Frederic Bastiat’s The Law – Part 2

(Part 2 of 6)

The Fatal Idea of Legal Plunder

But on the other hand, imagine that this fatal principle has been introduced: Under the pretense of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law takes property from one person and gives it to another; the law takes the wealth of all and gives it to a few—whether farmers, manufacturers, shipowners, artists, or comedians. Under these circumstances, then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so.

The excluded classes will furiously demand their right to vote—and will overthrow society rather than not to obtain it. Even beggars and vagabonds will then prove to you that they also have an incontestable title to vote. They will say to you:

“We cannot buy wine, tobacco, or salt without paying the tax. And a part of the tax that we pay is given by law— in privileges and subsidies—to men who are richer than we are. Others use the law to raise the prices of bread, meat, iron, or cloth. Thus, since everyone else uses the law for his own profit, we also would like to use the law for our own profit. We demand from the law the right to relief, which is the poor man’s plunder. To obtain this right, we also should be voters and legislators in order that we may organize Beggary on a grand scale for our own class, as you have organized Protection on a grand scale for your class. Now don’t tell us beggars that you will act for us, and then toss us, as Mr. Mimerel proposes, 600,000 francs to keep us quiet, like throwing us a bone to gnaw. We have other claims. And anyway, we wish to bargain for ourselves as other classes have bargained for themselves!”

And what can you say to answer that argument!

Perverted Law Causes Conflict

As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose—that it may violate property instead of protecting it—then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious. To know this, it is hardly necessary to examine what transpires in the French and English legislatures; merely to understand the issue is to know the answer.

Is there any need to offer proof that this odious perversion of the law is a perpetual source of hatred and discord; that it tends to destroy society itself? If such proof is needed, look at the United States [in 1850]. There is no country in the world where the law is kept more within its proper domain: the protection of every person’s liberty and property. As a consequence of this, there appears to be no country in the world where the social order rests on a firmer foundation. But even in the United States, there are two issues—and only two—that have always endangered the public peace.

Slavery and Tariffs Are Plunder

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 plunder.

Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property.

Its is a most remarkable fact that this double legal crime—a sorrowful inheritance of the Old World—should be the only issue which can, and perhaps will, lead to the ruin of the Union. It is indeed impossible to imagine, at the very heart of a society, a more astounding fact than this: The law has come to be an instrument of injustice. And if this fact brings terrible consequences to the United States—where only in the instance of slavery and tariffs—what must be the consequences in Europe, where the perversion of law is a principle; a system?

Two Kinds of Plunder

Mr. de Montalembert [politician and writer] adopting the thought contained in a famous proclamation by Mr. Carlier, has said: “We must make war against socialism.” According to the definition of socialism advanced by Mr. Charles Dupin, he meant: “We must make war against plunder.”

But of what plunder was he speaking? For there are two kinds of plunder: legal and illegal.

I do not think that illegal plunder, such as theft or swindling—which the penal code defines, anticipates, and punishes—can be called socialism. It is not this kind of plunder that systematically threatens the foundations of society. Anyway, the war against this kind of plunder has not waited for the command of these gentlemen. The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. Long before the Revolution of February 1848—long before the appearance even of socialism itself—France had provided police, judges, gendarmes, prisons, dungeons, and scaffolds for the purpose of fighting illegal plunder. The law itself conducts this war, and it is my wish and opinion that the law should always maintain this attitude toward plunder.

The Law Defends Plunder

But it does not always do this. Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger, and scruple which their acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim—when he defends himself—as a criminal. In short, there is a legal plunder, and it is of this, no doubt, that Mr. de Montalembert speaks.

This legal plunder may be only an isolated stain among the legislative measures of the people. If so, it is best to wipe it out with a minimum of speeches and denunciations—and in spite of the uproar of the vested interests.

How to Identify Legal Plunder

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.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law—which may be an isolated case—is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.

Legal Plunder Has Many Names

Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole—with their common aim of legal plunder—constitute socialism.

Now, since under this definition socialism is a body of doctrine, what attack can be made against it other than a war of doctrine? If you find this socialistic doctrine to be false, absurd, and evil, then refute it. And the more false, the more absurd, and the more evil it is, the easier it will be to refute. Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may have crept into your legislation. This will be no light task.

