The Law

I have not read this work for 45 years. I have a greater appreciation now in light of the current political and administrative State we live in today as opposed to any other time of my life. I a ‘Just’ society it should be required reading and adherence for judges and society as a whole. I doubt the population as it exist today would even come close to grasping the importance of ‘The Law’. Thus Liberty does not exist.

Written nearly two centuries ago, this book is as relevant now as it was at the time of writing. Whether you agree or disagree with Bastiats point of view, this is a great pamphlet to read. It is short, well-structured, and strikingly clear and straightforward. If you want to read just one book on politics and economics, read this one and you wont regret it. If you agree with the book, it will give you one of the strongest arguments to defend your position. If you disagree with the book, it will give you plenty of food for thought. For most of history the law of the land had some religious backing. This is no longer true in the modern world, and this is where Bastiat picks up his argument. The first question that he tries to answer : if not God, what is the source from which the law derives its authority? Bastiats answer: the authority comes from the people, the individuals. But if you derive your authority from individuals, rather than deity, then the limitations of those individuals define boundaries beyond which the law cannot be applied. Ask yourself two questions: is every human being born with a right of being an individual? and should the right of one person being an individual supercede the same right of another? Bastiat answers yes to the first and no to the second and thats where the pamphlet begins. This idea at the core of the book: the law that is based on the power of individuals has limitations. Bastiat speaks mostly of economic violations of that rule - the legal plunder. Those who lived in the next century could point to something far graver - millions of lives taken by socialist tyrants, all within the framework of the law. While some would object that violence against a persons property is not the same as violence against the persons life and liberty, Bastiat argues that the two are related. Towards the end of the book the author makes another important observation: the arrogance of the social engineers is not a consequence of their status or their actions - its a prerequisite. Through a number of examples (and that number only increased in the years since the book was written) Bastiat shows how those who attempt to mold manking through laws view themselves as a breed apart from the rest of humanity. Many things were said about hubris of lawmakers, but few are as logical and eloquent. Plenty of books were written on the topic since and many arguments made on both sides of the divide. Why The Law? First, its one thing to know that the argument against uncontrolled legislation is decades old, its quite another to actually observe the same argument made decades ago. Second, some can write a book that appeals to their contemporaries, but only a few can write a book that transcends their time. Bastiat is one of the latter. Finally, this book is short, well-structured, clear, straightforward, thought-provoking, and as relevant now as it was 160 years ago. Read it, and see for yourself.

Im amazed when I read this type of material that mans inhumanity to man is nothing new. It may change its name or be less or more violent but as humans, we always seem to organize in one of two ways. Those that want to tell others how to live and those that prefer self-direction. Bastiat makes the case that socialism/communism/marxism/statism, whatever you want to call it, has been around well over 200 years now. It hits the same stumbling blocks now as it did then. If youre looking for something that supports the argument that social governance vs. free government is wrong from a historical perspective, youll find some support here.

