Hello,
Welcome to another post from Serfdom Road.
“Each of us certainly holds from nature and God the right to defend our person, our freedom, and our property, since these are the three elements that constitute or preserve life…”
“The state is the great fiction by which everyone endeavours to live at the expense of everyone else.”
“They have therefore received from heaven a level of intelligence and virtues that place them outside and above humanity…They wish to be shepherds and want us to be sheep.”
Frédéric Bastiat, b. 1801, d. 1850
“The principle of a republican government is virtue, and it’s means, while it is becoming established, is terror.”
Maximilien Robespierre, b. 1758, d. 1794
Prelude
“Liberté ! Egalité ! Fraternité !”
These words originated during the French Revolution of 1789.
Often cried without the original ending: “Ou la mort !” - or death.
Late 18th, to early 19th century France, was a violent, volatile, and bloody chapter in history.
During this period, France started as an absolute monarchy, under King Louis XVI (b. 1754, d. 1793), and ended as the French Empire, under the rule of military commander, Napoleon Bonaparte (b. 1769, d. 1821).
A period marked by the execution of King Louis XVI, thousands of unlawful arrests and executions, thousands dying in prison without trial, and millions dead during the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815).
Nothing symbolises this period more than the guillotine - the swift release of a metal blade through the neck of the condemned.
How did a “civilised” country, that up to 1789, had given birth to the likes of philosopher, René Descartes (b. 1596, d. 1650); writer, Voltaire (b. 1694, d. 1778); philosopher, Denis Diderot (b. 1713, d. 1784); or mathematician, Pierre-Simon Laplace (b. 1749, d. 1827), descend into a dark abyss of murder, violence, and terror?
What happened to those revolutionaries that sought freedom, justice, and peace in 1789?
What are the parallels with today?
Does every generation risk believing, naively, in the mantra of Japanese economist, Francis Fukuyama (b. 1952), that we have arrived at peak enlightenment, intelligence, and morality?:
“What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history…”
Act I
John Law (b. 1671, d. 1729), was a Scottish economist, and banker, as well as a gambler, and eventually, a convicted murderer.
King Louis XIV (b. 1638, d. 1715), saddled with a burdensome public debt, after waging many wars, needed any help he could get - Law was there at the right time, for himself at least.
Law devised a plan to create a bank that would exchange it’s equity for the public debt of France.
Anyone holding billets d’etat (state bonds) could now become a shareholder in Law’s bank, by exchanging them for shares.
The Banque Générale, was established in 1716, and had the privilege of issuing it’s own paper banknotes - they were also required to pay taxes (sound familiar?).
Banque Générale was now the first bank to issue paper banknotes of defined amounts - a financial innovation for it’s time.
The bank’s equity amounted to 2,850,000 livres (a livre was a pound of silver).
Law later became a director of the Compagnie d'Occident that held a monopoly over commerce in the French colonies of North America.
By 1719, Law’s bank was now France’s first central bank, the Banque Royale, and his Compagnie d'Occident soon absorbed other entities to form the Mississippi Company.
Law’s scheme was devised to receive revenue from it’s trading entities in Louisiana, and from new tax-collection powers, in order to amortise the public debt for good.
More equity was sold to buy more trading companies, and more paper banknotes were issued, likely as loans to buy more shares, with no regard to the gold and silver (or lack thereof) backing the currency notes (fractional-reserve banking?).
You might be thinking, why were so many people willing to exchange their hard-earned money for equity in Law’s bank and trading companies?
Because Law promoted and exaggerated the riches to be found in the swampland of 18th century Louisiana - there really weren’t any.
The Banque Royale enabled shareholders to use their Mississippi Company shares as collateral for a bank loan… to buy more shares!
Thus, further increasing the currency supply.
Law had started one of the greatest economic bubble’s in history, and it was about to collapse.
“Have you all gone crazy in Paris?” - Voltaire
The inflating currency supply caused prices to increase rapidly - by 1720, the total currency supply represented 500% of all gold and silver coinage.
Note: Contrary to popular belief, inflation is not the general increase in prices, it is the increase in the currency supply. It is a definition change, to deflect your attention away from the real cause of rapid price increases - government debauching the currency.
Capital controls were used to prevent bullion leaving the country - it became illegal for a private citizen to own more than 500 livres of metal coin.
The authorities were empowered to enforce this measure by searching people’s houses.
“…the final limit of tyrannical absurdity.” - Voltaire
As with most fiat currency collapses, the state always resorts to force, to accumulate enough gold and silver to back their currency notes.
