The Law

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.

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.

My Niece teaches in a Home School Group and her young students read this book. They also read Shakespeare and perform in Shakespeare plays as young as 8... Our Education System needs an Overhaul. Here is a good start.

This read definitely shows the pitfalls of socialism. We should be careful of things we ask for.

This proto-libertarian writing by Bastiat stands along with Alexis de Tocqueville as the greatest 19th century political writing contributions to our country. Bastiat is easier to read and much faster. The whole of it in a sitting can be trying to read, though it did sparkle throughout. In any event, Bastiats view would likely be a libertarianism that few would suggest today. For example, even most modern libertarians and conservatives with libertarian streaks like lead-free paint. He might say it interferes with individual property and liberty rights. I really do not know where he would hold on that because though it would interfere with private property, but lead paint clearly was a threat to us, particularly small children and a 20th century Bastiat might appreciate it. Heres a taste of Bastiat I copied onto my computer: Law was the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. [T]he common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission that that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy. . . [E]very time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. . . We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want to religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain. Like or love it? Youll like or love him. Offended and love Obamacare and federal governments growth? You will think he is a proto-wing-nut.

Please Quit Reading Things At Face Value! In the 1830s and 1840s, the trans-Atlantic countries marked a universal resistance to the Imperial British Free Trade System. You had the German Zollverein (meaning toll union) of the minor Germanic states growing and solidifying their unity into a modern nation-state and (non-coincidentally) experiencing a German renaissance, France was pursuing a protectionist policy after a long a ruinous war, as was the USA after the collapse of 1837 and the 1840 election of William Henry Harrison (the Protectionist-leaning war hero candidate), Russia (Britains chief European rival all throughout the 19th century) was also setting strong import tariffs and building its own productive powers. This era had such famous advocates of the American System as Henry C. Carey, Friedrich List (who was a German national and also a key supporter and primary supporters for the Zollverein), Henry Clay (the living legend) was still fighting for the American System, and the administrations of James Monroe and John Quincy Adams were still fresh in the minds of the people, they knew what is crudely defined in modern parlance as protectionism worked, because they had seen the stark contrasts between the those above mentioned presidencies and the Andrew Jackson, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren terms that they just survived. In fact, the Imperial British Free Trade model was so destructive that John Baynard Byles, an Englishman, and later knighted, did his best to dispel the toxic mass of sophistry and dogma that was and is the Free Trade school in 1849. (It seems as if the false - and politically and intentionally concocted to be false, for the achievement of political objectives - doctrines of Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo all had `backfired, creating a `feedback loop within the British Intelligentsia. That is, the British Imperialists that funded, promoted and wrote this doctrine to poison the rest of the worlds economic discussions and destroy their Politico-Economic relationships had since fell out of public life, or had died, as Smith, Malthus and Ricardo had long since left the worlds stage; and their intellectual descendants didnt realize that these doctrines were never actually meant to be taken seriously as much as meant to mask British Imperial trade policy and global hegemony geo-politics in cosmopolitan and academic language. In short, the `joke of Free-Trade had gone on long enough to become real.) (Read J.B.B.s landmark work The Sophisms of Free Trade, you can find the free PDF online or buy the book for $30ish dollars.) At this time, the People of the United Kingdom were tired of the domestic race-to-the-bottom, the UKs domestic ever decreasing standard of living (for the productive classes), the crime, the impoverishment, the wage-slavery, the foreign wars and genocide that were waged with British lives for the continued exploitation of the 3rd world by the ruling ultra-elite baron-oligarchs of Britain; meanwhile, fortunes were ruined in Australia and Canada was vacillating on leaving the Imperial Domain of Britain - something was desperately needed to be further concocted to maintain the existing Imperial hegemony of Britain. Does any of this sound the slightest bit familiar to you in our modern times? If the ruling oligarchs of Britain wished to continue their system of extreme exploitation of the world and continued accumulation of extreme uber-wealth that baffles the most fertile imaginations abstractions of the word greed (and they did very much intend to do so), then they needed some type of countervailing ideological force to do what no army or foreign policy could ever do alone: change public opinion. Any obscure or discredited hack, any polemical scribbler of the time in the world that would write either knowingly or unknowingly in line with destroying the National Economic Systems of Germany, Russia, France and the United States would have sudden and very powerful friends that would see the world they saw it and be willing to give them ample resources in promoting their ideology. (No coincidence that this is what we saw with Milton Friedman, FA Hayek, Mises and Hazlitt later in history.) In the zero sum game of Imperialism, it did not matter that these targeted countries protectionism actually increased gross trade between all nations; Imperialism, as such, is reason and guile employed in the pursuit of completely unreasoning goals and serving anti-reasoning vices. These countries represented a conquest, something outside the power of the British Oligarchy and they intended to bring it back under their control and oppression. Frederic Bastiat, someone whose father owned a business in France under the despotic, autocratic Napoleon; a Napoleon who tried to build up the continental powers of his domain with a bunch of flawed and poorly considered Protectionist policies (as Friedrich List illustrates the