Socialism Is Legal Plunder

Mr. de Montalembert has been accused of desiring to fight socialism by the use of brute force. He ought to be exonerated from this accusation, for he has plainly said: “The war that we must fight against socialism must be in harmony with law, honor, and justice.”

But why does not Mr. de Montalembert see that he has placed himself in a vicious circle? You would use the law to oppose socialism? But it is upon the law that socialism itself relies. Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder. Socialists, like all other monopolists, desire to make the law their own weapon. And when once the law is on the side of socialism, how can it be used against socialism? For when plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes, and your prisons. Rather, it may call upon them for help.

To prevent this, you would exclude socialism from entering into the making of laws? You would prevent socialists from entering the Legislative Palace? You shall not succeed, I predict, so long as legal plunder continues to be the main business of the legislature. It is illogical—in fact, absurd—to assume otherwise.

The Choice Before Us

This question of legal plunder must be settled once and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:

  1. The few plunder the many.
  2. Everybody plunders everybody.
  3. Nobody plunders anybody.

We must make our choice among limited plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder. The law can follow only one of these three.

Limited legal plunder: This system prevailed when the right to vote was restricted. One would turn back to this system to prevent the invasion of socialism.

Universal legal plunder: We have been threatened with this system since the franchise was made universal. The newly enfranchised majority has decided to formulate law on the same principle of legal plunder that was used by their predecessors when the vote was limited.

No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic. Until the day of my death, I shall proclaim this principle with all the force of my lungs (which alas! is all too inadequate).2

2 Translator’s note: At the time this was written, Mr. Bastiat knew that he was dying of tuberculosis. Within a year, he was dead.

The Proper Function of the Law

And, in all sincerity, can anything more than the absence of plunder be required of the law? Can the law—which necessarily requires the use of force—rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution—so long searched for in the area of social relationships—is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice.

Now this must be said: When justice is organized by law—that is, by force—this excludes the idea of using law (force) to organize any human activity whatever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy the essential organization—justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being used against the liberty of citizens without it also being used against justice, and thus acting against its proper purpose?

The Seductive Lure of Socialism

Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.

This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again: These two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.

Enforced Fraternity Destroys Liberty

Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: “Your doctrine is only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity.” I answered him: “The second half of your program will destroy the first.”

In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot.

Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said before, is in human greed; the other is in false philanthropy.

At this point, I think that I should explain exactly what I mean by the word plunder.3

3 Translator’s note: The French word used by Mr. Bastiat is spoliation.

Plunder Violates Ownership

I do not, as is often done, use the word in any vague, uncertain, approximate, or metaphorical sense. I use it in its scientific acceptance—as expressing the idea opposite to that of property [wages, land, money, or whatever]. 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.

I say that this act is exactly what the law is supposed to suppress, always and everywhere. When the law itself commits this act that it is supposed to suppress, I say that plunder is still committed, and I add that from the point of view of society and welfare, this aggression against rights is even worse. In this case of legal plunder, however, the person who receives the benefits is not responsible for the act of plundering. The responsibility for this legal plunder rests with the law, the legislator, and society itself. Therein lies the political danger.

It is to be regretted that the word plunder is offensive. I have tried in vain to find an inoffensive word, for I would not at any time—especially now—wish to add an irritating word to our dissentions. Thus, whether I am believed or not, I declare that I do not mean to attack the intentions or the morality of anyone. Rather, I am attacking an idea which I believe to be false; a system which appears to me to be unjust; an injustice so independent of personal intentions that each of us profits from it without wishing to do so, and suffers from it without knowing the cause of the suffering.

Three Systems of Plunder

The sincerity of those who advocate protectionism, socialism, and communism is not here questioned. Any writer who would do that must be influenced by a political spirit or a political fear. It is to be pointed out, however, that protectionism, socialism, and communism are basically the same plant in three different stages of its growth. All that can be said is that legal plunder is more visible in communism because it is complete plunder; and in protectionism because the plunder is limited to specific groups and industries.4 Thus it follows that, of the three systems, socialism is the vaguest, the most indecisive, and, consequently, the most sincere stage of development.

4 If the special privilege of government protection against competition—a monopoly—were granted only to one group in France, the iron workers, for instance, this act would so obviously be legal plunder that it could not last for long. It is for this reason that we see all the protected trades combined into a common cause. They even organize themselves in such a manner as to appear to represent all persons who labor. Instinctively, they feel that legal plunder is concealed by generalizing it.

