tree into pyramids, parasols, cubes, cones, vases, espaliers,
disteps, or fans. So thesocialists, following his chimera, shapes
poor humanity into groups, series,circles, sub circles, honeycombs, or
(10:46):
social workshops, with all kinds ofvariations. And as the gardener to bring
his trees into shape needs hatchets,pruning hooks, saws, and shears,
so the politician to bring society intoshape needs the forces which he can only
find in the laws, the lawof tariffs, the law of taxation,
(11:09):
the law of assistance, and thelaw of education. It is so true
that the socialists look upon mankind asa subject for social experiments, that if
by chance they are not quite certainof the success of these experiments, they
will request a portion of mankind asa subject to experiment upon. It is
(11:31):
well known how popular the idea oftrying all systems is, and one of
their chiefs has been known seriously todemand of the constituent Assembly a parish with
all its inhabitants upon which to makehis experiments. It is thus that an
inventor will make a small machine beforehe makes one of the regular size.
(11:54):
Thus the chemist sacrifices some substances,the agricult culturists, some seed, and
the corner of his field to maketrial of an idea. But think of
the difference between the gardener and histrees, between the inventor and his machines,
between the chemists and his substances,between the agriculturists and his seed.
(12:16):
The socialist things in all sincerity thatthere is the same difference between himself and
mankind. No wonder the politicians ofthe nineteenth century look upon society as an
artificial production of the legislator's genius.This idea, the result of a classical
(12:37):
education, has taken possession of allthe thinkers and great writers of our country.
To all these persons, these relationsbetween mankind and the legislator appear to
be the same as those that existbetween the clay and the potter. Moreover,
if they have consented to recognize inthe part of man a capability of
(13:01):
action, and in his intellect afaculty of discernment, they have looked upon
this gift of God as a fatalone, and thought that mankind, under
these two impulses tended fatally toward ruin. They have taken it for granted that
if abandoned to their own inclinations,men would only occupy themselves with religion to
(13:26):
arrive at atheism, with instruction tocome to ignorance, and with labor and
exchange, to be extinguished in misery. End of Section four
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