I wish some one would offer a prize–not of a hundred francs, but of a million, with crowns, medals and ribbons–for a good, simple and intelligible definition of the word “Government.”

What an immense service it would confer on society!

The Government! what is it? where is it? what does it do? what ought it to do? All we know is, that it is a mysterious personage; and, assuredly, it is the most solicited, the most tormented, the most overwhelmed, the most admired, the most accused, the most invoked, and the most provoked, of any personage in the world.

I have not the pleasure of knowing my reader, but I would stake ten to one, that for six months he has been making Utopias, and if so, that he is looking to Government for the realization of them.

And should the reader happen to be a lady, I have no doubt that she is sincerely desirous of seeing all the evils of suffering humanity remedied, and that she thinks this might easily be done, if Government would only undertake it.

But, alas! that poor unfortunate personage, like Figaro, knows not to whom to listen, nor where to turn. The hundred thousand mouths of the press and of the platform cry out all at once:–

“Organize labour and workmen.

“Do away with egotism.

“Repress insolence and the tyranny of capital.

“Make experiments upon manure and eggs.

“Cover the country with railways.

“Irrigate the plains.

“Plant the hills.

“Make model farms.

“Found social workshops.

“Colonize Algeria.

“Suckle children.

“Instruct the youth.

“Assist the aged.

“Send the inhabitants of towns into the country.

“Equalize the profits of all trades.

“Lend money without interest to all who wish to borrow.”

“Emancipate Italy, Poland, and Hungary.”

“Rear and perfect the saddle-horse.”

“Encourage the arts, and provide us with musicians and dancers.”

“Restrict commerce, and at the same time create a merchant navy.”

“Discover truth, and put a grain of reason into our heads. The mission of Government is to enlighten, to develop, to extend, to fortify, to spiritualize, and to sanctify the soul of the people.”

“Do have a little patience, gentlemen,” says Government in a beseeching tone. “I will do what I can to satisfy you, but for this I must have resources. I have been preparing plans for five or six taxes, which are quite new, and not at all oppressive. You will see how willingly people will pay them.”

Then comes a great exclamation:–”No! indeed! where is the merit of doing a thing with resources? Why, it does not deserve the name of a Government! So far from loading us with fresh taxes, we would have you withdraw the old ones. You ought to suppress

“The salt tax,

“The tax on liquors,

“The tax on letters,

“Custom-house duties,

“Patents.”

In the midst of this tumult, and now that the country has two or three times changed its Government, for not having satisfied all its demands, I wanted to show that they were contradictory. But what could I have been thinking about? Could I not keep this unfortunate observation to myself?

I have lost my character for ever! I am looked upon as a man without heart and without feeling–a dry philosopher, an individualist, a plebeian–in a word, an economist of the English or American school. But, pardon me, sublime writers, who stop at nothing, not even at contradictions. I am wrong, without a doubt, and I would willingly retract. I should be glad enough, you may be sure, if you had really discovered a beneficent and inexhaustible being, calling itself the Government, which has bread for all mouths, work for all hands, capital for all enterprises, credit for all projects, oil for all wounds, balm for all sufferings, advice for all perplexities, solutions for all doubts, truths for all intellects, diversions for all who want them, milk for infancy, and wine for old age–which can provide for all our wants, satisfy all our curiosity, correct all our errors, repair all our faults, and exempt us henceforth from the necessity for foresight, prudence, judgment, sagacity, experience, order, economy, temperance and activity.

What reason could I have for not desiring to see such a discovery made? Indeed, the more I reflect upon it, the more do I see that nothing could be more convenient than that we should all of us have within our reach an inexhaustible source of wealth and enlightenment–a universal physician, an unlimited treasure, and an infallible counsellor, such as you describe Government to be. Therefore it is that I want to have it pointed out and defined, and that a prize should be offered to the first discoverer of the phœnix. For no one would think of asserting that this precious discovery has yet been made, since up to this time everything presenting itself under the name of the Government is immediately overturned by the people, precisely because it does not fulfil the rather contradictory conditions of the programme.

I will venture to say that I fear we are, in this respect, the dupes of one of the strangest illusions which have ever taken possession of the human mind.

Man recoils from trouble–from suffering; and yet he is condemned by nature to the suffering of privation, if he does not take the trouble to work. He has to choose, then, between these two evils. What means can he adopt to avoid both? There remains now, and there will remain, only one way, which is, to enjoy the labour of others. Such a course of conduct prevents the trouble and the satisfaction from preserving their natural proportion, and causes all the trouble to become the lot of one set of persons, and all the satisfaction that of another. This is the origin of slavery and of plunder, whatever its form may be–whether that of wars, impositions, violence, restrictions, frauds, &c.–monstrous abuses, but consistent with the thought which has given them birth. Oppression should be detested and resisted–it can hardly be called absurd.

Slavery is subsiding, thank heaven! and on the other hand, our disposition to defend our property prevents direct and open plunder from being easy.