But sincere or insincere, the intentions of persons are not here under question. In fact, I have already said that legal plunder is based partially on philanthropy, even though it is a false philanthropy.

With this explanation, let us examine the value—the origin and the tendency—of this popular aspiration which claims to accomplish the general welfare by general plunder.

Law Is Force

Since the law organizes justice, the socialists ask why the law should not also organize labor, education, and religion.

Why should not law be used for these purposes? Because it could not organize labor, education, and religion without destroying justice. We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force.

When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.

(To be continued tomorrow, in Part 3.)


  1. One of the stories that was told to me by my father about my grandfather was about laws to live by. One of the things that he said was ” every body needs the bible to live by, but the problem is and was the people who interpret the bible according to what they think it should be and not the way it was written “. He also said the same thing about laws of the land, the laws are interpreted to what the lawyers / judges think they should be or what they want them to be and not the way they are written “. And it seems that lately that a lot of the laws that are being written and passed or the current laws are being modified for certain types of agendas. Just my two cents. Oh and about the bible part, my grandfather had a younger sister that was assaulted and raped by a catholic priest and the bishop of that time period wouldn’t do anything about it, the up start of it was that my great grandfather with his family moved to the local lutheran faith.

  2. “The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property.” said by Frederic Bastiat in the article.
    It’s an >intellectual idea, that doesn’t work in the USA. The Founding Fathers recognized the need for Tariffs on foreign goods. The US Constitution provides for “… lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; …” Before the Income Tax, these type of taxes were a principle source of income for the Federal Government.

    Recent history has demonstrated, that the Global Businesses in collusion with foreign governments were draining American jobs and businesses, and then placing jobs and manufacturing in foreign countries; principally in China.
    Donald Trump campaigned on the idea, that he would be President of the United States and NOT a crony for China and Europe [NOT a sock puppet for foreign interests].

    The Globalists Business controllers want to pay the lowest ‘slave-wage’ possible. That idea is contrary to the Christian idea of the ‘common good’ for a people. The Globalists want to >reduce everyone’s wage to a slave-wage.

    From TheConservativeTreehouse = “… the dynamic is severely consequential and the Wall Street multinationals are reacting to the daily details while Main Street gains strength. President Trump is dismantling global supply chains; focusing on bringing high-wage manufacturing industry back to the U.S; and driving a process of profound consequence through economic nationalism.”

    “Titan Trump is winning the economic battle by: (a) repatriating wealth (trade policy); (b) blocking exfiltration (main street policy); (c) creating new and modern economic alliances based on reciprocity (bilateral deals); and (d) dismantling the post WWII Marshal plan of global trade and one-way tariffs (de-globalization).”

    [Tariffs and restrictions were placed on the USA. Our politicians and business controllers were selling out America. … We’re in battle for America; the economic War is NOT over yet. The Globalists and their political cronies are trying to get rid of Trump, and then ultimately destroy America as we know it.]

  3. GGHD, first I agree there are many instances of wrongs perpetrated against the U.S. by outside influences. These wrongs of our own making. I’m an Anti-Federalist, we did not effectively ‘chain the beast’ and it has gotten loose and totally destroyed our liberties. “We have given you a Republic, if you can keep it!” Benjamin Franklin….we have lost it, there is no way I see anyway to retrieve it. I hope I am terrible wrong but the repetition of history does not bode well for a positive outcome. Sorry to say, our Republic was founded on a flawed foundation. “All men a created equal”, accept……. Liberty, accept…….Justice, accept,… States Rights, accept. There can be no compromise we have LIBERTY or SLAVERY, they are completely diametrically opposed. We planted the seeds of Liberty in the New Word but we watered them with the infectious diseases of the European Monarchies. HOW IN THE WORLD CAN I SAY IT IS OUR FAULT? The basic understanding of the Founding Fathers and those in the majority in the United States of America, up until the Civil War, was that all Sovereign Individuals, States and Nations had the right to determine their own destinies without coercion or interference. France assisted us during the Revolutionary War and was very upset that we would not intervene on her behalf with her ongoing war with England. Basically we believed that we wanted to have commerce and trade with all nations of the world but we did not want to get into any entangling alliances with any nations, notably the European Monarchies. It has always been the intent of the International Power Elite, stemming from the Monarchies of old, to rid the world of this disease called the American Republic! Why because they cannot control a Republic. Entry into WW1 was the destruction of U.S. Sovereignty we became member of the ‘good old boys’ club. We took the bait with the establishment of the Fed and swallowed it hook, line and sinker with our entry into WW1. Looking at history can not you see the downward spiral of our Nation from that point? Yes we have had great force within the WORLD, but the infectious moral decay we inherited from the Socialist States of Europe have eaten us from the inside.

