The Law

Excellent overview of what the role of law is in the society and how it has been morphed into a tool of power by people who think they know better how people ought to behave. Must read.

I always kept this little book in my travel bag because it contains great wisdom on every page and I could get a quick hit of inspiration by opening any page and reading for a few minutes where time allowed.

Frederic Bastiat makes one infallible argument for the purpose of law and the govts role of enforcing it. Law is Justice! And Justice is not robbing one group of men for the benefit of another such as the laws of Plunder. (tariffs, subsidies, bailouts, corporate or union tax breaks) Law is Justice! Nor is law a way to enforce government driven philanthropy, essentially robbing one man of rightful claim to his own money and give it to another man to which it does not rightfully belong. SOCIALIST PLUNDER! Mr. Bastiat goes on to break down any attempt to justify socialist society or laws and leaves but one clear and well defined role for law that every freedom loving man can praise, that is that LAW IS JUSTICE! Following on with the role of Law is the need to enforce it, which is the very reason for which men make Government. Frederic Bastiat explains the limitations of govt through this very clear role of it. Govt cannot give that which it does not posses. The governments realm is that of justice and you cannot expect it produce prosperity no more than you can expect a carpenter to fix cars or a miner to build houses. The government is to prevent injustice, you cannot expect to build the economy, make men moral, and feed the hungry any more than you can expect to take fire to stone and expect corn to grow. It is not going to happen because it is not its purpose, it is not its role, it is not within its realm of possibility. Mr. Bastiat purposes a society where the economy controls the values of products, the law denies all forms of injustice towards a mans rights and the government is not a bureaucracy of special interest groups to meddle in social and economic affairs. In The Law, Frederic Bastiat defends the principle that the Law is to enforce Justice and the govt is to enforce that just Law.

Bastiat is a good essayist, and his main point is well-taken. One should be careful about social policy, it involves real people. However, some of the things he takes issue with seem to be preoccupations you might expect for the well-to-do in the 19th century. Law is justice. What is justice, though? Bastiat thinks that if a person would do something and it would be considered wrong, then if a government does it, likewise it is wrong [focusing on taking what others have]. This sounds like a sound principle, but falls apart almost immediately upon some inspection. A group may have properties that an individual does not (the famous example being atoms are invisible, but things made of atoms are not necessarily so), and so it seems to me that we can accept governments can do things that we would not individuals to do. It may or may not be true, but the reason cannot come from examples for individuals. For example, we let governments enforce the law and carry-out punishments. Im sure Bastiat would answer that these sorts of things are only the sorts of things that people would agree to, and so it would not be compulsory, but undoubtedly some would not agree, and so then it is not clear what should be done. Perhaps hes right that without a government people will rationally choose to give up things, but my own experience tends to tell me that poor Nash equilibria (such as for air pollution) do occur if we dont have some sort of strong third-party to enforce some standards (usually the government is one of the few entities that can do this). Peoples decisions affect each other in various ways, and so we should be careful about how much we limit others decisions, we have to acknowledge that others choices make a substantial difference to our lives. It should perhaps be of last resort to let governments do these sorts of things, but Bastiat has few concrete examples to let us ponder actual circumstances. Also, free public education is mentioned, (as are almost all taxes) as a type of plunder. Free public education has been fairly important for creating economic wealth. It is not obvious how the supposed harm from taking taxes to support this necessarily outweighs the actual harm of depriving some of education. It seems to simply be a fact that left to our own means, society does not provide for those less fortunate as often as would be beneficial. The argument against philanthropy by the government also does not seem very strong. It could lead to problems, but governments around the world do quite well with all sorts of varying levels of philanthropy. There is a deeper issue, as well. His argument seems to implicitly assume that we know what we own (and so deserve). I dont think it is obvious what we deserve and therefore have a right to own. What sort of things become my property? Land? If this land came from some act of plunder previously, is it still my property? In addition, if my abilities come from natural talents rather than hard work, do I truly deserve it? Is it justice? I think the idea of justice needs to be more strongly motivated. It isnt hard to come up with some reasonable but by no means definitive answers to these questions that are favorable to a Bastiat-like viewpoint, but this is not touched. Bastiat talks clearly of the evil of slavery, but in this short essay he doesnt explore what the consequences are. What is the status of a slave owners (non-human) properties that come through plunder? I think Bastiat is on stronger ground when he cautions about believing leaders who claim they have everyones best interests in mind, and that we should not rush into societal experiments without strong amounts of evidence and experience to guide us. While I personally didnt find Bastiats arguments for such a hands-off government, he does write well, and if you think that you know what property is proper, his arguments are sound enough. It is a short essay, and so it is possible Bastiat answers these questions in other writings.