The Law is concentrated and opinionated. I throughly enjoyed reading it, even if I disagreed with some of his points (see below). The concepts are simple and elegant, making this an immortal book. However, the values are strongly one-sided, and lacking concrete examples. Read on for my book review. The Law, published in 1850 France, declares the purpose of the law is to protect life, liberty and property. Thus, when the law is used otherwise, it is misused. Frédéric Bastiat calls this “legal plunder.” There are two types of legal plunder. The first type is motivated by “naked greed.” For example, think of lobbying. In theory, lobbying allows direct democratic participation, by you and I. But modern lobbying usually seeks to manipulate the laws to favor selfish economic agendas. Thus, even for-profit businesses are willing to invest in lobbyists. Bastiat says this is an abuse of the law. Modern economists agree, calling this “rent-seeking,” causing “deadweight-losses” and “opportunity-costs.” Indeed, very few support the commodification of politics. However, most support laws that are philanthropic, and for good reason. They believe the government has a duty to provide education, welfare and food stamps. Bastiat disagrees. The second type of legal plunder is motivated by “misconceived philanthropy.” Although pursued with good motives, Bastiat says that philanthropy and justice are mutually exclusive ends of the law. They “contradict each other,” because misplaced philanthropy necessarily infringes on inalienable rights. Bastiat would probably agree that taxation for police and court systems are acceptable, because they exist to protect our rights. Nevertheless, he reaches the extreme conclusion that education should not be provided by the state! Our automatic tendency is to reject him as ridiculous. But ignore that tendency for a moment, and consider Bastiat’s point: if you are against corn subsidies, does that mean you are against affordable food? No. Just because Bastiat is against public education, does not mean he is against education. Bastiat overlooks practical considerations by focusing on theory. If education was not funded by taxpayers, would private education alone be sufficient? I could imagine the free markets organizing more efficient school systems than the government. But I can also imagine illiteracy, crime and child labor rates increasing. It’s not even clear that taxpayers would would save money. That being said, I wonder if Bastiat rewrote the book today, if he would have reached a different conclusion. Today we consider education to be a human right. And remember, when this book was published, education was much less important in society. Although Bastiat is obviously educated, articulate and well-read, the language he chooses is too absolute for compromise. Even though conflicting with modern conceptions of government. Bastiat gives us a simple formula to identify legal plunder. Ask, “if a private citizen did what the government is doing, would it still be legal?” For example, it’s illegal to steal, even to donate the stolen property to the Salvation Army. Therefore, taxation is a type of systematic stealing. Bastiat quotes a few writers at length, including Rousseau. He criticizes them for proposing systems of government that treat humans like manipulable matter. Bastiat decries the superimposition of materialism and political science. He defends human dignity. He says that human rights precede the law, and not vice versa. Finally, Bastiat reminds us, “the safest way to make [the laws] respected is to make them respectable.” We sometimes forget that the laws crumble in revolutions. If people do not respect the laws, they have no power. Even force cannot prop up oppressive laws, as France witnessed in their bloody revolution. Bastiat seems to think the proper role of the law is what the common-law courts do, not the legislature. The courts enforce rights and prevent injustice. The legislature is officious and political. For me, the word “politician” implies flip-flopping and filibusters. Bastiat wrote during a transition. Europe was shedding its monarchies, and replacing them with legislatures. Bastiat realized that dictatorships do not require kings, because the laws can serve the same purpose. The law is always chosen by a few, and those few should not “regulate our consciences, our ideas, our will, our education, our sentiments, our works, our exchanges, our gifts, our enjoyments.” According to him, the happiest, safest societies are the freest ones.

This book changed my view of the world, and my peers, and my expectations of life. A concept so simple and straight forward. Translated from early 1800s French, it can take a small adjustment to wording if you arent used to it. So amazingly far ahead of its time, you realize that none of the current political world is new. This has all been tried before...

Fast Delivery!! Great quality overall.

Its amazing that something written around 1850 would be so prophetic, with feelings of deja vu every other page. A must read for anyone interested in keeping the heavy hand of the state off our backs, and in preserving individual choice in our lives. The prose is, of course, mid-19th century, and the country he discusses is the France of that time, with the Socialists having come into view, but it is entirely relevant to America from about 1930 onwards, particularly now when the Socialists (still here in spite of their historic failures) are in charge.

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.

Bastiat hit a home run with this excellent book. It should be required reading in every school. Bastiat lays out what liberty and the law means in simple terms. There are few books that are done this well on such an important topic.

One of the best books Ive ever read. Bastiat highlighted in 1849 the exact plights and issues of our time in regard to the collusion of special interests and government to the detriment of us all. Bastiat also in this short work defines man in the pursuit of life, liberty and property and makes the most succinct and effective arguments against socialism then and now. A life-changing book. If every American or human being on Earth were aware of the information in this book the world would be a much different place, a much better place. I cant recommend the book too much!