One thing, however, remains–it is the original inclination which exists in all men to divide the lot of life into two parts, throwing the trouble upon others, and keeping the satisfaction for themselves. It remains to be shown under what new form this sad tendency is manifesting itself.

The oppressor no longer acts directly and with his own powers upon his victim. No, our conscience has become too sensitive for that. The tyrant and his victim are still present, but there is an intermediate person between them, which is the Government–that is, the Law itself. What can be better calculated to silence our scruples, and, which is perhaps better appreciated, to overcome all resistance? We all, therefore, put in our claim, under some pretext or other, and apply to Government. We say to it, “I am dissatisfied at the proportion between my labour and my enjoyments. I should like, for the sake of restoring the desired equilibrium, to take a part of the possessions of others. But this would be dangerous. Could not you facilitate the thing for me? Could you not find me a good place? or check the industry of my competitors? or, perhaps, lend me gratuitously some capital, which you may take from its possessor? Could you not bring up my children at the public expense? or grant me some prizes? or secure me a competence when I have attained my fiftieth year? By this means I shall gain my end with an easy conscience, for the law will have acted for me, and I shall have all the advantages of plunder, without its risk or its disgrace!”

As it is certain, on the one hand, that we are all making some similar request to the Government; and as, on the other, it is proved that Government cannot satisfy one party without adding to the labour of the others, until I can obtain another definition of the word Government, I feel authorised to give my own. Who knows but it may obtain the prize? Here it is:

Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavours to live at the expense of everybody else.

For now, as formerly, every one is, more or less, for profiting by the labours of others. No one would dare to profess such a sentiment; he even hides it from himself; and then what is done? A medium is thought of; Government is applied to, and every class in its turn comes to it, and says, “You, who can take justifiably and honestly, take from the public, and we will partake.” Alas! Government is only too much disposed to follow this diabolical advice, for it is composed of ministers and officials–of men, in short, who, like all other men, desire in their hearts, and always seize every opportunity with eagerness, to increase their wealth and influence. Government is not slow to perceive the advantages it may derive from the part which is entrusted to it by the public. It is glad to be the judge and the master of the destinies of all; it will take much, for then a large share will remain for itself; it will multiply the number of its agents; it will enlarge the circle of its privileges; it will end by appropriating a ruinous proportion.

But the most remarkable part of it is the astonishing blindness of the public through it all. When successful soldiers used to reduce the vanquished to slavery, they were barbarous, but they were not absurd. Their object, like ours, was to live at other people’s expense, and they did not fail to do so. What are we to think of a people who never seem to suspect that reciprocal plunder is no less plunder because it is reciprocal; that it is no less criminal because it is executed legally and with order; that it adds nothing to the public good; that it diminishes it, just in proportion to the cost of the expensive medium which we call the Government?

And it is this great chimera which we have placed, for the edification of the people, as a frontispiece to the Constitution. The following is the beginning of the introductory discourse:–

“France has constituted itself a republic for the purpose of raising all the citizens to an ever-increasing degree of morality, enlightenment, and well-being.”

Thus it is France, or an abstraction, which is to raise the French, or realities, to morality, well-being, &c. Is it not by yielding to this strange delusion that we are led to expect everything from an energy not our own? Is it not giving out that there is, independently of the French, a virtuous, enlightened, and rich being, who can and will bestow upon them its benefits? Is not this supposing, and certainly very gratuitously, that there are between France and the French–between the simple, abridged, and abstract denomination of all the individualities, and these individualities themselves–relations as of father to son, tutor to his pupil, professor to his scholar? I know it is often said, metaphorically, “the country is a tender mother.” But to show the inanity of the constitutional proposition, it is only needed to show that it may be reversed, not only without inconvenience, but even with advantage. Would it be less exact to say–

“The French have constituted themselves a Republic, to raise France to an ever-increasing degree of morality, enlightenment, and well-being.”

Now, where is the value of an axiom where the subject and the attribute may change places without inconvenience? Everybody understands what is meant by this–”The mother will feed the child.” But it would be ridiculous to say–”The child will feed the mother.”

The Americans formed another idea of the relations of the citizens with the Government when they placed these simple words at the head of their Constitution:–

“We, the people of the United States, for the purpose of forming a more perfect union, of establishing justice, of securing interior tranquillity, of providing for our common defence, of increasing the general well-being, and of securing the benefits of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity, decree,” &c.

Here there is no chimerical creation, no abstraction, from which the citizens may demand everything. They expect nothing except from themselves and their own energy.

If I may be permitted to criticise the first words of our Constitution, I would remark, that what I complain of is something more than a mere metaphysical subtilty, as might seem at first sight.

I contend that this personification of Government has been, in past times, and will be hereafter, a fertile source of calamities and revolutions.

There is the public on one side, Government on the other, considered as two distinct beings; the latter bound to bestow upon the former, and the former having the right to claim from the latter, all imaginable human benefits. What will be the consequence?