failure of these in his System of Political Economy) was surely a natural ally of those British Imperial Oligarchs who intended to save their system of globalized rape, exploitation and genocide - albeit perhaps for dissimilar ends than Bastiats own justifications and intentions, but the means were just the same. Just as Adam Smith, the idealist dreamer, was employed in founding the School of Free Trade under the employ of British elites, and therefore became a British Imperial champion and lionized hero to those classes in Britain; Bastiat would work in this infamous and grand tradition. Bastiat was perhaps the first popularized `Libertarian, at least one of the most prominent when we look back at this timeframe. The language and doctrines of Classical Liberalism as abused by Smith, Ricardo and even Malthus was more academic and more `stuffy in terms of its writing style. It was more convoluted and the tricks and word-games required to fool (or provide a `cloak for those willing to go to work for this Imperial System) its adherents were much more advanced. Libertarianism, as pioneered by Bastiat and his ilk, took the same underlying theories of Man and Society as obfuscated and obliterated in the Classical Liberal Tradition and made it for the masses of people. Easily digestible for the average person at the time. The language is more populist. The authors examples and writing style are bombastic and devoid of any study of ancient history as Smith and Malthus entertained in their writings. This all was happening, mind you, just in time to give another `shot-in-the-arm for the poison of Democracy, as it continued rotting out the USAs republican virtues. This is a very rough sketch of the geo-political environment that Frederic Bastiat was writing in. As for the book directly: This type of parlor-trick ideology frequently employs words that sound inflammatory, and are never rigorously defined, but nevertheless arm the victim of the ideology (that is, the person believing it) with a host of rhetorical ammunition. F.A. Hayeks favorite was collectivism, F.B.s appears to be plunder. To any transfer of wealth to anyone within the system is considered plunder if and only if the government is compelling the transfer, this is, of course, regardless of governmental purpose. He turns history on its head, the most protectionist nations (that is, nations that agreed that their free people wouldnt be allowed to compete with foreign wage-slaves or literal slaves) historically grew the most industry and most powerful; this is not surprising whatsoever to non-ideologues who look at history and understand the American School (which is really little more than the Historical School, that is, in trying what has been proven to work). If import tariffs always constituted a form of plunder then how would we rectify this contradiction? How would the most plundered nations somehow be, after decades of being plundered be stronger and more prosperous every year they were being plundered? Henry C. Carey in his book, The Harmony of Interests illustrates with the actual production statistics that every move toward the Imperial Free Trade policy saw a diminution of production and every move toward reasonable Protectionism a rise in production, property values, farm prices, wages, etc. (basically all the indicators of prosperity). To F.B., monopolies, labor exploitation, cartels, oligopolies, these are irrelevant - only the government is the enemy and prime mover of injustice. Even something as contemporary as the LIBOR scandal are another testament to the eternal falsehood of this ideological position. Not to be accused of miss-summarizing F.B.s work, well take a passage from the book. Every page is filled with intellectual dishonesty and sophistry used to bring back a system of totalitarian feudalism, so it shouldnt be too hard to find something to object to; let us pick a page at random, with my comments parenthetically appended. Here we go: Try to imagine a form of labor imposed by force, that is not a violation of liberty; a transmission of wealth imposed by force, that is not a violation of property. If you cannot succeed in reconciling this, you are bound to conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice. {{Here we see a primordial Non-Aggression Principle argument, which is basically a Neanderthal-level of social philosophy . The NAP is a pillar of Libertarianism, Murray Rothbard said it was the primary morality of the system, and is so ridiculous that it despairs me to think that it needs to be refuted. But, the intellectual acumen of the modern man being what it is, heres the short version. The Government is the enforcer of the Law. The Law is the system of organized Justice (F.B. admits this). Justice is a tricky subject, Plato said that it is easier to define what is not just than what it is. Justice has some universal characteristics but the actual enactment of it changes as cultures change, and technology brings new realities to bear and so on. The systems in question are ever changing and therefore the Law should adjust to meet these challenges. The Law must be written in accordance with that sense of Justice is, this gives you the Legislative; the Law must be interpreted when it has been found to be violated, this gives you the Courts or Judicial; the Law must be enforced, this gives you the Executive, district attorneys, police, F.B.I, etc. Seeing as the Law, if to be enacted with the greatest possible alignment of Justice should be controlled by the same institution. That is, you dont want, because it is impossible to have, multiple independent Legislative, Judicial and Executive groups speaking for the same population. This institution is trusted, yes, with a monopoly of power; for how possibly could you have a duopoly of power? A cartel of power? Wouldnt anything but the monopoly of power, held in check by Law and what the present societal reflection of what Justice is, be at best completely arbitrary and at worst completely tyrannical? It is this question of how to align the Law with the system of Justice that has occupied the minds of the greatest philosophers of all time. This is the best that theyve come up with; does anyone think that they can rigorously define a better system? If so, please enlighten us.