The Law

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.

I think that other reviews have done a fine job of praising the importance and genius of Bastiats work. And I thoroughly enjoyed his reasoning and clarity as well. But I was pretty disappointed by the quality of this edition. The book has misplaced punctuation and typos in it -- the kind that would be caught by a simple spell checker. Maybe Im picky, but I find such errors to be rather distracting when reading. When I buy a book, I expect that someone has carefully proofread it, but somehow that seems to have been overlooked here. So, 5+ stars for Bastiat, and a generous 2 stars for the publisher.

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 listened to the Audible version x 3 and couldnt get over how 170 year old essay felt totally contemporary. It talks about failing public schools, banksters extracting dividends from governmental connections, protective taxes for the connected manufacturers, regulation as barrier to entry etc. Law can pervert to violent means of plunder and we witness this progression on nearly daily basis in present day USA. On top of that - great foreword by Thomas di Lorenzo, a treat in its own right.

First, this is an excellent book and one I highly recommend. It is a short read and can easily be read in one sitting. While there is much here that is relevant to contemporary society, it is also necessary to put his observations into historical perspective. Bastiat grew up during the reign of Napoleon and the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution. He came of age during the reign of Louis Napoleon and all of the subsequent political upheavals. The society with which he was familiar was essentially agrarian rather than industrial, hence he focuses on the need for the individuals right to retain all he has earned. He fails -- and understandably so -- to recognize the rights of the capitalist to a return on his investment. He dances around universal sufferage but in fact seems to accept the need for limitations since he implies the prolitariat is too dumb to vote. He doesnt accept any role for government beyond his basic premise of the sole purpose of the law is to protect and defend from plunder. While his arguments regarding the law are essentially sound they do not probe deep enough into the role of government in a complex society. His view of government is that it is socialism pure and simple. If you step back and project his writings into our time they still have relevance but -- at least in my opinion -- they need to be adjusted to fit our reality. If taken literally, Bastiat comes across as an Anarchist who does not believe in any government or at least no government beyond what is needed for defense. However, his interpretation of the law and how it is corrupted to take from the haves to give to the lazy is well made. His focus on the individual and rights of the individual are better made by Ayn Rand (The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged). This is a very good book, but needs to read and placed into historical perspective.

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.

Amazing title, considered the best for me in the issues of liberty, an eye opener in the end for what it is.

The law perverted! Yes this books reveals what the law has been made to do. This is an old book but it is very relevant today, as it shows just how far the law has been perverted because of peoples ignorance of it. A must read!

Although written in 1850, the principles of freedom from government intrusion into our lives, could not be more appropriate in todays world. Mr. Bastiat elucidates, in 75 pages, his concept of the over-reach of the Socialist style of government, by creating laws which actually limit our rights to free expression. This short treatise should be read and reread by every citizen, and taught in history classes throughout the world. It tells in simple terms, how the government systematically erodes freedoms, and makes the populace dependent upon it for its power over its citizenry. The concept of ominous parallels in our world today, could not be more appropriate and critical to understand. The principles are great ammunition for those who wish to preserve the freedoms our forefathers fought for to bring us.

Good thought provoking book. Definitely one to have on your bookshelf.