In fact, Government is not maimed, and cannot be so. It has two hands–one to receive and the other to give; in other words, it has a rough hand and a smooth one. The activity of the second is necessarily subordinate to the activity of the first. Strictly, Government may take and not restore. This is evident, and may be explained by the porous and absorbing nature of its hands, which always retain a part, and sometimes the whole, of what they touch. But the thing that never was seen, and never will be seen or conceived, is, that Government can restore more to the public than it has taken from it. It is therefore ridiculous for us to appear before it in the humble attitude of beggars. It is radically impossible for it to confer a particular benefit upon any one of the individualities which constitute the community, without inflicting a greater injury upon the community as a whole.

Our requisitions, therefore, place it in a dilemma.

If it refuses to grant the requests made to it, it is accused of weakness, ill-will, and incapacity. If it endeavours to grant them, it is obliged to load the people with fresh taxes–to do more harm than good, and to bring upon itself from another quarter the general displeasure.

Thus, the public has two hopes, and Government makes two promises–many benefits and no taxes. Hopes and promises, which, being contradictory, can never be realised.

Now, is not this the cause of all our revolutions? For, between the Government, which lavishes promises which it is impossible to perform, and the public, which has conceived hopes which can never be realised, two classes of men interpose–the ambitious and the Utopians. It is circumstances which give these their cue. It is enough if these vassals of popularity cry out to the people–”The authorities are deceiving you; if we were in their place, we would load you with benefits and exempt you from taxes.”

And the people believe, and the people hope, and the people make a revolution!

No sooner are their friends at the head of affairs, than they are called upon to redeem their pledge. “Give us work, bread, assistance, credit, instruction, colonies,” say the people; “and withal deliver us, as you promised, from the talons of the exchequer.”

The new Government is no less embarrassed than the former one, for it soon finds that it is much more easy to promise than to perform. It tries to gain time, for this is necessary for maturing its vast projects. At first, it makes a few timid attempts: on one hand it institutes a little elementary instruction; on the other, it makes a little reduction in the liquor tax (1850). But the contradiction is for ever starting up before it; if it would be philanthropic, it must attend to its exchequer; if it neglects its exchequer, it must abstain from being philanthropic.

These two promises are for ever clashing with each other; it cannot be otherwise. To live upon credit, which is the same as exhausting the future, is certainly a present means of reconciling them: an attempt is made to do a little good now, at the expense of a great deal of harm in future. But such proceedings call forth the spectre of bankruptcy, which puts an end to credit. What is to be done then? Why, then, the new Government takes a bold step; it unites all its forces in order to maintain itself; it smothers opinion, has recourse to arbitrary measures, ridicules its former maxims, declares that it is impossible to conduct the administration except at the risk of being unpopular; in short, it proclaims itself governmental. And it is here that other candidates for popularity are waiting for it. They exhibit the same illusion, pass by the same way, obtain the same success, and are soon swallowed up in the same gulf.

We had arrived at this point in February.5 At this time, the illusion which is the subject of this article had made more way than at any former period in the ideas of the people, in connexion with Socialist doctrines. They expected, more firmly than ever, that Government, under a republican form, would open in grand style the source of benefits and close that of taxation. “We have often been deceived,” said the people; “but we will see to it ourselves this time, and take care not to be deceived again?”

What could the Provisional Government do? Alas! just that which always is done in similar circumstances–make promises, and gain time. It did so, of course; and to give its promises more weight, it announced them publicly thus:–”Increase of prosperity, diminution of labour, assistance, credit, gratuitous instruction, agricultural colonies, cultivation of waste land, and, at the same time, reduction of the tax on salt, liquor, letters, meat; all this shall be granted when the National Assembly meets.”

The National Assembly meets, and, as it is impossible to realise two contradictory things, its task, its sad task, is to withdraw, as gently as possible, one after the other, all the decrees of the Provisional Government. However, in order somewhat to mitigate the cruelty of the deception, it is found necessary to negotiate a little. Certain engagements are fulfilled, others are, in a measure, begun, and therefore the new administration is compelled to contrive some new taxes.

Now, I transport myself, in thought, to a period a few months hence, and ask myself, with sorrowful forebodings, what will come to pass when the agents of the new Government go into the country to collect new taxes upon legacies, revenues, and the profits of agricultural traffic? It is to be hoped that my presentiments may not be verified, but I foresee a difficult part for the candidates for popularity to play.

Read the last manifesto of the Montagnards–that which they issued on the occasion of the election of the President. It is rather long, but at length it concludes with these words:–”Government ought to give a great deal to the people, and take little from them.” It is always the same tactics, or, rather, the same mistake.

“Government is bound to give gratuitous instruction and education to all the citizens.”

It is bound to give “A general and appropriate professional education, as much as possible adapted to the wants, the callings, and the capacities of each citizen.”

