Plunder Violates Ownership

by Frédéric Bastiat

　　I do not, as is often done, use the word in any vague, uncertain,approximate, or metaphorical sense. I use it in its scientificacceptance -- as expressing the idea opposite to that of property[wages, land, money, or whatever]. When a portion of wealth istransferred from the person who owns it -- without his consent andwithout compensation, and whether by force or by fraud -- to anyonewho does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that anact of plunder is committed.

　　I say that this act is exactly what the law is supposed tosuppress, always and everywhere. When the law itself commits thisact that it is supposed to suppress, I say that plunder is stillcommitted, and I add that from the point of view of society andwelfare, this aggression against rights is even worse. In this caseof legal plunder, however, the person who receives the benefits isnot responsible for the act of plundering. The responsibility forthis legal plunder rests with the law, the legislator, and societyitself. Therein lies the political danger.

　　It is to be regretted that the word plunder is offensive. I havetried in vain to find an inoffensive word, for I would not at any time-- especially now -- wish to add an irritating word to ourdissentions. Thus, whether I am believed or not, I declare that I donot mean to attack the intentions or the morality of anyone. Rather,I am attacking an idea which I believe to be false; a system whichappears to me to be unjust; an injustice so independent of personalintentions that each of us profits from it without wishing to do so,and suffers from it without knowing the cause of the suffering.