    1. Eam, you have a good reply. Your letter is capable of a stand alone article. You also are a good writer. You just need >paragraphs, for ease of reading. [Paragraphs are your friend]

      Your words flow well when you write. JWR is a professional author; he knows how to write. … [I have a ‘choppy’ style of writing, because I’m an amateur. Eam, your flow of words is very good.]

      + You are RIGHT! = We can’t go back to the days prior to the Big Federal Government. Too many people want socialism, and the ‘free to them’ stuff from the government. Too many people are on the Gravy Train; too many politicians ALL over the USA depend on the money made through the Globalists.

      Trump says, ‘Bring the good JOBS JOBS JOBS back to the USA! Stop the flow of illegal drugs and illegal aliens! Make America Great Again!’ =
      A huge number of Democrat voters, with the Democrat politicians [& >many Republican politicians] all started shrieking like Dracula, being confronted by Trump holding a Cross.

      Joe Biden and his son Hunter, with their pocketbooks being filled by foreign governments, are just >typical for most politicians. Many of our politicians are being paid to destroy our country.
      [The Biden information is only readily available in the Fake News, because the Globalists want another Democrat to run for President against Trump.]

  4. This is a lot to digest whole.

    As I work on that, I have what I think is a contrary opinion.

    Bastiat says, ” Under the pretense of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law takes property from one person and gives it to another; the law takes the wealth of all and gives it to a few—whether farmers, manufacturers, shipowners, artists, or comedians.”

    As I was waiting for the bus on a below zero windchill morning in my frigid city, I saw two snowplows approaching on the county road. They were working in tandem, one thirty yards behind the other. The lead plow was in the left lane throwing snow into the right lane for the following plow to push to the curb. Well orchestrated. Paid for by my tax dollars, as was the recent repaving of the road (so smooth these days). Then the bus picked me up and took me downtown where I caught another bus taking me to see my doctor. Both paid for by my tax dollars.

    In this case at least, I observe money taken from the many for the benefit of the many. Yep, there were quite few cars and delivery trucks on that county road. My property taxes helped make their journey easy.

    Maybe I’m missing something here. As I said, I see many benefiting from the money taken from us. Even if some fat cats got fatter from the paving, buying the plow-trucks and buses, or even the traffic lights, I’ll live with that. The wealth I observed was the tangible (as JWR says, Invest in tangibles) transportation system that gave each us using it a simpler day. I am grateful.

    Carry on

    1. Once a Marine; always a Marine: You have a >good American approach to the purpose of government.
      Frederic Bastiat is a dead Frenchman. His ideas may different from our American approach to a Federal form of government. … We’re Americans with a very >successful approach to creating wealth, for as many people as possible.

      I think many people, now days, are upset about the transfer of wealth occurring, because of the actions of the government. The money flows from the working group of people, to people that seem to be improvident and less diligent when working. =
      ……. Some people are willing to help push a wagon down the road; other people seem to want to stay in the wagon and have a free ride. [Plus, they are scornful of the ‘fools’ out pushing the wagon.]

      Governments have always provided for roads and streets; plus, everything else needed to maintain a city.
      [Your example of snowplows and a good public transportation system is one for our modern cities. Such government services are needed.]

      With our modern wealth, many people cast aspersions on the >lack of government activities in the >past. … The governments in the old times built ports, provided for navigation aids and such for the ships. Roads were built, a postal system was created (It’s in the Constitution). >A police force and legal system was created to protect the citizens.

      1. “The original Erie Canal cost $7 million to build and this was carried out over the years 1818 to 1825. The legislative act allowing bonds to be sold to finance the canals’ construction …” [From Internet]

      2. The first continental railroad = “Construction was financed by both state and US government subsidy bonds as well as by company issued mortgage bonds.” [From Internet]
      The people in the towns in early America built their own streets. The USA was such a vast place, building connecting ~well built roads took time.
      Wikipedia has an article about Roman Roads. [Rome and the roads were NOT built in a day.] It’s an interesting article about the well built Roman Roads.