It is bound “To teach every citizen his duty to God, to man, and to himself; to develop his sentiments, his tendencies, and his faculties; to teach him, in short, the scientific part of his labour; to make him understand his own interests, and to give him a knowledge of his rights.”

It is bound “To place within the reach of all, literature and the arts, the patrimony of thought, the treasures of the mind, and all those intellectual enjoyments which elevate and strengthen the soul.”

It is bound “To give compensation for every accident, from fire, inundation, &c., experienced by a citizen.” (The et cætera means more than it says.)

It is bound “To attend to the relations of capital with labour, and to become the regulator of credit.”

It is bound “To afford important encouragement and efficient protection to agriculture.”

It is bound “To purchase railroads, canals, and mines; and, doubtless, to transact affairs with that industrial capacity which characterises it.”

It is bound “To encourage useful experiments, to promote and assist them by every means likely to make them successful. As a regulator of credit, it will exercise such extensive influence over industrial and agricultural associations, as shall ensure them success.”

Government is bound to do all this, in addition to the services to which it is already pledged; and further, it is always to maintain a menacing attitude towards foreigners; for, according to those who sign the programme, “Bound together by this holy union, and by the precedents of the French Republic, we carry our wishes and hopes beyond the boundaries which despotism has placed between nations. The rights which we desire for ourselves, we desire for all those who are oppressed by the yoke of tyranny; we desire that our glorious army should still, if necessary, be the army of liberty.”

You see that the gentle hand of Government–that good hand which gives and distributes, will be very busy under the government of the Montagnards. You think, perhaps, that it will be the same with the rough hand–that hand which dives into our pockets. Do not deceive yourselves. The aspirants after popularity would not know their trade, if they had not the art, when they show the gentle hand, to conceal the rough one. Their reign will assuredly be the jubilee of the tax-payers.

“It is superfluities, not necessaries,” they say “which ought to be taxed.”

Truly, it will be a good time when the exchequer, for the sake of loading us with benefits, will content itself with curtailing our superfluities!

This is not all. The Montagnards intend that “taxation shall lose its oppressive character, and be only an act of fraternity.” Good heavens! I know it is the fashion to thrust fraternity in everywhere, but I did not imagine it would ever be put into the hands of the tax-gatherer.

To come to the details:–Those who sign the programme say, “We desire the immediate abolition of those taxes which affect the absolute necessaries of life, as salt, liquors, &c., &c.

“The reform of the tax on landed property, customs, and patents.

“Gratuitous justice–that is, the simplification of its forms, and reduction of its expenses,” (This, no doubt, has reference to stamps.)

Thus, the tax on landed property, customs, patents, stamps, salt, liquors, postage, all are included. These gentlemen have found out the secret of giving an excessive activity to the gentle hand of Government, while they entirely paralyse its rough hand.

Well, I ask the impartial reader, is it not childishness, and more than that, dangerous childishness? Is it not inevitable that we shall have revolution after revolution, if there is a determination never to stop till this contradiction is realised:–”To give nothing to Government and to receive much from it?”

If the Montagnards were to come into power, would they not become the victims of the means which they employed to take possession of it?

Citizens! In all times, two political systems have been in existence, and each may be maintained by good reasons. According to one of them, Government ought to do much, but then it ought to take much. According to the other, this twofold activity ought to be little felt. We have to choose between these two systems. But as regards the third system, which partakes of both the others, and which consists in exacting everything from Government, without giving it anything, it is chimerical, absurd, childish, contradictory, and dangerous. Those who parade it, for the sake of the pleasure of accusing all Governments of weakness, and thus exposing them to your attacks, are only flattering and deceiving you, while they are deceiving themselves.

For ourselves, we consider that Government is and ought to be nothing whatever but common force organized, not to be an instrument of oppression and mutual plunder among citizens; but, on the contrary, to secure to every one his own, and to cause justice and security to reign.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15962/15962-h/15962-h.htm

Paper money has long been debated in the United States since the beginning. Paper money was used in the colonies and much of the American Revolution was financed by printing what was called “Continental currency“, which was controlled by the Continental Congress.

These notes were printed in large quantities to pay for the war, but in such excess that they became virtually worthless. The memory of this was fresh in the minds of those at the Constitutional Conventions and can be seen in notes on debate that took place on August 16, 1787.

A debate occurred over the language of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2 of the US Constitution which originally read:

“To borrow  Money AND EMIT BILLS on the credit of the United States; ”[emphasis added]

A motion was made to strike out “and emit bills”, a second motion was made and a debate ensued. The concern was primarily over the issue of whether such ‘bills’ would be considered ‘legal tender’ in the form of paper money or simply contained to be an instrument of debt. The following quotes are highlights from the debate. [Notes on the Convention]

Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out “and emit bills on the credit of the U. States”-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.

Mr. ELSEWORTH thought this a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made, were now fresh in the public mind and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By witholding the power from the new Governt. more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost any thing else. Paper money can in no case be necessary. Give the Government credit, and other resources will offer. The power may do harm, never good.

