The Law

If you have already read it, read it again. If you have not read it, please consider reading this timeless piece of literature. Though it was written well over 150 years ago, Bastiat’s philosophical and eloquent description of the purpose of the law has not changed with time; his sentiments remain completely on point. In fact many of the points eluded too regarding the concerns of Liberty have been exacerbated in America’s current system. Please read and share this classic piece of literature. Invite everyone you know to read and discus it. This is one of the most powerful and concise books on politics ever written. The way in which Mr. Bastiat illustrates his point are careful not to be inflammatory, while at the same time hard hitting. Regardless of one’s personal political persuasion, this is a must read.

I lack necessary intellectual capacity and courage to judge or review such an amazing narrative and book, however, this book taught me more and more and proofed that some of the critical , social, political and philosophical questions were answered long time ago. This book adds to the answers to my own personal questions such as why Europ for example was able to reform while other nations and ethnicities were unable to do so and describe the kind of debate that was going on some 150 years ago that enabled the modern world make such a giant leap in politics and economics. I would defiantly list this book as one of the best written and recommend it to those interested in the subject of political economics. I have therefore given it 5 stars!

Great classic work about the true nature of law, as well as its purpose. In an age where the power of law is being used to engineer social change, this book provides a balance back to what the law should do, and why. A highly recommended read for anyone wishing to rediscover the purpose of the law. The book was originally written in French. Some reviewers argue that some translations arent very good. I originally read an older version, and had given the version Im reviewing to my children. I have no idea which translations are currently offered by Amazon, but Id recommend you at least do some research as to which translation might be the best to purchase. Highly recommended.

If you believe good law exists only to protect natural rights, and the rest is bad law, youll find little new here except maybe a different approach and some historical perspective. If you have thought (or still think) law is for enforcing rules over natural rights, you should read this book (and others) and reevaluate your view of rights. If your undaunted opinion is that theres no such thing as unregulated rights, Im not sure you can be helped... there are thousands of books supporting all manner of tyrannies you may find more to your taste.

Im amazed when I read this type of material that mans inhumanity to man is nothing new. It may change its name or be less or more violent but as humans, we always seem to organize in one of two ways. Those that want to tell others how to live and those that prefer self-direction. Bastiat makes the case that socialism/communism/marxism/statism, whatever you want to call it, has been around well over 200 years now. It hits the same stumbling blocks now as it did then. If youre looking for something that supports the argument that social governance vs. free government is wrong from a historical perspective, youll find some support here.

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.

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

Prescient book for what happened to the U.S. At the time this book was written, the author considered the U.S. one of the most just nations, but he described perfectly what happens, and did happen, when you have an increase in the size of government, and the power of the legislators to legally plunder the citizens through the laws they enact.

My husband is very pleased with this book.

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.