Frédéric Bastiat is probably most famous for a quote that makes the rounds occasionally on Social Media "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it," which is true and applies to the current economy as much as it did in his time, if not much more. Most of his other writings is forgotten by the majority of the public, which is unfortunate, even if it has a few flaws, but he makes many other good points. However, if he gets more attention again, we should be cautious of people misrepresenting his work, which he actually warned about.
Today Frédéric Bastiat's most famous quote may seem to apply more to Capitalism than anything else, and justifiably so; but when he was alive he often applied it more to criticism against what he called Protectionism, Communism, which he opposed based on the assumption that it required Protectionism, and Socialism, which he wasn't completely opposed to but often criticized the way it was implemented; presumably because there was a strong Socialist movement in his time and he observed some powerful people distorting it for their own benefit. To the best of my knowledge his most detailed writings are listed in Selected Essays on Political Economy, Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850) Translated by Seymour Cain, and he passed away shortly after that, unable to continue writing, and there's good reason to believe that this was a work in process, and it was based on economics as he knew it in his time, which would have to be revised to apply it to current times.
As I indicated two of the things he seemed most concerned about were various forms of Plunder, including what he called Legal Plunder, and Protectionism which in his time, and for the most part now, refers to banning imports or tariffs on them to protect local industry, but this term is rarely used to protect from Plunder, protect the environment, protect workers rights, protect from wars based on lies and many other legitimate forms of protection, assuming they're used rationally, which should be a good idea, and, in some cases these rational forms of potential protectionism are prevented by the narrow interpretation the establishment uses it for, although Bastiat didn't anticipate this in his time. But, when it comes to most if not all the examples of protectionism cited by Bastiat in his essays they make sense and are often forms of plunder that should be banned.
The first essay, in the collection I cited above, "What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen," clearly describes a work in progress, where he describes several examples, mostly of tariffs designed to help special interests, and explains some things are immediately seen and others, although predictable, are only seen later, like the fact that people who are forced to pay high tariffs won't have money for other necessities that improve life and contribute to the quality of life. These are legitimate concerns, and he's right that good economists should foresee them, since they're so obvious; but there are other cases, that may not have been so easy to predict in his time, like current free trade policies attempting, often successfully, to ban protection of the environment or workers rights. When I read this it was pretty clear that his writings could easily be distorted to support current libertarian or free market policies; however some of his other writings oppose other forms of plunder, including against the poor or working class, which he acknowledges have the least political power, in his time and ours, which makes us the greatest target of "legal plunder," which is now as bad as ever, if not worse, but sometimes more sophisticated.
Even though he's almost forgotten by most people some academics have tried to use his writings to promote their own views, including complete opposition to all forms of what they call protectionism and complete support for the free market, or their version of a free market, which is actually dominated and corrupted by Oligarchs. Our current economic system, a form of Neo-Colonialism, is dominating most of the world, lead by Wall Street and their allies, including the IMF, The World Bank, and many of the most powerful countries in the world who are plundering the planet, robbing the poor and middle class with forms of "Legal Plunder" that would surely have outraged Frédéric Bastiat if he knew about it; and this system adopts opposition to Socialism, Communism and Protectionism, which is often used to suppress efforts to protect worker rights, environmental rights and other social rights which also would outrage Frédéric Bastiat!
The assumption that he would have supported current extreme opposition to Protectionism, even when it's used to enable profit at the expense of the environment and workers rights, among other things, is virtually guaranteed no to be true, although that doesn't mean we should jump to our own conclusions. However, even if I am mistaken about Bastiat taking too extreme a view against protectionism, or, more likely, the supporters of of our current economic system make it appear as if I am mistaken, this doesn't mean we should blindly obey all of Frédéric Bastiat's teachings anymore than we should blindly obey any other leader, including Karl Marx, like a mindless cult follower. Noam Chomsky once said something similar about Marx, recommending that we accept the best recommendations from him and fact check the rest, dismissing aspects, if any, that might not make sense; the same should apply to Frédéric Bastiat or anyone else.