Mr. WILSON. It will have a most salutary influence on the credit of the U. States to remove the possibility of paper money. This expedient can never succeed whilst its mischiefs are remembered, and as long as it can be resorted to, it will be a bar to other resources.

Mr. BUTLER. remarked that paper was a legal tender in no Country in Europe. He was urgent for disarming the Government of such a power.

Mr. READ, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations.

Mr. LANGDON had rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words “(and emit bills”)

From the debate notes it is clear that their primary concern was that the language of “emit bills” could be used to permit the issuance of paper currency by the new legislature.  With direct statements like those from Oliver Ellsworth, their intent to ‘shut the door on paper money’ was unambiguous and leaves little to the imagination.

The motion to strike out the phrase “and emit bills” was approved with a vote of 9 to 2.

Other Quotes on Paper Money from the Period:

“Paper money has had the effect in your state that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice.”
– George Washington, Letter to Thomas Jefferson on Aug. 1, 1786

“Paper money is unjust…Unconstitutional [as it] affects Rights of property as much as taking away equal value in land.”
– James Madison, Notes for Speech Opposing Paper Money, 1 Nov. 1786

“Paper is poverty,… it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1788

“Experience has proved to us that a dollar of silver disappears for every dollar of paper emitted.”
– Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1791

“Specie [hard money] is the most perfect medium because it will preserve its own level; because, having intrinsic and universal value, it can never die in our hands, and it is the surest resource of reliance in time of war.”
–Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813

“The trifling economy of paper, as a cheaper medium, or its convenience for transmission, weighs nothing in opposition to the advantages of the precious metals… it is liable to be abused, has been, is, and forever will be abused, in every country in which it is permitted.”
– Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813

“Private fortunes, in the present state of our circulation, are at the mercy of those self-created money lenders, and are prostrated by the floods of nominal money with which their avarice deluges us.”
– Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813

“That paper money has some advantages is admitted. But that its abuses also are inevitable and, by breaking up the measure of value, makes a lottery of all private property, cannot be denied.”

– Thomas Jefferson to Josephus B. Stuart, 1817

Scale of Socialized Goods and Services According to Political Philosophy

As time moves on, the modern conservative will simply change what they are willing to preserve. In the past 100 years, government has grown and so has its involvement in our economy and personal lives. Much of this involvement has become accepted by the modern conservative and has become the new lower bound for socialism. Where the Conservative of the early/mid 1900′s was against government entitlements and federal control of our economy, the modern conservative now accepts some of these programs as worthy endeavors and could not imagine life without them.

It will only be a matter of time before Universal Healthcare will be the new lower bound, in part or in whole if it is not repealed before the “benefits” begin and become accepted as the new norm. The modern conservative, then, is the equivalent of a climber’s anchor on the progressives’ assent to their goal of total socialism. If a part of the public manages to loosen the grip of the climber to cause them to fall, we will not fall lower than the common accepted lower bound of big government, socialism and tyranny that has been accepted by the ‘other side’, the modern conservative.

The only thing that will change this, is when enough of the population changes their view outside of the left/right, liberal/conservative, democrat/republican paradigm, where they then have the power en masse to dislodge the anchor and the climber, and set a new course for Liberty.

“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
– Dwight D Eisenhower, Letter to his brother, Edgar (1954)

Also see: New Individualist Review, VOLUME 2, NUMBER 2, SUMMER 1962

1. The Law, by Frederic Bastiat

Focus: Philosophy; the role of ‘law’, legalized plunder and natural rights.

The Law is absolutely a must. You will find it on nearly every recommended reading list for Liberty based works. It is short, and can easily be finished in one sitting by an average reader. Taking roughly 1.5 hrs from beginning to end, it is the shortest book on the list. However, don’t be fooled by its relative brevity. Bastiat manages to communicate in this short work what many authors have labored to convey using far more ink and paper.

Free audio book by Mises.org:

2. Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt

Focus: Economics; covers common economic fallacies and basic concepts using easy to understand examples.

Economics In One Lesson was inspired by Frederic Bastiat’s collection Essays on Political Economy. This is yet another book that is often recommended on other lists, largely because of how well Hazlitt communicates economic principles in ways that the average reader can easily understand them. He does not intimidate the reader with unnecessarily complex language.  Using succinct examples, Hazlitt exposes many modern economic fallacies that lead to disastrous consequences.

3. Road to Serfdom, by FA Hayek

Focus: Economics and Philosophy; arguments against central planning, appeals to free markets, personal freedom and limited government.

Being an economist and philosopher, Hayek approaches free market arguments from both perspectives. You will find this book combines the principles learned from the first two recommended works very nicely. Road to Serfdom was a warning against central economic planning that was embraced during the Great Depression. Hayek argued that big government and central planning resulted in the loss of individual Liberty as well as a reduction in wealth creation, both of which are a great loss to society as a whole.

