The Law

I always kept this little book in my travel bag because it contains great wisdom on every page and I could get a quick hit of inspiration by opening any page and reading for a few minutes where time allowed.

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!

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.

What book is is important enough that I read it once a year? The Law by Frederic Bastiat. Written in 1848 as a response to socialism in France, this book essay is just as relevant today as it was then. What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us has a natural right-from God-to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend - even by force - his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right - its reason for existing, its lawfulness - is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force - for the same reason - cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces? If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. My copy of The Law is filled with highlighted yellow phrases. Among them: But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense. How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results? The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy. Let us speak of the first. Every legislator should be forced to read Bastiats The Law once a month for their entire term and write a synopsis of how they have upheld the ideas contained within it. The tome should be taught in our school systems. It should be drilled into every citizens head from birth until death. When he was alive, Bastiat called the United States the one nation in the world that came close to applying law in a just manner. If he could visit us today, he would puke all over the steps of Congress. He would barf in the halls of the White House. He would upchuck in lobbyists offices all over Washington, D.C. When he was done throwing up, I do believe Bastiat would start a revolution. He would definitely take on our current system of governance because were turning into Socialism Lite Less Filling, More Taxes. Socialists look upon people as raw material to be formed into social combinations. This is so true that, if by chance, the socialists have any doubts about the success of these combinations, they will demand that a small portion of mankind be set aside to experiment upon. The popular idea of trying all systems is well known. And one socialist leader has been known seriously to demand that the Constituent Assembly give him a small district with all its inhabitants, to try his experiments upon. In the same manner, an inventor makes a model before he constructs the full-sized machine; the chemist wastes some chemicals - the farmer wastes some seeds and land - to try out an idea. But what a difference there is between the gardener and his trees, between the inventor and his machine, between the chemist and his elements, between the farmer and his seeds! And in all sincerity, the socialist thinks that there is the same difference between him and mankind! It is no wonder that the writers of the nineteenth century look upon society as an artificial creation of the legislators genius. This idea - the fruit of classical education - has taken possession of all the intellectuals and famous writers of our country. To these intellectuals and writers, the relationship between persons and the legislator appears to be the same as the relationship between the clay and the potter. Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a principle of action in the heart of man - and a principle of discernment in mans intellect - they have considered these gifts from God to be fatal gifts. They have thought that persons, under the impulse of these two gifts, would fatally tend to ruin themselves. They assume that if the legislators left persons free to follow their own inclinations, they would arrive at atheism instead of religion, ignorance instead of knowledge, poverty instead of production and exchange. Read The Law. It will change all your assumptions about what the role of government should be in your life in only 76 pages. When youre done, make your friends read The Law. If they wont, stop being friends with them. Send a copy to your Representatives and Congressmen and ask them what the hell they think theyre doing with this country of ours.

This classic text challenges readers to think, not just about politics but even the language, and the history behind the authors words. Challenge a high school mind with a text like this on each of these fronts and todays graduating classes could rise to the day. I am a 24 year old and can only just now understand why Bastiats name rings in the annals of history and I wish I had in or before college. If you arent certain this book is what you are looking for, buy it anyway, you wont regret it for a second!

Is the law a sword or a shield? What is the limiting principle of Government? Bastiat considers these weighty topics and presents the views of many other great thinkers thoughtfully and concisely. Easy read yet extremely thought provoking. Highly recommend for everyone.

I found this an excellent review of historical thinking prior to the industrial revolution. As I read books written in the 1800s I see the thoughts of the time. Unfortunately, most writers did not take into consideration that our various civilizations, and cultures came about on the backs of slaves. Slavery allowed the Greek Republic to bloom before Christ. I believe most just assumed that slavery though wrong, was a necessary evil. However today we face a different reality, we still have slavery but we no longer need it to build culture, due to robotics and automation. We need to change the law, not to take from the rich and give to the poor, but to provided incentives for the people who own the factors of productions (companies, stocks, and resources) to share these resources via ownership transference to the common worker, and not to the state, as in socialism. I think as a people we can make this happen without a violent revolution, because if we can not have full employment in the future, how does the common person purchase the goods and services available. I would state that improvements in technology, along with automation and robotics will eventually eliminate most jobs.

This is probably the best book out there when it come to the philosophy of individualism and individual liberty. All principles are as true today as when it was written.

Read it

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.