Frédéric Bastiat obviously thought all forms of plunders should be abolished, if possible; but he had doubts about if the working class would do so, and suspected that instead they would reverse the process which would backfire, although there have been few if any cases where this happened. He acknowledged that
"legal plunder is exercised by the few against, the many, as it is among nations in which the right to legislate is concentrated in a few hands. But now it becomes universal, and an effort is made to redress the balance by means of universal plunder. Instead of being abolished, social injustice is made general. As soon as the disinherited classes have obtained their political rights, the first idea they seize upon is not to abolish plunder (this would suppose in them more wisdom than they can have), but to organize a system of reprisals against the other classes that is also injurious to themselves; as if, before justice reigns, a harsh retribution must strike all, some because of their iniquity, others because of their ignorance."
the clear implication is he didn't think the masses, in his time, would be able to minimize or eliminate "legal plunder" but he acknowledges that those controlling the legislature are much more likely to rob the majority. There may have been some justification for this since the French Revolution happened shortly before he was born, and there was limited improvements, at best, since; in fact it was only when upper classes, often somewhat abusive, took control that there was a reasonable amount of stability. Nevertheless, still more needed to be done to correct income inequality based on legal plunder, by those controlling the laws. He also argues that legal plunder is worse than illegal plunder because
"With courage and prudence, a man can protect himself from illegal plunder, but no one can escape from legal plunder. If someone tries, what is the distressing spectacle presented to society? A plunderer armed with the law, a victim resisting the law." .......
But even in such cases the Montagnards have been known to applaud. Is it not because they want above all to see the principle of legal plunder securely established as a precedent? Once the legal plunder of the poor for the profit of the rich is made legitimate by the support of the majority, how reject the legal plunder of the rich for the benefit of the poor?
He's right, of course, and it's far worse now than it was when he lived. He does come to the defense of the poor or working class, but may not do so as much as he could have, and perhaps should have. For example, at one point he comes to the defense of miners for not getting adequate compensation for their work, but says nothing about the horrible conditions in the mines at that time; and other defenders of worker rights do a far better job pointing out many other problems.
Regardless of whether he does enough to defend the working class or not, our government and media have created a much more sophisticated propaganda machine to convince the majority of the public that this is a Democratic government even though they have contempt for the will of the people, and the media is completely controlled by the rich who only provide fair coverage for candidates they support, ensuring those who try to represent the people have little or no chance of getting the name recognition they need to get elected; and when some good candidates, like Jill Stein, Jeremy Corbyn, Zohran Mamdani manage to get some attention the establishment media relentlessly smears them, making it virtually impossible if not impossible for these candidates to win.
As I pointed out previously in Conclusive Proof Showing Democracy In The USA Is A Lie! there are over two dozen polls based on economic issues where a large majority of the public is on one side of the issue, campaign donors are on the other side of the issue; and in every case the overwhelming majority of the political establishment take the side of the campaign donors, rigging the economy and carrying out legal plunder against the majority of us! One of the biggest and most brazen examples is how our private health care system is designed to enable the rich to steal funds intended to be used for health care even though the result is that without those funds sick people can't get adequate health care and they suffer much more, and even die earlier as a result of this. If their any doubt about this, or the fact that the majority of the public don't support this system, there are numerous studies or polls, some that I pointed out previously, proving this.
Studies that support this conclusion include 22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money 02/24/2020; Medicare for All Would Save $450 Billion and 68,000 Lives: Study 02/18/2020; and The Troubled Insurance Sales Firm Behind Those Joe Namath Ads for Medicare Advantage 12/13/2021 which says "Researchers have found that aside from the financial risks, choosing the wrong plan can literally knock years off your life." Polls that support this conclusion include Polls showing 70% support Medicare for All & 85% of Democrats. Additional polls are also cited in the previous article mentioned above Conclusive Proof Showing Democracy In The USA Is A Lie! and another article about Is Privatized Health Care Government Sanctioned Extortion? Simply understanding the fundamentals of insurance, also known as pooled risk, is enough to understand how flawed and inefficient the for profit system is and why it costs billions of dollars and thousands of lives more than a public system would, assuming the public system had adequate disclosure and checks and balances.