Once Law had removed the facility at the Banque Royale to promise to pay any shareholder a set price for their shares, the share price of the Mississippi Company collapsed.
Eventually, the Banque Royale was forced to close, and gold and silver coinage was reintroduced for domestic transactions.
As Law finally escaped France, many thousands of shareholders were left holding the bag.
The successors to Louis XIV; the debauched Louis XV, and the ill-fated Louis XVI, would lead France through financial oblivion.
This would be the catalyst for violent and bloody revolution on the horizon.
Act II
France was a country divided into three estates; the First Estate, or the clergy; the Second Estate, or the nobility; and the Third Estate, or the middle class and peasantry.
The first two estates lived at the expense of the peasants; many were taxed heavily and lived in poverty.
Europe was also experiencing the Age of Enlightenment - a period known for great-thinkers, writers, philosophers, and above all, those that questioned the status quo.
By the 1780s, France had become one of the most populous countries in Europe, but with outdated agricultural production methods, food shortages and crop failures were common (supply chain crisis anyone?).
During the winter of 1788, after a poor harvest season, the bitter cold froze many rivers, spoiled stored grain and vegetables, and isolated many rural peasants.
By the spring of 1789, price rises left bread unaffordable for peasants.
To avert a larger crisis, Louis XVI summoned the Estates General, for the first time in nearly 200 years - a body comprising all the estates.
On 5 May 1789, during the Estates General assembly, each estate was provided with one vote each - despite the Third Estate comprising more than 80% of the population, they were out-voted on every issue.
Louis XVI’s finance minister, Jacques Necker (b. 1732, d. 1804), sympathised with the Third Estate, and was eventually removed a few months later by the king.
Angry at the prospect of paying more taxes, the Third Estate formed the National Assembly - a new government that would legislate without approval of the king.
The National Assembly became the National Constituent Assembly, when on 9 July 1789, they assembled for the first time - notable members included, freemasons; Joseph-Ignace Guillotin(e) (b. 1738, d. 1814), Jean Sylvain Bailly (b. 1736, d. 1793), and Bertrand Barère de Vieuzac (b. 1755, d. 1841); and lawyer, Maximilien Robespierre (b. 1758, d. 1794).
Ironically, many of the founding members of the Assembly would find themselves victims of their own revolution - likely by execution or suicide.
On 14 July 1789, angered at the prospect of martial law under a desperate and frightened Louis XVI, local Parisians descended on the Bastille, the local royal prison, to gather ammunition and weapons.
During the storming of the Bastille, the prison governor surrendered to the insurgents and was later executed - his head fixed on a pike and paraded around Paris.
The intervening period would be marked by fear, anger, and mass paranoia, on all sides.
In September 1792, fearful that foreign monarchs would invade France to save the king (they worried revolution would spread across Europe), the revolutionaries believed many imprisoned Swiss guards and royal soldiers would be freed by the invading forces.
An armed mob descended on the prisons of Paris, and murdered thousands - many were not even political prisoners.
These murderous riots would be known as the September Massacres.
This caused further division between the moderate Girondins and the radical Montagnards.
The mass paranoia was not helped by writer, Jean-Paul Marat (b. 1743, d. 1793), a member of the dystopian-sounding Committee on Surveillance.
Marat published many articles calling for the arrest and execution of any counter-revolutionaries - often cited as a proponent of the September Massacres.
“Five or six hundred heads cut off would have assured your repose, freedom, and happiness.” - Marat
Eventually, after being stripped of all his power, a similar fate would befall Louis XVI just a few months later.
On 21 January 1793, Louis XVI was executed at the guillotine, despite opposition from the Girondins to leave the decision to the people of France.
The more radical Montagnards grew sceptical of the Girondins, and their commitment to revolution.
The king’s death resulted in a power vacuum, and a murderous free-for-all ensued.
During 31 May - 2 June 1793, the Paris Commune (Paris’ municipal government) demanded 22 Girondin deputies be brought before the Revolutionary Tribunal.
For the crime of wanting the revolution to take a less murderous path, they were executed, on 31 October 1793.
Prior to their execution, on 13 July 1793, Marat was assassinated by a supporter of the imprisoned Girondins.
Charlotte Corday (b. 1768, d. 1793), Marat’s assassin, was executed by guillotine 4 days later.
The Reign of Terror had begun.
Act III
“Terror is nothing else than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible.” - Robespierre
In April 1793, the Committee of Public Safety was created (another dystopian-sounding name) and mostly led by Maximilien Robespierre - he had an obsession with arresting, and executing, any counter-revolutionaries.