Law is justice. In this proposition a simple and enduring government can be conceived. And I defy anyone to say how even the thought of a revolution, of insurrection, of the slightest uprising could arise against a government whose organized force was confined only to suppressing injustice. This, in essence, is Bastiats thesis. Confine the powers of law and government to correcting wrongs against life, liberty and property, and all will be well. Citizens will simply accept that government has no more power to correct social injustice than it has to control the weather. I must confess that I laughed after reading the sentences above. Really? Bastiat imagines that when groups of individuals freely associate and advocate for preferences the government will simply say we have nothing to do with that and the groups will shrug their shoulders and go back home content? I doubt a government like that could last a year; the majority of vested interests in society would have every reason to see it fail. If you wish to look at a contemporary example, take the economic shock therapy approach in Russia where the government attempted to abandon its control over the economy. The result was the rise of an oligarchy, mass political unrest and eventually a return to a strongly authoritarian style of government. The problem with Bastiat is that although he purports to base his arguments on fact and logic, in fact they are based on faith. He acknowledges this in the last section of his essay: God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs or persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clear air of liberty ... liberty is an acknowledgement of faith in God and His works. Bastiat is, in reality, tied back to the medieval notion of a universe ordered by God with a single right way to do things, and a simple model of justice that we all supposedly agree on. Like most purveyors of faith, he believes that his is the right way. But the test of any political philosophy is not how good it sounds in theory; it is how well it works in practice. Bastiat spends a great deal of time criticizing various socialist agendas for being utopian. It is fair to ask, then, do Bastiats ideas really work? Is it true, as he argues, that in the kind of state he proposes there would be the most prosperity -- and it would be the most equally distributed with its people the most peaceful, the most moral, and the happiest? Since no nation has seen fit to actually try Bastiats ideas (odd, since they are supposedly so natural, and produce superior results) it is difficult to evaluate these criteria without a Bastiat proponent being able to argue that results are skewed due to improper implementation. What data there is, however, is mostly against Bastiat. According to the World Value Surveys, the worlds happiest country is Denmark (the US ranks 16th), which also enjoys the most equal distribution of wealth. Denmark is a constitutional monarchy with a large welfare state and a mixed-market economy with a high minimum wage and high levels of unemployment compensation. On the other hand, Denmark does have relatively free markets, and competes well internationally, ranking higher on the Heritage Foundations Index of Economic Freedom than the US. It appears that, contrary to Bastiats expectations, economic freedom and social intervention are not mutually incompatible. This is not altogether surprising; both socialism and capitalism have come a long way since 1848. Its not my intention to disparage this book. It is well worth reading. Bastiat is clear and concise, and very readable, especially for his era. There is a lot to like in his defence of liberty and his critique of the socialism of the time is devastating. However, reading the reviews on Amazon make it sound as if Bastiat is some kind of political genius, immune from any problems in his theory. I just want to say do read this book -- it will make you think. But read it with an open and questioning mind.

If you have already read it, read it again. If you have not read it, please consider reading this timeless piece of literature. Though it was written well over 150 years ago, Bastiat’s philosophical and eloquent description of the purpose of the law has not changed with time; his sentiments remain completely on point. In fact many of the points eluded too regarding the concerns of Liberty have been exacerbated in America’s current system. Please read and share this classic piece of literature. Invite everyone you know to read and discus it. This is one of the most powerful and concise books on politics ever written. The way in which Mr. Bastiat illustrates his point are careful not to be inflammatory, while at the same time hard hitting. Regardless of one’s personal political persuasion, this is a must read.

Great classic work about the true nature of law, as well as its purpose. In an age where the power of law is being used to engineer social change, this book provides a balance back to what the law should do, and why. A highly recommended read for anyone wishing to rediscover the purpose of the law. The book was originally written in French. Some reviewers argue that some translations arent very good. I originally read an older version, and had given the version Im reviewing to my children. I have no idea which translations are currently offered by Amazon, but Id recommend you at least do some research as to which translation might be the best to purchase. Highly recommended.