With pooled risk, whether it's private for profit insurance, a form of government run single payer insurance or a similar program, people pay into the pool of funds that are needed for health care, or what ever cause (auto, life, property, etc.) the insurance is used for, but tehy can't eliminate bureaucratic expenses, no matter what the system is, although they can be minimized. The establishment has told us for decades that competition creates increased efficiency, but they can't change fundamental principles and there are many expenses in a for profit system that has nothing to do with providing health care or another service which are unnecessary in a public system; so if you allow well run public systems to compete with for profit private systems the for profit system can't compete. Instead of competing to "be more efficient," as insurance companies want us to believe, they compete by spending an enormous amount on advertising without providing much, if any, honesty about saving money on insurance by switching to their company. In addition to advertising expenses insurance companies spend an enormous amount on high CEO Pay, Stock Dividends, lobbying expenses, campaign contributions, and many other expenses that have nothing to do with Health coverage or other insurance related services or products.
They even spend a fortune on legal expenses to ensure they don't have to pay claims as they advertise!
Don't take my word for it!
Look up Wikipedia: List of United States hurricanes pick a Hurricane then Google "Lawsuits against insurance companies for Hurricane Katrina (Or the hurricane of your choice)" then read up on all the lawsuits filed against insurance companies. One of the first ones I found is AG Lynn Fitch settled Katrina insurance cases for pennies on the dollar compared to others 10/03/2022, but there are many more where that came from, and policy holders often don't get help from government sources. If you repeat this process over and over again you'll find dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of articles about lawsuits against insurance companies, depending on how much time you're will to put into this search showing that insurance companies have an astronomical legal fund to deny or minimize payments for claims promised in those deceptive advertisements!
Where do they get the money for legal expenses to deny all these claims?
Your Premiums? If not, where else?
So, instead of using money intended for claims, the for private private insurance industry, is using some of that money collected to deny claims to help increase profits! The same goes for other types of insurance as well including Health Care; feel free to Google "Lawsuits against insurance companies for denying Health Care" or a variety of other phrases.
If this isn't a massive example for "legal plunder" what is?
How many other examples are there of "legal plunder?" I have no doubt that if we look through one aspect after another of our economic system we'll find one example after another, perhaps starting with all the polls I previously mentioned in Conclusive Proof Showing Democracy In The USA Is A Lie! where a large majority of the public was on one side of the issue but the political establishment takes the side of campaign donors against the will of the people. In most, if not all cases, we'll find direct or indirect evidence of rigging the economy in favor of wealthy campaign donors, and often costing thousands, if not millions of lives in addition to massive amounts of money stolen from the working class by the wealthy, although not everyone will agree on all these examples.
A large percentage of the public support an increase in the Minimum Wage, nine years ago we were pushing for $15 an hour, now, even though we haven't even got that most people would support even more. Is this too much? Do billionaires actually earn their money or do they get it by "legal plunder?" How can there be any doubt the system is rigged, although there can be doubts about how to fix it, but a higher minimum wage, as most people believe, should be part of it, to reduce massive inequality.
There was also an enormous amount of support for a Green New Deal, including, at least during the 2018 campaign, from AOC and the so-called Squad, although they forgot about this and most other progressive issues once in office. This is one example where the rich clearly get a large majority of the benefit from industrialization accompanied by massive amount of pollution from increased profits and massive spending, including on private Jets, etc., but the poor get stuck with the pollution making them sick and even killing them!
The majority want to expand Social Security, and Bastiat might have some doubts about that possibly even considering it plunder by the majority, or that might be what critics of Social Security might attribute to Bastiat, whether he came to that conclusion of not; however this is available for everyone, and it's an earned benefit, not an entitlement. The alternative is letting the rich live a healthy retirement while plundering the poor and leaving the poor destitute.
Most people support using the military as a last resort; but the establishment almost never do that, and we have to foot the bill for it. I've covered this in other articles, showing all wars, not just most, but all wars are based on lies by the well connected and the military industrial complex profit from these wars based on lies, along with other Wall Street corporations supporting Neo-Colonialism with wars based on lies, while it's the working class sacrificing their lives, along with millions of civilians in third world countries killed in these wars, and they also contribute to massive amounts of pollution and Ecocide, killing even more. This is not only legal plunder, but legal mass murder, genocide and ecocide!