}} Continued: When, from the seclusion of his office, a politician takes a view of society, he is struck with the spectacle of inequality that presents itself. He mourns over the sufferings that are the lot of so many of our brethren, sufferings whose aspect is rendered yet more sorrowful by the contrast of luxury and wealth. He ought, perhaps, to ask himself whether such a social state has not been caused by the plunder of ancient times, exercised in the way of conquests; and by plunder of more recent times, effected through the medium of the laws? He ought to ask himself whether, granting the aspiration of all men to well-being and improvement, the reign of justice would not suffice to realize the greatest activity of progress, and the greatest amount of equality compatible with that individual responsibility that God has awarded as a just retribution of virtue and vice? He never gives this a thought. His mind turns towards combinations, arrangements, legal or factitious organizations. He seeks the remedy in perpetuating and exaggerating what has produced the evil. For, justice apart, which we have seen is only a negation, is there any one of these legal arrangements that does not contain the principle of plunder? {{He claims that the statesmen shouldnt consider past injustice and attempts to rectify it, but of course, how does this surprise anyone? Why should the Statesmen entertain FBs bias over simply examining `what is in the system? FB proudly proclaims: Dont look at history for any causes of injustice! That was gods just retribution of virtue and vice! This is basic Apologetics for Oligarchy 101, who themselves are married to the past and attempting, at all times, to abort the future. This also denies that there is anything that could be considered The Public Good, or as the US Constitution put it The General Welfare. This is simply a rhetorically brilliant and literarily dashing way to blame the victims for any injustice. It tells the statesmen to not concern themselves with fairness, equality, equity or even the survival of the nation and people; but that everyone is where they are because they deserve it. (This doesnt square with F.B.s assertion that the Law is organized Justice, but who cares? The essay is filled with contradictions.) This of course implies that all the elite oligarchs shouldnt be touched or even considered, they simply want to feed off of society, not contribute to it, and surely not pay for any moral or legal infractions that they have caused. In human affairs and social systems you are never starting from a blank slate, but from what presently exists. F.B.s cosmopolitan theorizing never admits this, that is, his theories never take into account that what might presently exist might be unjust. Would one consider it unjust that certain British elites had accumulated astronomical fortunes using the blood and sweat of the people of that country? Would F.B. claim it was unjust to imprison a murderer? Does this not deprive them of their property? What if such wealth was known to be accumulated from foreign genocide (India) and dope pushing (China) by agents and operatives of the East Indian Trading Company (as David Ricardo was in leadership of during his lifetime)? If the corporation, in this case the East Indian Trading Company, and its principles or owners couldnt be held personally liable for these actions then why is it unjust if the law simply reclaims a portion of that ill-gotten wealth if not revoking their corporate charter? What about the French elites, are their hands completely clean? Were no fortunes amassed or confiscated during the Napoleonic Wars that were unjust? F.B.s ideology presupposes some eternal arbiter or system of pristine governance, for it supposes that any injustice can only occur due to an injustice law; and that past injustice is beyond the scope of The State to bring back into alignment. The Why? to which FB supports his claims & justifies his arguments is wholly lacking in merit and brazenly politically motivated.}} Continued: You say, There are men who have no money, and you apply to the law. But the law is not a self-supplied fountain, whence every stream may obtain supplies independently of society. Nothing can enter the public treasury, in favor of one citizen or one class, but what other citizens and other classes have been forced to send to it. If everyone draws from it only the equivalent of what he has contributed to it, your law, it is true, is no plunderer, but it does nothing for men who want money--it does not promote equality. It can only be an instrument of equalization as far as it takes from one party to give to another, and then it is an instrument of plunder. Examine, in this light, the protection of tariffs, subsidies, right to profit, right to labor, right to assistance, free public education, progressive taxation, gratuitousness of credit, social workshops, and you will always find at the bottom legal plunder, organized injustice. {{And finally, the targets come into view... In this above quote, we see that F.B. wants us to believe that the system of money is above that of the sovereign will of the people. That is, that the state-created, artificially (by F.B.s definition of the word) constructed and , wholly metaphysically fictitious system of money should be effectively above the will of the people, the wisdom of the culture, the traditions and entirety of the past labor, creativity, infrastructure of the society and all its people should be slaves to whomever happens to dominate the system of money at the time. Those being, of course, Fredrics new friends. The political goals of this ideology are intellectually dishonest and corrupt in a way that is so nakedly transparent that I baffles me that people are fooled by such things. To F.B., the people should be slaves to a system of their own creation; why it is this system (of money) and not another is because hes in alignment and championing for their position: the rule by the moneyed elite (oligarchy). Just as anything else would be as absurd to arbitrarily define as being above everything else in the society. Here we also see the targets of this ideology, all benchmarks of progress, creating the rough level of equal opportunity and equality that either a Republic will live or die without, and yet all these things that F.B. decries weaken the power of the ruling class in favor of the laboring and upcoming generation.}} If one cannot see that what F.B. advocates for what we would call today Fascism or Feudalism, then you really have no business concerning yourself in these matters. Please take up other pastimes. This pamphlet preaches an ideology so banal and barbaric, when one is able to see through the sophistical and convoluted language to which he intentionally tries and buries his own truly plundering intentions. He is a representative of the truly plundering class. This is philosophy for intellectual Neanderthals who are easily conned by flowery and superfluous language that is always dodging and running away from itself in the attempt to avoid concrete discussions of policy and actual understanding. It is imperative that, in this late day of history, that you dont fall for it.