The Law by Frederic Bastiat is perhaps the clearest and most logically founded explanation of the proper role of the law (government) in society I have yet read, and it is clearly in the same constellation of thought in which you will find the luminary ideas of our nations own brilliant founding. Writing on his deathbed and freshly after the events of the 1848 revolutions, although the logic and consequences of his ideas are timeless, appears to have sharpened his mind and imparts this book with a profoundness and sagacity beyond its 106 short pages. The simple central concept that shines throughout, familiar to Americans and certainly inspired by 1776, is that individuals have natural rights to life, liberty, and to property, which is the fruit of their efforts and faculties. Injustice is any violation of these rights, and the only just purpose of the law is their protection. As nature gave us the ability to defend these rights for ourselves, law is only their organized defense in the society. At the core of the logic of his thought is a practical model of human behavior, one clearly developed by his background as an exporter. (The Law is his seminal work, his previous works were on economics.) He states A science of economics must be developed before a science of politics can be logically formulated. Essentially, economics is the science of determining whether the interests of human beings are harmonious or antagonistic. This must be known before a science of politics can be formulated to determine the proper functions of government. Implicit in his reasoning is that once the organized monopoly on force inherent in government is wielded only to protect each individuals naturally endowed rights, human interests are harmonious and no further extension of the law is necessary. Human nature and interests are not inherently nor completely harmonious of course, necessitating the need for law in the first place. The vices he clearly identifies in human nature which must be guarded against are based in mans tendency to live and prosper at the expense of others, or plunder. This vice ranges from the hard vice of illegal plunder, represented by anything from a petty theft conducted by an individual to the expansionist conquest undertaken by a whole people, to the softer sounding vice of legal plunder in which the law has been perverted to take from one class and give to another a positive right (i.e. to education, or health care, or housing) in the name of false philanthropy. Positive rights, which can only be produced by someone elses labor, come only with the destruction of naturally endowed negative rights as the law -force- cannot produce goods, cannot enlighten, cannot heal and cannot clothe by its mere existence. For the law to create these things it is only by use of force to coerce others to do them or take from their labor. This legal plunder sets up war of class against class, union against employer, trade against trade, as each races to beat the other in using the unchecked power of government to favor them. As simple proof of this he points out how no mob or lobbyist has ever rioted a police station in demand for a benefit, instead they storm the legislature where legal plunder can be drafted into law. Socialism is at the heart of trying to provide positive rights and thus perverting the law towards instituting legal plunder. It was also at the heart of the 1848 revolutions, and it is not surprising then that his arguments against it receive the lions share of this work. There are many parallels in his arguments against socialism applicable today, due to the unwavering nature of man over time. Bastiat describes in concise detail the pitfalls, traps, and false assumptions behind socialism, even in its most well intentioned and noble forms. Besides the inability of the law to create positive rights by fiat the largest false assumption is the inertness and malleability of men. That law is needed to create society, to socially engineer a mass of beings that can be formed by force and whom left to their own devices would slide into greed, destitution, and misery. This is at the heart of the Utopian fantasy which is so infectious to mens souls yet so ultimately poisonous. For if the natural tendencies of men are so poor, Bastiat asks us, how is it that the organizers of the law, the legislators, can be relied upon to be of a higher and better nature, pointing out the ironic self contradiction behind socialist and utopian engineering. Men are neither lifeless beings waiting for instruction from the law, man existed and developed before the law was created, nor are they so vile as to need the law to guide them in their lives and build their society for them, otherwise the cruel trick of mans cold nature would leave the development of good civil societies impossible. He shows how contradictions are not only inherent but central to socialism, and how socialism inevitably leads to tryanny and often to dictatorship. He also shows how faith in a free society, one in which government does not extend into providing education, health care, etc. is consistent with religious faith in how God made mans nature, and draws an interesting comparison between how modern secular societies are seeming to ineluctably move away from classical liberty and towards socialism. In another interesting flourish Bastiat also predicted how slavery would threaten to destroy the American republic before the Civil War, perhaps not an earth shattering prediction of the time but one he explains with an elegant degree of logic. An amazing work which should be read by anyone interested in liberty, natural rights, philosophy, and the state of government. Each page rings with insight and reason for which you will be the better for having read.

There are others that can and will write much more intelligent reviews, but Im writing this in support of the book and the ideas in it. To only boost the reviews by a micro fragment. In the United States, we have pastors and religious leaders telling us that we are to obey the laws that the state decrees because it is Gods will. That if man left to his own devices and desires will only seek atheism and destruction. Nothing can be a worse lie. It is the worse lie because it subjects man under other mens desires, making the many individuals of a country lower than the minority - the real inequality. This is cruel. It is the worse lie because it deviates reality that God has appointed and allows a few to override truth to use the force of law to their benefit. This is cruel. Personally, incredibly, at the end of reading this short book, I was not angered at politicians, though they are at the center of this issue. I was angered at so-called church leaders giving lies about what has been established before mans arrival, that is good as declared by the Creator, and calling it evil. They teach this to the masses, who sit in hours upon hours through these contorted messages that believe there is something bigger, better than this docile and passive lifestyle. Sadly, most people will never know that what they know inside of themselves is true. Religious leaders will never allow it. I find myself not wanting to fight against the politics of the day, but the religion that supports the state. Law is justice; it is to protect life, liberty, property. Thats it. To violate any of those is injustice. There is no gray area, no middle ground. Justice or injustice. Religious leaders in their warped mind tell their audience that legal plunder is ordained by God. Legal plunder is an injustice. God did not setup man to be violated by others: Existence, faculties, assimilation - in other words, personality, property - this is man. They perverse the law. They tell people of another religion. That officials that are ordained by God - the enlightened ones - however that occurred so that they have higher elevated thinking nobody knows, are to subject them by force a philanthropic spirit, but really is only their selfish will. So, somehow Gods salvation is not enough that we must play revolution roulette because we allow a group of men to take part in Gods acts. As if, God did not do enough in His decrees that we ought to subject ourselves to another god. Pastors, reverends, priests - most espouse that man needs to have guidelines by the state. Yet, you cant have guidelines by the state and keep liberty; it will all end in destruction, ironically. Yes, what they preach is a violation of what is true, of Gods Law. As Bastiat states: And now, after having vainly inflicted upon the social body so many systems, let them end where they ought to have begun - reject all systems, and try liberty - liberty , which is an act of faith in god and in HIs work.

I have not reread it yet but I remember liking it very much. It is philosophical. It is foundational to understanding America as it was intended to be and not what lawyers have made it into.