The Law

Law is justice. Though written in 1850, this persuasive argument for Natural Law and the free market by French economist, Frédéric Bastiat is, still, absolutely relevant today. What is the solution for a freer more prosperous society, limited government or, the socialistic, legal plunder of wealth that is growing like a cancer across our great nation? Three factors that are crucial, as quoted from Thomas DiLorenzo in the forward: Bastiat believed that all human beings possessed the God-given natural rights of `individuality, liberty, [and] property. And, from Bastiat himself: The mission of Law is not to oppress persons and plunder them of their property, even though the Law may be acting in a philanthropic spirit. Its mission is to protect property. As a personal witness of corrupt law, he quotes varied interventionists throughout history followed by an argument against, at times with a touch of sarcasm. Personality, liberty and property are superior to all human legislation; it is not because men have made laws that these exist, for they existed since the beginning. This God given Law (Natural Law) reaps prosperity, however, as we have seen, it can also be perverted. A Good accompaniment: Lex Rex by Samuel Rutherford

Bastiat, a classical liberal shows just how evil a big government is, and how once you give government the power to get their hands on the economy, they quickly get involved in legal plunder, and it is not to the aid of the poor. He then talks about the absurdity of socialism, and how unnatural and ineffective it is. He talks about the absurdity of government violating property instead of protecting it, because after all, the only reason government comes into existence in the first place, is to only protect property. He also talks about the types of plunder and also makes the distinction that law is supposed to enhance freedom, not restrict it, although in our world, it is definitely the other way around. There is also a bit of history to be found in the book as well, and it goes back as far as ancient Greece. A must read for all people. Bastiat, the great economist, is also a great political philosopher.

This is a short read, written a few hundred years ago, written by a guy who understood the changes he was seeing around him. Unfortunately, those same agents of change are around today. Give a copy of this to a friend who maybe sees the light, but dimly. This pamphlet can fully open his or her eyes.

Frederick Bastiat was a French Farmer in the first half of the 19th century who watched his countrys government assume more and more power. That is what I thought made this book unique - In the first paragraph, he states his intent of the book to be an alert to his countrymen - which is probably why the book is so emotional as well as succinct. Bastiat manages to describe the purpose of law, from a religious standpoint, in the first 3-4 pages. The rest of the book is mostly specific details of how his description of the proper purpose of the law has been thwarted in France in 1850. Many of the same principals apply today. For three bucks and an hour of your time, this book is guaranteed to engage you and make you think. In my experience, its ability to persuade people is uncanny.

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.

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.

Fast Delivery!! Great quality overall.

My husband is very pleased with this book.

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, short read that gives another opinion that contrats the left-leaning literature coming out at the time. I recommend this for people trying to expand their own political opinions.