The vast majority support fair immigration as well, but this poll only covers a fraction of the "legal plunder" related to this. Our country has a long history of supporting coups and wars against third world countries, even though the majority of the public doesn't support this, which creates a massive refugee problem, and since those creating this catastrophe won't admit their crimes they portray their victims as illegal aliens or criminals, when the real criminals are the ones exploiting the immigrants and overthrowing Democratic governments, so once again, this is not only an example of "legal plunder" exploiting oppressed people making them work for low wages and without legal protection, but it's also related to "legal mass murder!"
Most people support higher taxes on the wealthy, since they obviously don't earn their wealth, so this helps return some of the "legal plunder" stolen from the working class to them. If we end the "legal plunder" in the first place this might be more effective, but reasonable taxes will still be more appropriate.
of course a large majority of the public supports campaign finance reform, since it's a major part of the reason why the entire political establishment is obsessed with supporting "legal plunder!" But of course, the same people profiting from this are protecting the corrupt system.
The majority want to reform racists incarceration system possibly because it's a result of massive amounts of "legal plunder" where the biggest thieves almost never go to jail while the poor have the system rigged against them, often for petty non-violent crimes many of which should never be a crime in the first place, other crimes, like petty theft, are often a result of a rigged economy forcing people to desperate actions.
The majority support tuition free college, and Karl Marx also supported education for all, because he recognized people needed to be informed on the issues to participate in the Democratic process, among other things. Frédéric Bastiat also supported reasonable funding for education as he indicated when he admitted that he supported a tax for education, only regretting it later when he realized those getting the education were only a minority that mostly came from the wealthy class, while it was the working class paying the taxes for it. I suspect he would be more inclined to support a fair education system for all, which we are now able to provide. But there might be some exceptions worth considering; while many college courses, like medical care etc., are worthwhile, some, like marketing or political science where the children of the wealthy study how to manipulate the majority enabling "legal plunder' might not be worth complete support. However, since this is already commonplace, it would be worthwhile to teach these tactics to the majority for the purpose of recognizing "legal plunder" and preventing it.
Most people support universal childcare; and as I've pointed out previously, studies have shown that this helps reduce other social problems and actually saves money, so even if this doesn't involve "legal plunder" it's worthwhile.
The majority support capping Credit Card interest rates, which we used to call loan sharking when this was handled by the Mafia; now that banks with political connections are doing it the government protects this "legal plunder."
Most people agree that arms sales make us less safe, and research shows they're right, but of course the wealthy profit from this and the wars accompanied by arms sales, so we subsidize arms sales used to oppress people around the world, which is not only another example of "legal plunder" but it's also another example of "legal mass murder" and even "legal genocide."
Most people oppose outsourcing, and as I said Frédéric Bastiat had doubts about this, but in his time trade was mostly with other countries close to France with similar cultures, not a globalized economy where poor people are now forced to compete with other poor people all over the world driving wages down everywhere. There's good reason to suspect that Frédéric Bastiat would want to protect workers rights, as he did in his time; but even if he didn't on this issue, it's up to us to see how our current system is a form of "legal plunder" and it also leads to environmental damage and ecocide, which needs to stop.
By a four to one margin (62-14%), Americans favor the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The political establishment blocks this because it would prevent "legal plunder" exploiting children for the benefit of Wall Street Oligarchs.
Most people agree unaccompanied children in immigration proceedings who cannot afford legal representation should be provided with it, and our government has always claimed that the law treated all alike, even though this has never been close to the truth. The Oligarchs, of course, oppose this, since giving children or immigrants legal rights would make it much more difficult to get away with their "legal plunder" against them!
Let's face it, our government is controlled by crooks enabling "legal plunder" by Wall Street Oligarchs funding their campaigns!
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross Vs. Frédéric Bastiat: The Interest of the Producer Vs. the Interest of the Consumer 08/01/2017
