The Law

One of the best essays ever on the proper role of government.

The antithesis to Communist Manifesto written the same decade.

If you have no idea what Libertarianism is and would like to understand, this would be a wonderful book for you. I got my mom to read it and she loved it. Its only around 70 pages, so its really short. But there is so much philosophy in here that it will blow your mind. If I could add any one book to the high school curriculum throughout the U.S., it would be this book. The title of the book is called The Law. The title gives away the whole message. Bastiat shares his views on what the function of law should be in any society. Here is the folly that we have committed in this modern day of legislation - Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our

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.

This work gives a wonderful insight into the differences between negative (natural) rights, which are to be protected by governments, and positive (economic) rights which are supposedly to be provided by governments. It is in the latter category, in the effort to provide justice, that the law is easily corrupted and perverted by violating the negative rights of some to arbitrarily supply positive rights to others. Some of my favorite passages: ...the statement, The purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. [And this quote perfectly expresses why collectivist and socialist governments DO NOT always have the intended charitable results that are promised, but are often best suited to those (rich or poor) willing to game the system:] When under the pretext of fraternity, the legal code imposes mutual sacrifices on the citizens, human nature is not thereby abrogated. Everyone will then direct his efforts toward contributing little to, and taking much from, the common fund of sacrifices. Now, is it the most unfortunate who gains from this struggle? Certainly not, but rather the most influential and calculating.

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 was recommended by Mark Moss via his YouTube channel, and I must say, that I regret not knowing about this dynamite of a book sooner. Read this, then view the world, knowing why it is, as it is.

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.

Bastiat crams a lot of wisdom, logic, and common sense into just fifty-five pages. Don’t let this deter you from reading the book but Bastiat is French and died on Christmas Eve, 1850. Yet his words resonate today. He was a great admirer of America because of its freedom and Constitution and the protection of individual liberties. In the foreword to the book written in 2007 by Loyola College economics professor Thomas J. DiLorenzo, however, Lorenzo speculates how Bastiat would have reacted to America’s Civil War. “It is unlikely that he would have considered the U.S. government’s military invasion of the Southern States in 1861, the killing of some 300,000 citizens, and the bombing, burning, and plundering of the region’s cities, towns, farms, and businesses as being consistent in any way with the protection of lives, liberties, and properties of those citizens as promised by the Declaration of Independence.” Bravo. No political correctness or revisionist history there. DiLorenzo goes on to say, “Anyone who reads this great essay along with other free-market classics, such as Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson and Murray Rothbard’s Power and Market, will possess enough intellectual ammunition to debunk the socialist fantasies of this or any other day.” Nuff said. Maybe I will just add a quote directly from Bastiat. “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.”

I lack necessary intellectual capacity and courage to judge or review such an amazing narrative and book, however, this book taught me more and more and proofed that some of the critical , social, political and philosophical questions were answered long time ago. This book adds to the answers to my own personal questions such as why Europ for example was able to reform while other nations and ethnicities were unable to do so and describe the kind of debate that was going on some 150 years ago that enabled the modern world make such a giant leap in politics and economics. I would defiantly list this book as one of the best written and recommend it to those interested in the subject of political economics. I have therefore given it 5 stars!