The Law


Well-Known Member
Life Is a Gift from God
"We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life physical, intellectual, and moral life.
But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.
Life, faculties, production in other words, individuality, liberty, property this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."

Frdric Bastiat​



From the promised LAND

But you will find that many object to those thoughts. They claim they are "free thinkers" not bound by any concrete laws or rules, but instead are open to their personal interpritation.

Last edited:


From the promised LAND

I would guess that Susie is shadowing your "lap dog" around? I would expect that of her. I have put her on ignore so I don't have to be blessed with her great insight and insults. Makes reading the board much easier and pleasant.



Well-Known Member
Concerning Bush or Clinton I would invite each of you to take the time to read Bastiat's work from 1850' at the link I provided. What I posted was chapter #1 and there are 76 chapters and many are half as short as what I posted. I have Bastiat's work in book form and in less than an hour find it no problem to read through and in fact is not far past 30 minutes to read it.

As to the comments on Clinton and Bush specifically I'll have more latter but the short answer is Bastiat would likely consider both to be criminal! May not be what you want to hear but I don't dance around, I just go ahead and crush feet and get it over with!


From the promised LAND
My personal take:

Since you sort of asked:

God is in charge. Period. Nothing happens without Him allowing it. Even to the point of me losing more than one or two hairs a day.

If the Bible is to be believed, then the end times are closing in. While I neither like Bush or Clinton, if they serve the purpose that God has ordained, then so be it. Who am I to argue.

After all, this life is but a football game, and when it is over, real life begins. So play the game with that in mind.



Well-Known Member
Not to change the subject but I saw the other thread about susie's old avatar of Parkman and I'm not interested in debating that but I did want to ask Susie who the lady is in her avatar photo? She looks familar, for some reason I'm thinking a media personality, but who is she? Pardon me if I should know and I'll admit to being stupid on this one but my curiosity is up!

Very lovely lady too I might add and I don't mean that in a sexist way. I'm too damn old anymore for being to sexist. Those blue pills are expensive!:tongue_sm


agreed. I was wondering if it was a picture of susan herself. But I think you're right she must be a celebrity we have seen before. I'm dying to hear who it is and her relevance to the discussion on hand. Ms. Susan does keep us on our toes.


Well-Known Member
The woman does bear a certain resemblance to Katy Couric.

God has established government for man, but man's irresponsibilty can produce bad government. Government can be God's agent, but only so far as those in power are subject to God's governance.


Well-Known Member
Susie-So who is the mystery lady? Don't believe it's you since you wouldn't want to throw red meat out to the boys in the "rape room" (what you so descriptively called the chat room several times when invited in to debate your views).

Wkmac-Fully agree, God created us and is in charge of what happens here. Do we understand all of what happens, such as children dying? No, but there is a purpose to it all. The "basic" laws that govern us all can be found in the Bible and that isn't an accident. And as the Bible shows, God uses evil men to get his desired results, example Nebuchenezzar (sorry about the spelling there susie).

Danny-Fully agree about the end times being near, but then again I'm sure believers in previous generations thought so too. Believers in Thessolonica thought the rapture had already taken place back in Paul's day. We see the evil that is common in our society and can't imagine it becoming worse, yet somehow it does. I look back ten years and can't believe some of the things that take place today.


Well-Known Member
wily_old_vet said:
Wkmac-Fully agree, God created us and is in charge of what happens here. Do we understand all of what happens, such as children dying? No, but there is a purpose to it all. The "basic" laws that govern us all can be found in the Bible and that isn't an accident. And as the Bible shows, God uses evil men to get his desired results, example Nebuchenezzar (sorry about the spelling there susie).

Another example is with Israel in captivity within Egypt. When the sons of Israel joined their brother Joseph in that land over the years they became comfortable and the only way to get them to come out was a little pain and suffering and yes I do believe that was the hand of God at work. Israel went on to established a gov't if you want to call it that which was tribal and very local in it's leadership. There was cross tribal relationships but the land was at peace and all matters were handled on a local basis. I've always found it a very interesting model and if one takes the time to look, the individual had great freedom and liberty even under what many would want to point out as being a theocracy. It was that in some respects but the level of freedom was still an amazing model to consider.

