The Law

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.

Values are timeless...and history repeats itself

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.

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.

The only real downside to this book is vocabulary and the writing style. The content is excellent, but the delivery is of a style and usage of language that modern readers are not familiar with.

Excellent read. The realization that the same political turmoil we are going through now was going on in 19th century France is stunning and Bastiat has a way of laying out the truth unlike any of todays pundits.

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.

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.

good

This book is not quite as advertised. If youre thinking to yourself, I cant believe I havent heard of such an important book, youre not alone. This book is not about the law: its a political tract that advances the ideas of what we know now as libertarianism, and if it has any authority at all, that authority derives mainly from the fact that this book is so old. If youre expecting something like Henry Hazlitts book on Economics, this is not the book for you. As its introduction suggests, this book is about a political stance, a very far-right political stance, on the law. Its not an introduction or an authoritative document on anything but an ideology. And theres a typo in the one pull-quote on the back of the book. Yikes.