In September 1793, the Law of Suspects was decreed, and anyone deemed a counter-revolutionary was arrested.
More decrees would follow, as the Committee of Public Safety grew in power and delivered swift “justice” to anyone thought to be an enemy of the revolution.
The cycle of paranoia, anger, and violence was gathering momentum.
On 10 October 1793, Marie Antoinette, Louis XVI’s wife, was beheaded.
Then by 5 April 1794, leading revolutionary, Georges Danton (b. 1759, d. 1793), was also executed - mostly for wanting an end to the continuous executions.
Fellow Dantonist, Camille Desmoulins (b. 1759, d. 1793) was also executed that day - he was a school friend of Robespierre.
By the summer of 1794, the Committee of General Security (think Stasi of East Germany) grew tired and anxious of Robespierre’s thirst for executing anyone perceived to be a counter-revolutionary - he had to be stopped.
During Robespierre’s arrest, he received a gun shot wound to his jaw - it was left barely attached to his head.
After spending the night in prison, and without medical attention, Robespierre was to be executed - ironically charged with being a counter-revolutionary.
On 28 July 1794, while Robespierre was held under the guillotine, the executioner removed the bandage holding his jaw in place.
Robespierre let out a scream that was only silenced by the falling blade.
The Reign of Terror had ended - after an estimated 300,000 arrests, 20,000 executions, and 20,000 more left to die in prison without trial.
The National Convention, France’s government from 1792, gave way to The Directory in 1795.
By 1799, a coup d'état was staged that brought military commander, Napoleon Bonaparte to power.
It seemed France wasn’t done with needless death and misery.
By the end of Napoleon’s reign, in 1815, millions of Europeans had died as a result of war, starvation and disease.
The utopian dream had become a bloody nightmare.
Ironically, when Napoleon was exiled to the Italian island of Elba, after being defeated by allied forces, he was replaced, in 1814, by none other than, Louis XVI’s brother, Louis XVIII (b. 1755, d. 1824).
It was as if the revolution had never happened.
The Minarchist
Frédéric Bastiat (b. 1801, d. 1850), was a French writer and economist, opposed both socialism and authoritarianism, and advocated for the protection of natural rights.
Bastiat experienced a chaotic early 19th century France, marked by the Napoleonic Empire (1804-1815), the Revolution of 1830, and the Revolution of 1848.
Towards the end of his short life, Bastiat grew concerned with the thirst for socialism in France.
Bastiat despised the opinions of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (b. 1712, d. 1778), that saw the public as a thoughtless mass, that needed a philosopher to guide them.
For Bastiat, if left to their own devices, human beings are able to develop unimaginably complex systems, naturally, that no central authority could ever hope to create.
In 1848, Bastiat wrote a pamphlet entitled, The State; coincidently, this was the same year Karl Marx (b. 1818, d. 1883) wrote The Communist Manifesto.
Then just a few months before Bastiat’s death, in 1850, he wrote The Law.
In his work, Bastiat describes the two ways to earn wealth: through peaceful and voluntary exchange (a free market); or, by theft, conquest, and coercion (often by using the power of the state).
Plunder was an often used word by Bastiat, by which, he meant the “legal” plunder of the people, by the state - through taxation and tariffs.
Bastiat argued, plunder violated private property rights, as slavery violated one’s right to freedom.
He was aware everyone had their own interests, and would rather the state legislate for them, to live at the expense of others.
This mentality, among the population, led Bastiat to argue that lawful and legal are two separate concepts.
For action to be lawful, it must not violate a human being’s right to freedom, or property.
For action to be legal, it only needs to be sanctioned by legislation.
However, what is legal, is not always lawful.
It was once legal to own a slave, and a slave became the private property of the slave owner.
However, this was unlawful, because it violated the slave’s right to freedom.
Bastiat described law as “the common power organised to obstruct injustice and, in short, the law is justice.”
The “common power” we all have, either as individuals, or as a freely-chosen group of individuals, to defend our lives and our property.
Bastiat was against plunder and slavery, of all forms, and articulates his position in the following quote:
“If I use force to turn another man’s labour to my profit, that man is my slave.”
“He still is, if, I find the means, by force or by cunning, to get hold of the fruits of his labour.”
Every time you pay income tax the state steals the fruits of your labour, you are a slave to the state, are you not?
The State
“I, too, long to have at hand that inexhaustible source, of riches and enlightenment, that universal physician, that limitless treasure, that infallible counsellor, that you call the state.”
Bastiat writes, that while man is adverse to pain and suffering, he is condemned by nature to suffer, if he does not begin the pain of work.
Man has but two choices: suffer, or work.
