I’m currently reading Bastiat the whole collection. I ordered it from Mises and it was again some eye-opener I got from them. To be honest I did not not of the austrian schoole since maybe 3 or so years ago.
Despite the fact that I studied at least some of the political economics. However Mises and von Hayek were not even mentioned. We we’re fed with some kind of Models and I remember as if it has been yesterday liquidity traps.
So I guess we were taught “voodo” economics.

Strange enough I always felt even to that time that something was deeply wrong. And the more I read from liberals and libertarians the more of my let’s call it “feelings” get underpinned with well let’s name it facts. Another thing I remember was my education for getting a farmer. In Germany this is a profession you have to learn (it took around 2-3 years). That has been in the 80ies of the last century. Yes indeed I’m currently in the, I think one can name it “middle” ages”. My father was and ever have been and ever will be farmer by heart. It was his life. And I guess if there’s a heaven my father will be farmer there too ;-). In my second and last year of this education, I worked on a farm for pig breeding.

I think this farm was near “under-water” but that’s another thing. I did my high school degree and well it was “perfoliated”. But I think I was and am quite capable of calculating with interest and run of three, yes and I think the basic arithmetics are also known. I remember to that times I had a few discussions with my father. I’d come to the conclusion that the subsedies paid to farmers is simple wrong. And to that time I also cam to the conclusion that farming had a bad earning state. You need a lot of money for a farm and if you then just get that in return what I calculated roughly it was not a terrible good idea. But back to the subsedies. My father though that at least the subsedies for farming were adequate, because one “has ” to eat.

In that regard he is fully right and nobody can deny it but we lived in times were trading was not that much hampered and so I though well yes maybe farming is to expensive in Gemany (it deifinitly is, but I just learned later that it’s that expensive because of the “laws”, with which the governments make it that “expensive”. So I was thinking if the farmers cannot get around withourt subsedies. we probably should import it from other countries. A though it would be a win-win situation. The countries with better results in farming trade with us in Germany which probably are the among the best in engine building. And to that time I just started thinking, free trade is the “base” of all wealth.

Till a few years later father and I could not agree upon it. But then after 10 to 15 years one day we sat together and he just said: “I guess you were right”. Why did he was able to admit it: Well farming has but one trait, you are in the hands of nature. You can bee the best farmer in the world, if there is a year of drought or flooding you loose a years hard work. Nowhere else this is that that noticeable. But here one “natural law” comes into play. The law is: “Don’t take anything for granted, prepare yourself for years of misery”. So successful farming means saving enough that you can “survive” one or more bad years. I now it does not work forever, but base you farming on credit and you are bound to fail. I don’t know fi the prior mentioned farmer still is in business, if he won’t, I’d not be surprised, I’d be more surprised if the first dairy farm would not exist any longer. This was a cautious farmer, which “knew”, that one has to live withing one bounds.

So we have laws of nature, and nothing can prevent them for taking place. So the first rule (you can name it law) is, no the “facts”. And here’s the big fall of any government, even if they “knew” the facts they would and do try to fight them. This never can work. One “fact” is that one can not get rich by piling up debt, it’s absolutely impossible. You just can get rich by “saving”. That means using less than you have. Governments ignore this simply fact since ages. And now it seems “the law” strikes back.

How did they manage to exploits their populations for that long?. Well part of it is that the population bears the laws and “obeys” them because they think they are good, or if not good unavoidable. Another possibility is that government has bought this “agreement” there are a lot of ways of doing that. One of the most popular are subsidies for any kind of felt or adopted injustice. You know this kind of things. “We can not work that effective because this or that get unfair advantages from xxxxx ” fill in whatever you like.

And their are the unjust laws, which allow plundering. And as Bastiat has correctly written at least some, especially those one can name defrauders, do not like to work with their own hands. They like to exploit other people and take away something from them. This unfair people start working for governments. And suddenly they are not bound for unsolicited exchange. They just have to follow the rules, decided by the biggest plunderers. Oh yes they write nice things about freedom etc. but there will be one special law the laws for raising taxes and here we got.. Taxes means taking from someone at the point of a gun and not have to “give” anything back. However it’s the law. And this law is not “natural” it’s a law devised. To make this unjustice not felt that directly, one starts talking about schools not build, streets not build or whatver and that one “must” have this or that or whatever.

However Bastiat write the only thing he could though laws have to be. “Laws are justice”. Now it’s unjust that taxes take away but with some empty promise that those taking away surely will just use it for the best of “all”. But this is not the law Bastiat accepts. These “laws” just can be named phrases for debts and thieves.

So we can conclude many of the laws are not for saving ons property but to legalize theft. This theft however just can take place because the majority of people do not feel and see this as unjust. This laws feed one of the most primitive and ugliest things in men: Envy. It seems most of the people fell it is “just” to take away from the rich and the government workers are the “Robin Hoods” of the “man-on-the-street”. They are anything but right. Anyway many of the laws fill the “desire” of some kind of revenge. Bureaucrats are very innovative if it comes to plundering but not to be hold responsible for this plunder. Just see what happens with Tepco, BP etc. The state has limited the liabilites of this large corporations…. Shouldn’t that be something to be considered?

So the “laws” are perverted. They are not for saving one’s properties for unjust claims. But for founding claims on how to take it away from us. I just can see any avoidance of e.g. taxes as self defense. The problem is the delebets tighten their grip around your property, decade by decade, year by year, month by month, week by week, day by day…… We just can try to find the “natural” law and the natural low is that of unsolicited trade, and we all should work for it and one of the most important starting point is that we take away the monopoly of deciding what money is from the governments. If we abolish Fiat-money systems we’d have a big strike against the Deledefs. Sure they will fight us whenever they can. But you see it’s obvious that their ponzi-scheme comes to an end. They have not obeyed the first rule of economics. “Live within your bounds”. And this fault is getting more apparent day by day, failout package after failout package, new last vendors….

They will get broke by “the law” itself.