The Law

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.

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.

This is a deep but excellent discussion of what the law is for and what it is not for. How Liberty of the individual is a high goal. Government should only be there to stop injustice, nothing more.

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.

I was introduced to this book by a friend of mine 15 or 20 years ago. At the time I was young and middle of the road politically. I thought some things the government endeavored to spend money at were good and others downright silly. After reading The Law my understanding of government in general crystallized to a large extent and has not changed much since. The author uses some examples from his time, but its not hard to follow his intent. This work stands the test of time and is still as relevant today as it was in the mid 1800s. I would also recommend his other works as well. They also are concise and to the point. I bought three copies of this book as I had lent my first copy out 10 years ago and it was never returned, which even though the original I had was sentimental to me, is OK since this book should be forwarded to as many people as possible. Legal Plunder is rampant in America today and will only be curbed by educating We the People about the cost of following these intolerable practices. Enjoy and then pass it on.

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law -which may be an isolated case- is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system. The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly , defending his aquired rights. .... The present day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it. Frederick Bastiat, The Law Profound words from a man who died in the 1850s. The Law remains one of the classics of its age for a reason. People and human nature remain the same, and men are always looking for benefits they didnt work for at the expense of another. Hence the hall mark of socialism is that it steals from one and gives to another. When an individual researches the topic honestly they soon discover this truth: Socialism in any form will always degrade into tyranny and the loss of liberty. Many socialists have nothing but good intentions (Bastiat makes this clear). However, it is important that intentions are only good for the intent of the person, and are absolutely no guarantee for truth. Bastiats common sense and precise logic reveal to his audience what socialism really is. Unmasked are all the twisted logic and slight of hand. In the end anyone who reads this with a pure heart will understand socialism, and why its a poisonous coctail to liberty.

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.

This was written in 1850, just after the 1848 revolution in France. Bastiat was concerned by all the different groups that were trying to use The Law or in Hayeks words, The State to remake society into their vision of a more perfect society. Bastiat argues that trying to use the law to help out one group does so at the expense of another group, he calls this legal plunder and points out how in the long run this will ruin society. Bastiat starts off saying that the basic gifts man has from God are: life, liberty, and property. It is appropriate and correct to defend yourself, your liberty, and your property. The Law was created to ensure that individuals in society were allowed to use these gifts. Bastiat says that unfortunately The Law is abused by the greed and false philanthropy of man. There are two basic ways of getting ahead in life, the first is to work hard and produce, the second is to plunder from others. When trade off and risks for plunder are better than labor, many people will turn to plunder. It is very tempting for those who make laws to use the law to plunder. Bastiat says legal plunder is to use the law to take property, which if was done without the benefit of the law would have been considered a crime. He has some fairly pointed barbs at socialists. He says many of the writers at his time seem to view people as raw material, to be formed or controlled. He says that most socialists see mankind as evil, while they (the socialists) are good. This leads the socialists to feeling justified in using The Law to make mankind be good. Bastiat asks why so many people in government feel that mankind makes too many mistakes, but that they in government are nobler and will make better choices. This is short, and because the original format was a pamphlet, Bastiat acknowledges that it is not complete. So many of his points and arguments are brief. This is a good call to action, to encourage people to be more informed about their government, and to work to limit the government. So much of what Bastiat said long ago is still true.

The one dissenter of the philosophers of his day. Bastiat considered the periods just before, during and after the French revolution. He has a very common sense and very practical God fearing thought process to mankind and the rules we make up while sharing his respect and admiration for the ways of God, the Creator.This man will help any American to see what is true and good about the Constitution for the United States. After all, France adopted our constitution shortly after we did. ~A United States born Natural person