Israel began it's descent into problems and corruptions when the people went to Samuel and demanded a King (central gov't if you will) like the rest of those who lived around them. YHWH (Jehovah if that's you flavor)wanted his people to remain a seperate and different people but they choose to be like the Jones and YHWH told Samuel to grant them a King in Saul. The rest they say is history. I'm sure many would disagree and object but without considering other texts as from God and using only the Israelite model, many contend including myself that YHWH's ideal of gov't is a very limited model of local jurisdiction only with the larger area being a collective in custom and manner only. The policing of one's self is done on the local level only.

For whatever it's worth, that's my take. In the end, it's just opinion!


From the promised LAND
Gods governance is inside each individual. IT is that self responsibility that many are lacking. Forcing "Gods will" onto others is not what he had in mind or wanted.

The children of Israel wanted something they could look up to and touch. To many of them God was just an idea for everyone else. Nice but give me reality.

As a nation, they ceased to exist after Jerusalem was destroyed. Therefore they, as a nation, can not be considered "Gods chosen" any longer. And it was the spreading of the gospels to the rest of the world that signified the beginning of the end.

Israel is only some land with historical significance. But the real kingdom is within the hearts of man, where no one can take it away, without our consenting to it.

As for the end times, how could things be worse than what it was during the dark ages, the world wars, etc etc. I can not imagine. But as I say, the football game is only that. Its after the game is over that life really begins. If you think the football game is all there is, then for you, that is all there will be. So enjoy the game, win at all costs and die with the most toys.

just my humble views.


Gone For Good


I did read the entire link. I believe that Bastiat would consider just about every modern politician a criminal.

Since the title of the thread is "The Law", I thought it apropos to comment on the current situation in this country. Our president has started an arguably illegal war, resorted to torture of illegally held combatants, and spied illegally on US citizens. He has not only shredded the Constitution, but made mockery of the Magna Carta, on which it was based. Who would have thought that we would actually have a debate on what types of torture we should allow Americans to inflict?

His crimes go far beyond those of Clinton, or his father before him. He has reached the point where perhaps only Nixon has been proven more corrupt; and that remains to be seen. We dont know if Bush spied on his political opponents yet. We do already know that the IRS made note of political affiliation.

It is only through the stupidity and blindness of the populous that he remains in power.

Can you imagine the uproar we would have if Clinton had attempted half of what Bush has done? The thing the Republicans dont realize (at least the shortsighted ones here) is that the Democrats will soon take the White House and the Congress, and all the sweeping powers that they have allowed Bush to seize will then be in the hands of maybe Hillary, their worst nightmare!

I know that I can never change the minds of closed minded ideologues like tie, and blind followers like danny and .5 (you think danny would know better than to be a follower, give his heritage), but I only hope that things turn around for the better soon, otherwise they may realize too late, wow, thats what she was talking about!



Well-Known Member
[SIZE=+1]4 What Is Law? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.


[SIZE=+1]5 A Just and Enduring Government [/SIZE]
If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable — whatever its political form might be.
Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.
It can be further stated that, thanks to the non-intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions.
The sources of our existence are made uncertain and precarious by these state-created displacements. And, furthermore, these acts burden the government with increased responsibilities.


Well-Known Member
tieguy said:
what would the government be left with? Does not look like they would do anything at all?

Just keep reading! The question is a good one and shows you're thinking in a new direction. Asking why and how is an excellent step.


Well-Known Member
[SIZE=+1]6 The Complete Perversion of the Law[/SIZE]But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.
How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?
The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy. Let us speak of the first.
[SIZE=+1]7 A Fatal Tendency of Mankind[/SIZE]Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.
But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.
[SIZE=+1]8 Property and Plunder[/SIZE]Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.
But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.
Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain and since labor is pain in itself it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.
When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.
It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.
But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.
This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.
[SIZE=+1]9 Victims of Lawful Plunder[/SIZE]Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter by peaceful or revolutionary means into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.
Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws! Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.
It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.
[SIZE=+1]10 The Results of Legal Plunder[/SIZE]It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.
What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.
In the first place, it erases from everyone's conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.
No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.
The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.