4. How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes, by Peter Schiff

Focus: Economics; packed with humorous and witty illustrations describing fundamental economic concepts, such as wealth creation, credit, savings, benefits of trade, and risk.

As you may have noticed, this list focuses a bit more on economics. If you don’t find that economics is your strong-suit do not be intimidated or turned-off. The economic argument for Liberty is perhaps one of the most compelling when making the case. Like the other books on free market economics before, Schiff’s is easy to understand. You will recognize some of the same arguments from Econ in One Lesson, but there is plenty here to make it a worthy addition.

5. The Constitution in Exile, by Andrew P. Napolitano

Focus: US Constitution/law; original intent and case law. Provides some key points illustrating how the Federal government has assumed power by ‘reinterpreting’ the US Constitution.

The Constitution in Exile makes the list because it is a great introduction to the US Constitution. Judge Andrew Napolitano takes the strict constructionist perspective, which was argued by Madison, Jefferson and others. The Constitution in Exile covers a lot of ground in relatively few chapters. It includes examining case law that has been used to twist the intended meaning of several key phrases in the US Constitution, which has invented new Federal powers without proper amendment. Even though this book takes on what can become a very convoluted subject, it is very accessible to any reader.

If you are interested in further reading, see our recommended reading list.

Since government can demand revenue by force, there is no profit/loss system. There is no simple way to determine if the taxpayer is receiving full value for the goods/services received. Therefore, there is no metric to determine if the capital is being used efficiently.

Some argue that there is not any service that government currently provides, whether it be insurance, charity, protection/defense, education, infrastructure, utilities, etc that could not be provided by a market based approach and make the people affected better off than under a coercive system. In any case, this is the economic argument for limited government. Where if any good/service can be provided by the private sector, government should stay out of the business.

Also notice that subsidies, capital taken from people in the form of taxes and given to certain companies or industries, disrupt the ‘profit/loss’ system and make otherwise unproductive companies appear to be productive (profitable) when in fact they destroy wealth. See: Solyndra.

“By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some.”
– John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1919

Inflation has been accepted by many and even promoted by some as a ‘natural phenomenon’, where it is believed that money naturally loses its value over time and prices rise. However, under any serious school of economic thought, no matter what its view on inflation (positive or negative) this is understood to be nonsense. To understand why, you must understand what ‘inflation’ is.  Inflation itself is often misidentified. Inflation in the strict sense is the actual expansion (ie. inflation) of the money supply. All things being equal, when the supply of money increases in relation to total goods/services outstanding, the value of said money decreases. This requires more of the same currency to purchase the same unit of wealth (eg. loaf of bread) as it did before . This pricing effect can be seen in exaggerated form in Zimbabwe, where enormous amounts of paper money were printed, causing the value of the currency to plummet, eventually requiring an arm full of money to purchase every day items as each new increase in denomination (adding zeros to the currency) was not enough to keep up with the rapid decline in the value of the currency.

The process of increasing the money supply destroys savings, among other poverty inducing effects. That is not to say that some do not benefit. However, the beneficiaries of inflation are usually the politically connected.

The following example illustrates how the process of inflation confiscates real wealth.

Suppose you have $100 in your saving account and the market value of wheat is $10 per bushel. The value of your savings account can be translated into real wealth of 10 units of wheat.

Now, suppose the money supply is doubled, but your savings account remains the same. All things being equal, the value of your savings will fall by half. It will require twice as many dollars to acquire the same amount of wealth as before. So, the price of wheat will rise to $20 per unit. This means your savings of $100 can now only purchase 5 units of wheat at the new price.

Where did the other 5 units of wheat go? They were confiscated by $100 of the newly created currency which can now buy them at the new price of $20 per unit. Whoever received some of the newly created money can now buy that other 5 units of wheat you used to be able to purchase.

Notice, the dollar amount in your savings account has not dropped, only the purchasing power. The value of your savings in real terms has been cut in half. Without picking a lock, breaking a window or busting down a door, 5 units of wheat were confiscated from your savings account through the process of inflation.

Typically, the money supply is not increased as rapidly as Zimbabwe, but this wealth confiscation and transfer occurs at any rate of inflation, whether it is 3% or 50%. This is known as the ‘secret’ tax. Many argue it is outright theft.

