The Law

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.

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.

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!

Though not light reading by any means, this essay is something that should be taught in all high school class rooms around America. His point (which is repeated candidly many times) is that Law is there for structure and protection, not to redistribute wealth among social classes. History has shown us that this idea is one that ultimately fails, and this essay by a 19th century Frenchman explains why in broad terms. No matter your personal political views, one should attempt a read of The Law. If nothing else, you can see the other sides perspective.

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.

In 1850 a French guy wrote this little essay on the Law. It could have been written today in the US, in Europe, because we are certainly not progressing in terms of common-sense, politically. Here are some ideas: -Justice is the absence of injustice. Nothing more than that. -What God does is well done. Do not claim to know more than Him. The fact that this rule is almost universally broken says much about our level of hubris. For Bastiat Law is a minus, it takes away. His subject is so relevant today that we can see the results of the States false philanthropy, just as Orwell warned us in his Animal Farm. Western governments certainly know how to belittle us... we couldnt do without them. In Spain we have this government commercial encouraging drivers to drive well: We cant drive for you! They wished. The only idea that they think about it tells how far theyve got under our skin. This book is dynamite. Makes one see the world today in a clear and detached way. Who are the philanthropists that we owe so much devotion to? Take Gores greedy schemes with his mineral mines behind his climactic facade. Take another homeless, Soros, the preacher of the Left, whose God is money. To be a Pharisee is indeed to love the Law while hating man, to use the Law to make Injustice legal, to pervert Justice, to become a new god to modern State worshippers, wellfare addicts. Yes, Bastiat would sure be ashamed to see what the West has become: the legalized plunder by the State.

Read it

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.

It is unfortunate that society today has strayed so far from the principles of limited government and as a result we are slowly losing our liberty. The protection of our freedom is paramount in Bastiats call to arms(by casting ignorance aside)against those who would inflict socialisms shackles upon people. Such is the delusion today, one that seeks to spread the wealth while damning us all to support those with vested interests & entitlements. Bastiat states, 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. Law DOES NOT create justice. The role of law is to prevent injustice. Today, Bastiats words ring true, There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious. Our public education has an agenda and it seems to run counter to this book. All we have to do is look at the quality of the students education of today compared to those who were taught before public schools were fully implemented in this country. Sadly lacking to say the least considering the fact that our literacy rate is deplorable compared to the 1800s. Few Harvard graduates today could have entered the Harvard freshman class in the 1600s! *Harvard students then entered college at 16yrs. of age, graduating around 18 or 19! The college graduation requirements back then far exceed the requirements of today. THE LAW should be required reading in every college, unfortunately, due to the political intent of many a university this will probably not occur any time soon. We live in an interesting time, where, with the click of a mouse a question may be answered. Sadly the questions weighing heavily upon the minds of many of our youth lack the gravity of our current situation. More importantly, it shows ignorance or complete disregard for what our forefathers and so many others like Bastiat have established. People with complete lack of regard are enjoying the very fruits of their labor, while allowing the luxury of freedom to slip from our grasp. Bastiats THE LAW is a timeless read that can be easily digested in a day. I strongly recommend this translated edition by Dean Russell. Compare these two translations: Feb 6, 2009 edition from Seven Treasures Publications: Existence, faculties, assimilation - in other words, personality, liberty, property - this is man. It is of these three things that it may be said, apart from all the demagogue subtlety, that they are anterior and superior to all human legislation. Dean Russell translation: Life, faculties, production - in other words, individuality, liberty, property - this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Keeping a positive attitude he said, And now the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: may they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgement of faith in God and His works. If Bastiat were alive today he would shudder at what has become of his beloved homeland and stare in disbelief at what is becoming of ours. *TEACHING THE TRIVIUM by Harvey & Laurie Bluedorn

I have a new mind-crush. My top 5 has gained another member. Bastiat has joined the Who would you have to dinner club along with Locke, Paul, Madison, and either that guy I forgot about or I still have an open space. Oh yeah, Jesus, but that goes without saying. Seriously, this is a great read. This is one of those reads that should be required, but its painfully obvious as to why it isnt. It will be required for my kiddos once theyre around the 7th or 8th grade mark. I think anyone 12 and over could easily grasp and appreciate the concepts laid out in The Law. Not to mention that its a quick read for those that flirt with philosophy, but arent committed. Where did I NOT highlight? I usually try to summarize my reads according to how much I underlined or scribbled. Now that I look back, nearly every page has a remark. So, my major crush topics are 1) Bastiat takes on Rousseau and the Reign of Terror 2) Bastiat takes on Democracy 3) Bastiat is pro-human 4) Bastiat is anti-slavery 5) Bastiat is anti-Socialism. That might be a lot of antis, but his solution is pro-Liberty. Hey Misanthropic Philanthropist guy who thinks hes above mankind and uses men as if theyre raw material- put the Law down. Hey Mr. Fancy Pants Utopian dude who wants to make the world over in your own image- check your vices. I think I have figured out why pro-Liberty books are so short compared to Utopian books. Its a lot quicker to say, we should be free and this is why as opposed to I am an authoritarian bent on making people into new creations, but I have to come across as if I really care about them, hence the 500 page sleeping pill. Except for the Communist Manifesto, and thats chiefly because Marx said hey, quit lying and tell these people who we really are. I should have read this book years ago. It is certainly foundational work.