      The Founding Fathers set up a Federal System of government. America as a whole never wanted to do away with government. The idea of a ‘common good’ for everyone is part of our history, and our understanding of the purpose of governments.

      ……. [FIY: I like the idea that a government should serve the >common good. I do NOT like a government facilitating a large number of people, to spend their lives only smoking weed & watching television. [All through taxing the working people]
      ……. [FIY: I also believe that the >common good is served, when our taxes support people physically or mentally unable to work.
      >Though many ‘weed smokers’ have smoked so much weed, they can’t do anything else, but watch television, and scorn the taxpayers paying the bills.]

      The liberals have created a big problem in our society. >>Buy the needed preps from the advertisers here on Survivalblog.

    2. Aye, a community and a good state is a community Needs ressources to function, to provide Services like law, law enforcement, public roads, public Transportation, security from fire Fighting to Military…

      The People working in that ´ve the Right of decent wages and working conditions(the Problems with going cheap on that should be obvious) or Profits.

      Maybe an entepreneur got fatter on the Profit margin, but as Long as he delivers decent work at a fair Price i see Nothing wrong with that OTOH the Person who refuses to pay his due but uses the road is taking a free ride on other peoples work, Money and property.

  5. Once a Marine gave an excellent example of taxes being used for something beneficial and, dare I say, made it sound downright efficient.

    The bigger issue at hand is a question of morality: does someone have the right to take what isn’t theirs simply because it serves a common good? If I cannot go to you and demand money for something everyone agreed was good (while I agree it’s highly unlikely to get everyone to agree on anything these days) and me and a friend can’t “decide” to take your money, no amount of mental gymnastics will turn an immoral act into a moral one.

    You cited property taxes, which is a perfect example of what’s wrong with America. The American dream is to “own your own home”, but NOBODY owns their own home in America, even if they’ve satisfied their mortgage and are free from the bankers. The government owns every single person’s home in this country and we rent from them. Think otherwise? Try not paying your property taxes and see who really owns YOUR house.

    If I were to go into your home and take most of your stuff, but leave a nice steak dinner on your dining table, maybe you might decide, “heck, he took all my pots and now my fridge is empty and I have no cash to get take out, so I’ll enjoy this steak dinner”. Does that make me robbing you moral because you benefitted from my “visit”. No, I think not.

    I think we need to decide what kind of government we need, if any, pretty soon. I know the thought scares people. I’m not proposing [having] no leaders. People gravitate towards people who have the ability to lead in a particular arena.

    The difference between a leader and a politician and a leader is that you can decide to stop following a leader the moment he ceases acting in your best interest. A politician can stay, and you are legally obliged to follow, under the implied threat of violence, which is all government has. Voting has little to do with it.

    It’s two weapons are its ability to get the people to “believe” it has the moral authority to rule them, and a monopoly on violence. State violence is called “war” and “stopping those who oppose law enforcement”. We would be terrorists.

    We are told that its mandate is the “Consent of the Governed”. Consider that phrase. Consent means to voluntarily give permission to, while to be governed is to be ruled. If you consent to something, why on God’s green earth would you need to be ruled?

    Food for thought.

    1. Question from the other side:

      Has someone the Right to Benefit from the taxes Paid by others, work done by others and refuse to pay and serve his reasonably fair share?

      So then answer another Question, why you ´ven´t left this community if you didn´t want to pay your share?

  6. Jim,

    I think this man’s writing cuts to the very core of our problems in the United States today. This book should be required reading for high school students in their senior year as they are getting ready to go out into the world. I’m 66 and have never heard of this book before so I feel as if I have been done a disservice by the public schools I attended.

  7. I perceive that once the rot of Socialism has infected a society the pervasiveness of the decay will make the remedy as painful as the disease. We are so far down the road of destruction that it is difficult for us to even accept that fact that most all of us have been infected with the disease. How many people do honestly know that do not participate in the system?

    Here again is why I think it is inevitable that ANY system that negates the will of the individual will fail. Liberty is a stern taskmaster. Liberty is the individuals ability of choose any given course of action. To the extent that you are not at LIBERTY to choose you are not FREE. For a society to be FREE we must allow all individuals the right of LIBERTY.

