This is legal plunder, the worst of all.
If growing rapeseed is in itself a sound activity, there is no need to give any supplementary profit to those who practice it. If it is unsound, the extra income does not make it sound.
Protection is plunder indeed because it is the privilege to operate scarcity through legislation, creating dearth in order to abuse the buyer.
The characteristic feature of plunder is its inability to provide any satisfaction without a corresponding privation…
But have the rich on that account renounced the policy of plunder? It has never occurred to them. The argument of the indirect beneficial effects of spending continues to serve as their pretext.
It is not the principle of property that must be attacked, but, on the contrary, the principle hostile to it, the principle of spoliation and plunder.
Modern philosophers who declaim against wealth without taking into account the difference in the means of acquiring it liken themselves to Seneca or Christ. They are mere parrots repeating words that they do not understand.
Once legal plunder of the poor for the benefit of the rich has become part of the system, with the support of the majority, how will we be able to reject legal plunder of the rich for the benefit of the poor?
It is harmful to the lender, since when he needs to take out a loan he becomes a victim of the same (kind of) plunder.
Do you therefore want trade not to be free? Do you therefore want it to be carried out under the influence of oppression?
No, economists do not think that we are in the best of all worlds, as they are reproached for doing.
You have to choose between partial plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder at all. The law can pursue one of these three alternatives only.
No society can exist if respect for the law does not prevail to some degree, but the surest means of ensuring that laws are respected is for them to be worthy of respect.