“Specie [hard money] is the most perfect medium because it will preserve its own level; because, having intrinsic and universal value, it can never die in our hands, and it is the surest resource of reliance in time of war.”
–Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813

“Mr. Ellsworth thought this a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made, were now fresh in the public mind and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By witholding the power from the new Governt. more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost any thing else. Paper money can in no case be necessary. Give the Government credit, and other resources will offer. The power may do harm, never good.”
– Notes on motion to strike out ‘and emit bills on the credit of the United States’ from Article 1, section 8. Motion passed, Constitutional Convention, Philadelphia, PA August 16, 1787

“Paper money has had the effect in your state that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice.”
– George Washington, Letter to Thomas Jefferson on Aug. 1, 1786

“Paper is poverty,… it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1788

“Paper money is unjust…Unconstitutional [as it] affects Rights of property as much as taking away equal value in land.”
– James Madison, Notes for Speech Opposing Paper Money, 1 Nov. 1786

“That paper money has some advantages is admitted. But that its abuses also are inevitable and, by breaking up the measure of value, makes a lottery of all private property, cannot be denied.
–Thomas Jefferson to Josephus B. Stuart, 1817

Many founders believed a country is made great by its people, not its government. A country is made great by its freedom, not having the largest economy or military. Without freedom, none of that matters. By the superficial standard that is promoted by many today, Rome and Egypt were once ‘great’, but in their “greatness” they were not free. A great country is one where the people are left free to prosper or fail on their own accord, who are left free to act so long as they do not injure others. Where ideas are left free to combat one another and not be silenced by force. Where theft is not sanctioned by law. Where each person is truly respected in their equal natural rights. Where association and cooperation are by voluntary consent, not by coercion. A great country is one that was envisioned, even if imperfectly implemented by the colonists.

When politicians talk about American greatness, ask yourself, “what definition of greatness are they talking about, one that is determined by its degree of freedom, or one that is defined by its economic and military might”? If America becomes that beacon of freedom again, I hope it is not ‘exceptional’, because I hope it is not the exception. I hope that people around the world, seeing an example of true freedom, will realize the fruits of Liberty, their own right as a people to be free and grasp it for themselves. My hope is that Liberty becomes the standard and not the anomaly. As for my own country, my hope is that it will choose freedom and judge its own greatness by that standard above all others.

John Q. Adams on American Greatness as the example, not enforcer: http://www.fff.org/freedom/1001e.asp

“When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object.”
– Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1788

“She [America] well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force….

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit….

[America’s] glory is not dominion, but liberty.”
– John Q. Adams, speech to the U.S. House of Representatives on July 4, 1821

Throughout years of reading a more comprehensive collection from the period (although likely not even scratching the surface), including speeches, letters and other writings from George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry and others, I am constantly amazed how radial their words truly are. They were radicals not just in their day, but also in ours. Many of their sentiments and words are far removed from what is deemed to be acceptable political opinion today. When their ideas are repeated by contemporaries, these individuals are often dismissed as crazy, extreme and fringe. This leaves me to wonder, would America elect the founders again if they were alive today?

The following are some of the more radical quotes from the founders when compared to conventional wisdom:

Patrick Henry

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”
– Patrick Henry, Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775)

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.”
– Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1788

Thomas Paine

“[A] bystander, not blinded by prejudice nor warped by interest, would declare that taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to carry on taxes.”
–Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, 1791

“Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.”
– Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)

Samuel Adams

“If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
– Samuel Adams, Speech, State House of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (1 August 1776)

“A standing Army, however necessary it may be at some times, is always dangerous to the Liberties of the People. Soldiers are apt to consider themselves as a Body distinct from the rest of the Citizens. They have their Arms always in their hands. Their Rules and their Discipline is severe. They soon become attached to their officers and disposed to yield implicit Obedience to their Commands. Such a Power should be watched with a jealous Eye.”
– Samuel Adams, Letter to James Warren (1776)

“All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.”
– Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists (1772)

“The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.”
– Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists (1772)

“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.”
– Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists (1772)

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”
– Samuel Adams, Letter to James Warren (24 October 1780)

John Adams

“Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defence of the country, the over-throw of tyranny, or in private self-defense.”
– John Adams. A DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, at 475, (Philadelphia 1788)

“Be not intimidated…nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice.”
– John Adams, A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law (1765)

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
– John Adams, Letter to John Taylor (1814)

John Q. Adams

“Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she [America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”
– John Q Adams, as Secretary of State to the U.S. House of Representatives. (4 July 1821)

“But the indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation, is after all, not in the right, but in the heart. If the day should ever come, (may Heaven avert it,) when the affections of the people of these states shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give away to cold indifference, or collisions of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of political association will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states, to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union, by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center.”
– John Q Adams, John Q. Adams, THE JUBILEE OF THE CONSTITUTION: A DISCOURSE, April 30, 1789

James Madison

“Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged against provisions against danger, real or pretended from abroad.”
– James Madison, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1798

“The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
– James Madison, Speech, House of Representatives, during the debate “On the Memorial of the Relief Committee of Baltimore, for the Relief of St. Domingo Refugees” (January 10, 1794)

”Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
– James Madison, “Political Observations” 1795

“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.”
– James Madison, Federalist Papers, #10

“The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.”
– James Madison, Speech before the Virginia State Constitutional Convention, December 1 1829

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce.”
– James Madison, Federalist Papers #45

George Washington

“The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests.
– George Washington, The Farewell Address (17 September 1796)

