Experimenting with people

The Law - what a brilliant text! Why wasn't I urged to read it sooner? 200 years old, but as fresh as todays newspaper-articles! No, I take that back. It's fresher!

The author of The Law, Frédéric Bastiat made many points about the socialistic attitude of looking at people like sheep, or a piece of land. Socialists tend to have the attitude of looking at people as materials for social-experiments. They say: "Lets raise taxes and expand government here and here and see what happens." Then they say: "Lets raise taxes and support this artist, this industry and this sheep-farmer and hope for the best." And of course they say: "Lets impose moral-laws upon the ignorant people, so they wont think bad thoughts, or at least not express them to anyone." This is the socialistic attitude of Bastiats time, and its the same today.

It is sometimes amazing to hear a socialists (Leftist) ask if a libertarian state has been tested out somewhere. Then it's not good enough to point to the USA during its 18th and 19th century, where a minimal-state of limited government and individual and economic freedom gave millions of poor, non-skilled immigrants from Europe the chance to create the wealthiest and strongest state in the world in record-time. It's not enough to point to Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan - countries with little or no natural resources but with citizens which enjoy some of the highest living-standards in the world. It's not enough to point out how Germany, Sweden and other European-countries made their fortunes after World War II. It's not enough to give examples.

Also, the logic of justice and fairness do not suffice. Is the free market just and fair? I don't know. Is it fair that some are poor and some are rich? Probably not. Why can't I buy a car but others can buy cars and houses? Hard to say. But does the government have a role when it comes to all of these moral-questions? No. Why not? Because when the government increases one persons income, it reduces someone elses, and asks for no permissions. Much like theft, isn't it? And if we think theft is immoral, it shouldn't make any difference if the thief is Robin the Hood, Uncle Sam or the bum down the road. But the fairness- and justice-logic doesn't work on the Left either.

Bastiat said:

Law is justice. And let it not be said - as it continually is said - that under this concept, the law would be atheistic, individualistic, and heartless; that it would make mankind in its own image. This is an absurd conclusion, worthy only of those worshippers of government who believe that the law is mankind.

The law, the government, or government-agents - those entities are not what define, shape, encourage, inspire or teach individuals. Individuals are more than capable of that themselves. The government should simply protect our rights to act, think, say and do what we want, as long as we don't impose violence and property-damage on to other individuals. Given the law is restricted to that role, we will in future like in the past see magnificent changes in the society of man, improving lives, abolish poverty and hunger, and so on.

200 years ago, many great thinkers sat down and figured out that the government is at its best when its doing the least, focusing on protecting rights and properties of free people. Today, experience has proven this point time and time again, and that plus the arguments of fairness and justice should have eliminated the threats of socialism and Leftism a long time ago. The reason it hasn't is partly unknown to me.