The Law

Frederic Bastiat makes one infallible argument for the purpose of law and the govts role of enforcing it. Law is Justice! And Justice is not robbing one group of men for the benefit of another such as the laws of Plunder. (tariffs, subsidies, bailouts, corporate or union tax breaks) Law is Justice! Nor is law a way to enforce government driven philanthropy, essentially robbing one man of rightful claim to his own money and give it to another man to which it does not rightfully belong. SOCIALIST PLUNDER! Mr. Bastiat goes on to break down any attempt to justify socialist society or laws and leaves but one clear and well defined role for law that every freedom loving man can praise, that is that LAW IS JUSTICE! Following on with the role of Law is the need to enforce it, which is the very reason for which men make Government. Frederic Bastiat explains the limitations of govt through this very clear role of it. Govt cannot give that which it does not posses. The governments realm is that of justice and you cannot expect it produce prosperity no more than you can expect a carpenter to fix cars or a miner to build houses. The government is to prevent injustice, you cannot expect to build the economy, make men moral, and feed the hungry any more than you can expect to take fire to stone and expect corn to grow. It is not going to happen because it is not its purpose, it is not its role, it is not within its realm of possibility. Mr. Bastiat purposes a society where the economy controls the values of products, the law denies all forms of injustice towards a mans rights and the government is not a bureaucracy of special interest groups to meddle in social and economic affairs. In The Law, Frederic Bastiat defends the principle that the Law is to enforce Justice and the govt is to enforce that just Law.

I first encountered and read this extraordinary book when an adult student taking a course in American history and the development of its Judeo-Christian legal system in the mid 1980s. The Law and the courses other required reading, The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, (W. Cleon Skousen, author) absolutely and dramatically changed my path as an American citizen. They provided me a core education in my nation and many aspects of world history that either had not been taught to me or had fallen on deaf ears. (I fear the former more true.) I understand that Civics as a required course for high school graduation is a subject long obsolete. In 2020, we may well reconsider what is required from those who teach our progeny. I cannot rightly offer an eloquent critique of The Law but to advise you to get it, read it (even with a good dictionary or thesarus at hand), keep a permanent copy, and give one to those who seek your vote. (For them, you may give pop quizes.

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.

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.

Read this and give copies to your congressman and senators. This book was published in 1850 to describe the French socialists of Bastiats country, but those politicians arent that much different than ours today. Bastiat is one of the most quotable economists ever. The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else. When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will. Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone. These are just a few of Bastiats gems. Read this short book. The prose is excellent.

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.

This book is an interesting read. It can be little difficult to follow sometimes because of the authors reference to other historical people and economists of the period (1850). The author was French and this book has been translated (quite well, I think). The book is only 88 pages and I got through it in a few hours. Im sure if I were interested, I could have gone more slowly and taken notes or researched the people the author referenced. If you are interested in Libertarian ideas or believe that the government has become too big, powerful and intrusive, you will probably like this book. While Im not a Libertarian, Im a fan of economics and probably lean a little Austrian School and I enjoyed reading this book. Keynesians will probably like this book, Marxists...not so much. I hope this review was useful to you!

The most important idea I took from this book was the potential for a repeating cycle of intervention and coercion which follows the first attempt to improve a specific market. Once it begins, all parties it effects want their own improvements. At least on the surface you cant deny the truth of this in todays U.S. markets. Law does not create wealth, it may only redistribute...this is made very clear by the author. Consider this when thinking of price manipulations (tariffs, subsidies...etc.); who is really benefitting from this? Is it the consumer? This book is not a book on economics but a book on political inefficiencies and failures. Its a very quick read (likely just needs a few dedicated hours). I highly recommend it as an introduction to the logical way to think of politics and the role of government.

A voice from the past eloquently presenting a rational inquiry, slightly dated, about what it means to have rational Law. A model of possible perfection that will unfortunately fail to impress the gullible and faint of heart. The only true Shield against the Iron Fist of mob rule and oppressive government. A must read for all who cherish Freedom. And be able to distinguish reality from fantasy.

A great reminder of what is Law and how it works and how it can and is abused. Perfect for the times we are living. I recommend this to anyone who wonders why, the more laws are passed, the more we slip into lawlessness.