There is a third choice, however: live at the expense of others.
Is there a way for pain and satisfaction to not accrue in an individual naturally, but rather, for all pain to accrue in the exploited, and all satisfaction to accrue in the exploiters?
This is the result of slavery and plunder.
For most, slavery and plunder are criminal, but what if you could use the state to do the crime for you?
So that you may live with a clear conscience knowing (or believing) that state-sponsored slavery and plunder is just, otherwise, why would it be legislated?
More importantly, why would the state ever reduce it’s power as the arbiter and master of every destiny?
The state can only grow in size, power, and strength (see Rust Never Sleeps).
For the state to make due on it’s promises, it must tax.
If it does not tax, it must renege on it’s promises.
It is left with a conundrum.
With the advent of fiat currency and fractional-reserve banking, there is a third option: borrow, borrow, borrow…then borrow some more to extinguish previous debt.
Steal from the future, such that the next generation will bear the tax burden, not the present generation.
In a sense, the voters become the exploiters, and those too young to vote become the exploited (see why total universal suffrage might not be a solution either in Democracy Debunked).
When credit dries-up and interest rates rise (compensation for buying the debt of an already debt-laden state), the state resorts to quietening, ridiculing, or even banning public opinion.
Price controls, capital controls, taxation, tariffs, and even war, are used or increased, to maintain a hold on power - is this not happening today?
“…the state is not and should not be anything else than the common police force instituted, not to be an instrument of oppression and reciprocal plunder, but, on the contrary, to guarantee each his own and to make justice and security prevail.”
The Law
“He who gave it [life] to us has left us the responsibility of preserving it, of developing it, of perfecting it.”
To improve our standard of living, one must be free to use their own faculties to carve out a desired existence - provided no harm is inflicted on others.
“Existence, faculties, assimilation - in other words, personality, liberty, property - that is what man is.”
It is not law that creates freedom and property, it is the fact that freedom and property exist, that law exists, to allow for the legitimate defence of our rights.
Therefore, if each person has the right to a legitimate defence, then we have the right (not the obligation) to join together, and organise ourselves into a common force, in order to provide lawfully for this defence.
Law is the collective organisation of the individual’s right to self-defence.
To explain further, what are your faculties (skills), if not an extension of your personality, and what is your property, if not an extension of your faculties?
The fruits of your labour exist because of you, and you exist because of the fruits of your past labour - you have an equal right to defend your property, as you do to defend your life.
Apply Bastiat’s argument to your own life: What is your salary, if not the fruit of your labour, or now, your private property? What is the income tax, if not the plunder (theft) of your property?
Is the income tax, thereby, unlawful, while being legal?
Unfortunately, human beings (through no fault of their own) tend towards the path of least resistance, and thereby, tend to the path of least suffering, even if this means living at the expense of others.
Plunder is less burdensome than work, and your law-maker, has no incentive to protect the law, but rather to corrupt it, for their own ends.
“…the law destroys…the rights of the person by way of slavery, liberty by way of oppression, property by way of plunder.”
The oppressed classes may seek to end plunder, or take part in it, through revolutionary means.
Think of the “eat the rich”, or “tax the rich” slogans of today.
Rather than end, or even recognise the theft, by which they are a victim, through inflation and direct taxation, they wish to plunder others.
However, why would they criticise, say, the income tax, when they gain a (perceived) benefit from the government programmes, or subsidies it funds?
Note: Please read Henry Hazlitt’s book, Economics in One Lesson, for more on the seen and unseen consequences of poor economic decisions.
Law is no longer about justice. Law is about (false) philanthropy.
Law that organises labour, education, or religion, disorganises justice.
When one weeps at the wealth disparity in society, rather than think of ways to plunder the wealthy, for the (unrealised) benefit of the poor, first think of the plunder that preceded over society to cause the disparity.
Socialist intellectuals, seem to premise that the poor are made of inert matter.
They pontificate and proclaim that something must be done, and they are on the side of the oppressed.
Yet, they are willing to dismantle society, and begin their own social experiments (usually just reigniting past failures), using the oppressed as their lab rats.
Their mentality can be summarised as thus:
“While mankind tends toward evil, they [socialists] incline towards the good; while mankind marches into the darkness, they aspire towards enlightenment…”
What say you?
Life in 18th century France, for those not fortunate enough to be a clergyman or a man of nobility, was painful, desperate, and short.
Who could blame them for wanting freedom and peace?
These were the ideals of the revolutionaries of 1789, and yet the people of France, especially Paris, soon suffered from mass paranoia, resulting from the mistrust, fear, and anger, that had swept over them.