“We are either a United people, or we are not. If the former, let us, in all maters of general concern act as a nation, which have national objects to promote, and a national character to support. If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending to it.”
–George Washington, letter to James Madison, 1785

“‘Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.”
– George Washington, The Farewell Address (17 September 1796)

“Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty.”
– George Washington, Farewell Address (1796)

Thomas Jefferson

“Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.”
–Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801

“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821

“Our attachment to no nation upon earth should supplant our attachment to liberty.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of the Causes and Necessity for Taking Up Arms, 1775

“It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights; that confidence is every where the parent of despotism; free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; … In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
– Thomas Jefferson, From the Kentucky Resolution of 1798

“If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of every American it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest.”
–Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1791

“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.”
– Letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823

“The true barriers of our liberty are our State governments; and the wisest conservative power ever contrived by man, is that of which our Revolution and present government found us possessed.”
–Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811

“Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”
–Thomas Jefferson: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798

“On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
– Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Archibald Stuart, Philadelphia, December 23, 1791

“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
– Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787

“The error seems not sufficiently eradicated that the operations of the mind as well as the acts of the body are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit.”
– Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
– Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824

“It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.”
–Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1820

“An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens… Power is not alluring to pure minds and is not with them the primary principle of contest.”
– Thomas Jefferson to John Melish, 1813

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776

“All experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776

Both issues tend to illicit arguments from one side that appeal to morality based upon religious doctrine. The opposing side tends to appeal to individual rights. Where does one draw the line between religious doctrine and individual Liberty? According to the framers, that line was to be drawn by the people of the individual States. What is little known is that the framers did not intend for the US Bill of Rights to be enforced by the Federal government upon the States, to the contrary, it was to be enforced by the States upon the Federal Government, where each state was to be restrained by their respective people according to their respective charter (State Constitution) and included State Declaration of Rights or State Bill of Rights.

Because the US BOR was not originally enforced by the Federal government against the individual States, the various states could (and did) have established churches. Connecticut had an established church until 1818 and Massachusetts until 1833. According to original intent, those who want to enforce morality by law are perfectly within US Constitutional limits to do so at the state/local level. In fact, the early States did this. Each one had anti-sodomy laws at the State level. This of course was influenced by religious doctrine. The framers thought it was best to leave these decisions at the state level, where they can more easily be controlled and changed if the people found them in error. There were some Federal laws that addressed sodomy, but these were confined to Federal jurisdiction, such as military rules and regulations  (Article 1, section 8, clause 14).

The framers understood that the people of America had various ideals. Even if they agreed on some issues, they still left them to be determined by the people of the various states. Local governance was an important principle to the colonists. Where local/state governments are left free to appeal to the various ideals of the people, this allows the people an outlet to govern according to their own ideals without forcing them upon the rest of the United States.

State autonomy according to the 10th amendment should appeal to those on both sides of contentious issues. Allowing the people of various States the freedom to choose how to governing according to their respective ideals allows each side to live under a government that satisfies their principles.

Note: this is an examination of original intent. Also see the incorporation doctrine for more information on 20th century ‘interpretation’.

We have picked our favorite quotes from this short work that summarize it into an even more succinct form. However, we highly recommend you read the original, which only takes about an hour and half to read or two hours to listen to via audio book.

Audio Book (Forward ends 9:37):
.

“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.”

“What, then, is the law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. … 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 individual groups. … 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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“Legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways; hence, there are an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, bonuses, subsidies, incentives, the progressive income tax, free education, the right to employment, the right to profit, the right to wages, the right to relief, the right to the tools of production, interest free credit, etc., etc. And it the aggregate of all these plans, in respect to what they have in common, legal plunder, that goes under the name of socialism.”

“The mission of the law is not to oppress persons and plunder them of their property, even though the law may be acting in a philanthropic spirit. Its purpose is to protect persons and property…. If you exceed this proper limit — if you attempt to make the law religious, fraternal, equalizing, philanthropic, industrial, or artistic — you will then be lost in uncharted territory, in vagueness and uncertainty, in a forced utopia or, even worse, in a multitude of utopias, each striving to seize the law and impose it on you.”

“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 the law makes them so.”

“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.”

“Thus, if there exists a law which sanctions slavery or monopoly, oppression or robbery, in any form whatever, it must not even be mentioned. For how can it be mentioned without damaging the respect which it inspires? Still further, morality and political economy must be taught from the point of view of this law; from the supposition that it must be a just law merely because it is a law. Another effect of this tragic perversion of the law is that it gives an exaggerated importance to political passions and conflicts, and to politics in general.”

“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse.

The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority.”

“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.” 

“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.”

“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.”

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

“The state tends to expand in proportion to its means of existence and to live beyond its means, and these are, in the last analysis, nothing but the substance of the people. Woe to the people that cannot limit the sphere of action of the state! Freedom, private enterprise, wealth, happiness, independence, personal dignity, all vanish.”

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

“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).”