    To the extent government forces upon me courses of action I choose not to pursue I am a SLAVE to that government.

  8. Thankyou G3Ken and ThoDan:

    It’s a sad state when you have to preface w ‘from the other side’ on this site.
    There is no ‘other’ side. There is the right side.
    Others:Enjoy that $2 bus ride, that really is 30. I paid for it.
    ‘Government’ builds nothing, provides nothing.
    You’re delusional.
    Your neighbors(like me) paid for that. You’re welcome.
    You boomers are the problem, not the solution.
    Conservative/ Republican: conserving Democrat policies from 10 years ago.

    1. I don´t enjoy it and i Paid for it, and 30 steps from my door there is a road which the council of my City or County ´d let build bit farer away is the Railway where the goverment of my Nation did the same as well as the Autobahn i regularly use to get to work and home but the backup of Railway and public Transport has it´s uses, the same as law enforcement and Police…
      if we don´t want that we wouldn´t vote for politicans to implement that.

      built from the taxes of my Father, maintained by my taxes and sorry i´m not a boomer, i´m a few years to Young for that.

    2. Robstorm….I’m being honest, I’m not sure if you’re referring to me as being on the other side, or as a boomer.

      I’m a nut for spreadsheets and the wife and I have paid over 1.4m in taxes thus far and I’ve yet to crack 55 and my wife is a couple years younger.

      I abhor the idea that I’m “not paying my fair share”, when in truth what that means is that half the people are paying NO share at all and they want people like us to pay for the shares of yet more people.

      I don’t discuss this at home, because my wife gets upset because she knows inherently what it’s going to come down to one day. We are planning on moving west of the Mississippi (but not a coastal state) in 2020, as I can’t do New York anymore. I’ve spent all but my five years in the military here and it’s just unbearable.

      I don’t see the federal government ever letting states go their own way in peace. They will use force. I know how I’ll respond. I know what will happen to me in all probability, but I’ve made peace with the possibility.

      The issue was NOT settled in Appomattox, despite what the left states. The nation’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence clearly states what happens when a government becomes destructive. I think we are long past that, but there are so many damned fence sitters, myself included.

      Who knows what will happen. I pray if the worst does, I’m still young and fit enough to do something. I might be almost 55, but I can still get a first class USMC PFT score….not for my age, but for an 18 year old. I hope to keep that level for a bit longer.

  9. ThoDan, In my younger days I had considered flight, but at last I have never gotten a “get out of jail free card” a passport. Do you have any idea how abhorrent the concept of a passport would have been to the founding fathers? That is one of our problems, we have been so conditioned to the evils they have become NORMAL to us. Yes, I do agree, the U.S. is still the freest country on earth and in the same breath, isn’t that a shame. If we would have held true to the ideals of the Republic where could we be today?

    1. excuses, excuses
      I really couldn´t care less what the founding fathers found abhorrent, and what not, i find slavery more abhorrent than taxes without representation they found the later worth a war.
      We´re in the 21 century not in the 18th anymore, the world has changed tp the better.

      You don´t Need a passport to flee your Country you Need one to lawfully travel into to most other but not if you ask for asyl

  10. The acceleration of knowledge has opened the door for the truth to be understood. This move to world government was not by chance. It was and is an intentional series of acts to enslave the worlds population. Today we speak of socialism, tomorrow it’s totalitarianism with a solid communistic base enforced by the UN. It only gets worse.

    We are now enlightened to the evil moves of a core of elitists who truly do want to rule the world, and profit mightily in the process. On the backs of you and I. It’s easy to look at the basics, power, roads, sewage, etc…..yet realize, there is an inherent inefficiency in federally controlled programs, common core and the present medical situation are prime examples. With states in charge we had local responsibility, not so with the feds. We’ve learned much over the last twenty years due to this internet, and we know we are at a cross roads that has never been map for the present day players. We know their intent, their agenda, their methods, their goals and how that plays into our “Republic”. It is freedom or slavery. It is hugely freedom or slavery.

    Then a critical thinker might even dive into the Bible and see what it has to say about this day and age. 1948 setting the clock ticking to the final act. 2020 will be the year people either see perfectly, or fail the final test.

    Above all, never surrender. Go Galt

Comments are closed.