The headline says it all. This is a timeless statement on man’s desire for liberty, autonomy and sovereignty. It belongs in your, and everyone else’s, library.

Prescient book for what happened to the U.S. At the time this book was written, the author considered the U.S. one of the most just nations, but he described perfectly what happens, and did happen, when you have an increase in the size of government, and the power of the legislators to legally plunder the citizens through the laws they enact.

My husband is very pleased with this book.

After reading all the comments on the content of this book with such a dominance of five stars, my expectation was maybe too high. This high expectation was probably the cause for not being stunned after reading this book and not giving it unconditional glory and perfect score. However, for anyone dealing with politics, economics and law this is a must read. A must read not for one time, but rather maybe once a year just to keep the idea of liberty and nature of governance fresh and accurate. The need for reread is caused also by the the writing style and the pure content of the book. Writing style is obviously little bit archaic and can be sometimes burdensome. Numerous quotations of influential philosophers of our past which carry from time to time more serious philosophical traits, will also push you to reread some lines for better understanding and deeper reflection. In my opinion the end of the book and final conclusion is the most impressive part and its strongest point. In less than a one page story of a newborn child and its future capacities, author succeeds to encircle very descriptively central idea of entire book, which is the idea of human liberty and how it should be treated. Timeless and illuminating, but as I said, in some parts little bit flat and hard to read.