Pnewtext-04. qxd

on to fraternity.” I answered him: “The second half of your pro-
gram will destroy the first.”
In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word frater-
nity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how
fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally
destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot.
Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said
before, is in human greed; the other is in false philanthropy.
At this point, I think that I should explain exactly what I
mean by the word plunder.*
Plunder Violates Ownership
I do not, as is often done, use the word in any vague, uncer-
tain, approximate, or metaphorical sense. I use it in its scientific
acceptance—as expressing the idea opposite to that of property
[wages, land, money, or whatever]. When a portion of wealth is
transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent
and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—
to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is vio-
lated; that an act of plunder is committed.
I say that this act is exactly what the law is supposed to sup-
press, always and everywhere. When the law itself commits this
act that it is supposed to suppress, I say that plunder is still com-
22
*Translator’s note: The French word used by Mr. Bastiat is spoliation.
pNEWTEXT-04.qxd  7/13/2004  11:34 AM  Page 22

---

mitted, and I add that from the point of view of society and wel-
fare, this aggression against rights is even worse. In this case of
legal plunder, however, the person who receives the benefits is
not responsible for the act of plundering. The responsibility for
this legal plunder rests with the law, the legislator, and society
itself. Therein lies the political danger.
It is to be regretted that the word plunder is offensive. I
have tried in vain to find an inoffensive word, for I would not at
any time—especially now—wish to add an irritating word to our
dissentions. Thus, whether I am believed or not, I declare that I
do not mean to attack the intentions or the morality of anyone.
Rather, I am attacking an idea which I believe to be false; a sys-
tem which appears to me to be unjust; an injustice so indepen-
dent of personal intentions that each of us profits from it without
wishing to do so, and suffers from it without knowing the cause
of the suffering. 
Three Systems of Plunder
The sincerity of those who advocate protectionism, social-
ism, and communism is not here questioned. Any writer who
would do that must be influenced by a political spirit or a politi-
cal fear. It is to be pointed out, however, that protectionism,
socialism, and communism are basically the same plant in three
different stages of its growth. All that can be said is that legal
plunder is more visible in communism because it is complete
23
pNEWTEXT-04.qxd  7/13/2004  11:34 AM  Page 23

---

plunder; and in protectionism because the plunder is limited to
specific groups and industries.* Thus it follows that, of the three
systems, socialism is the vaguest, the most indecisive, and, con-
sequently, the most sincere stage of development.
But sincere or insincere, the intentions of persons are not
here under question. In fact, I have already said that legal plun-
der is based partially on philanthropy, even though it is a false
philanthropy.
With this explanation, let us examine the value—the origin
and the tendency—of this popular aspiration which claims to
accomplish the general welfare by general plunder. 
Law Is Force
Since the law organizes justice, the socialists ask why the
law should not also organize labor, education, and religion.
Why should not law be used for these purposes? Because it
could not organize labor, education, and religion without
destroying justice. We must remember that law is force, and
that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot law-
fully extend beyond the proper functions of force.
24
* If the special privilege of government protection against competition—
a monopoly—were granted only to one group in France, the iron workers, for
instance, this act would so obviously be legal plunder that it could not last for
long. It is for this reason that we see all the protected trades combined into a
common cause. They even organize themselves in such a manner as to appear
to represent all persons who labor. Instinctively, they feel that legal plunder is
concealed by generalizing it.
pNEWTEXT-04.qxd  7/13/2004  11:34 AM  Page 24

---

When law and force keep a person within the bounds of
justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige
him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither
his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard all of
these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.
Law Is a Negative Concept
The harmlessness of the mission performed by law and law-
ful defense is self-evident; the usefulness is obvious; and the
legitimacy cannot be disputed.
As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of
law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to
cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It
ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injus-
tice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that
has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injus-
tice is absent.
But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force,
imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of
education, a religious faith or creed—then the law is no longer
negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of
the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator
for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no
longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does
all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the
people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their
liberty, their property.
25
pNEWTEXT-04.qxd  7/13/2004  11:35 AM  Page 25

---