After the execution of Louis XVI, and a rejection of old institutions, there was an immense power vacuum - the 400-year-old Ancien Régime was no more.
During the Age of Enlightenment the public became aware they could use their own mind to decide for themselves. Unfortunately, for the French, there were just too many idealists vying for power.
The threat of numerous counter-revolutionary conspiracies, both real and imagined, ignited the fuse leading to the Reign of Terror.
Why wait for your fellow countrymen to agree with your opinions, when you could just send them to the guillotine?
Tolerance, justice, and a respect for natural law, had all but disappeared.
The tolerant became intolerant.
The just became vengeful.
The pacifist had become the terrorist.
A chilling parallel with today, is the factionalisation of society.
Think of the radical Montagnards, led by Robespierre, and our modern day Antifa, Black Lives Matter, or Extinction Rebellion?
Think of the Committee of Surveillance, that became the Committee of General Security, and the Committee of Public Safety - are they not similar to the UK’s Department for Levelling Up, SAGE, and Equality Hub; or the US Homeland Security, and CDC?
Think of the “radical left” in the US Democratic Party - much like the Montagnards and Girondins that constituted the Jacobins?
Think of the Never Trumpers, QAnon, Brexiteers, Remainers, Alt-right, Wokeists, TERFs, etc.?
It is not too difficult to see why each faction despises the other - just look at the US presidential elections.
They are a reality TV show, with the spoils going to the victor, as your life hangs in the balance, because the state is now the master of every destiny.
If the power of the state was limited, would you ever see a politician on TV?
Another parallel with today, was the rejection of old institutions in France, during the 1790s, including the creation of a new calendar and a new day - divided into 10 hours of 100 minutes of 100 seconds.
Does this remind you of the “cancel culture” of today, or the rejection and removal of our own history?
We are now at a crossroads.
When our glorious elite, their intellectual minions, and the mainstream media, can no longer secure the façade hiding all the lies, crimes against humanity, sovereign debt crises, and economic ruin - what will we do?
Will we enact revenge through plunder, or worse?
Will our own mistrust, fear, and anger take over?
Can we learn from Bastiat?
Can we ensure nobody uses the state’s monopoly on power to plunder, or enslave anyone again?
Can we be courageous enough to reverse the growing intervention of government in our lives?
While it is not enough to substitute one politician for another, as the power of the state will still exist, it is not wise to become the next Robespierre either.
Let’s move closer to a world where Mother Nature dictates the course of life, not a central authority.
A world where, if we are to have a government, it must not step beyond being the protector of natural law.
Today, we are experiencing a great violation of our individual rights, with the rise of Klaus Schwab (b. 1938), his World Economic Forum, and his vision of the Great Reset.
“You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.” is their mantra.
If you own nothing, and rent instead, then whom are you paying rent to?
Someone will still have private property rights. It just won’t be you.
There are already signs of this vision becoming a reality in the near future, with a UK minister pushing for an end to private car ownership.
If we are to reverse course, we must have faith in ourselves, to enact change within us, and around us.
For the state is the great fiction, that truly cannot provide for some, without taking from others.
Even when the state engages in plunder, it always harms those it set out to “help”.
What is more abhorrent, is the mentality of the socialist that views the “oppressed” as a thoughtless mass, in need of rescuing.
Want to be an entrepreneur? Too bad you’re a woman, the state will “help” you.
Want to get a promotion? Too bad you’re not white, the state will “help” you.
Want to feed your children? Too bad you’re poor, the state will “help” you.
The so-called “tolerant” of today would so gladly keep their boot on your neck, and claim to be your saviour.
“Don’t bother getting up, you’re a victim now.”
The hidden truth, is that you have great power within you to be wealthy, to be healthy, to be free, and to be happy.
The only obstacles are you, and the state.
As Bastiat has told us, we would sooner live at the expense of others than endure the pain of work - so calling for individual freedom, means calling for individual responsibility, and this is no easy sell.
That is partly why this site exists: to help, if at all, those that are lost, helpless, or powerless, find their true self.
Reject the state.
Be courageous. Be free. Be happy.
Bonus Feature
The man in this video, Jordan B. Peterson, does a great job of selling individual responsibility. Enjoy.
I hope you have found this article insightful and helpful!
Please feel free to comment below.
Kind regards,
Le Libérateur
If you enjoyed this article, please subscribe and share!
This is really good - your best yet I would say. Enjoyed your long intro to Bastiat as well as the Jordan Peterson clip which I had not seen until today. Keep up the great work - as someone wrote this week: we are all truckers now.