The Law

Law is justice. In this proposition a simple and enduring government can be conceived. And I defy anyone to say how even the thought of a revolution, of insurrection, of the slightest uprising could arise against a government whose organized force was confined only to suppressing injustice. This, in essence, is Bastiats thesis. Confine the powers of law and government to correcting wrongs against life, liberty and property, and all will be well. Citizens will simply accept that government has no more power to correct social injustice than it has to control the weather. I must confess that I laughed after reading the sentences above. Really? Bastiat imagines that when groups of individuals freely associate and advocate for preferences the government will simply say we have nothing to do with that and the groups will shrug their shoulders and go back home content? I doubt a government like that could last a year; the majority of vested interests in society would have every reason to see it fail. If you wish to look at a contemporary example, take the economic shock therapy approach in Russia where the government attempted to abandon its control over the economy. The result was the rise of an oligarchy, mass political unrest and eventually a return to a strongly authoritarian style of government. The problem with Bastiat is that although he purports to base his arguments on fact and logic, in fact they are based on faith. He acknowledges this in the last section of his essay: God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs or persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clear air of liberty ... liberty is an acknowledgement of faith in God and His works. Bastiat is, in reality, tied back to the medieval notion of a universe ordered by God with a single right way to do things, and a simple model of justice that we all supposedly agree on. Like most purveyors of faith, he believes that his is the right way. But the test of any political philosophy is not how good it sounds in theory; it is how well it works in practice. Bastiat spends a great deal of time criticizing various socialist agendas for being utopian. It is fair to ask, then, do Bastiats ideas really work? Is it true, as he argues, that in the kind of state he proposes there would be the most prosperity -- and it would be the most equally distributed with its people the most peaceful, the most moral, and the happiest? Since no nation has seen fit to actually try Bastiats ideas (odd, since they are supposedly so natural, and produce superior results) it is difficult to evaluate these criteria without a Bastiat proponent being able to argue that results are skewed due to improper implementation. What data there is, however, is mostly against Bastiat. According to the World Value Surveys, the worlds happiest country is Denmark (the US ranks 16th), which also enjoys the most equal distribution of wealth. Denmark is a constitutional monarchy with a large welfare state and a mixed-market economy with a high minimum wage and high levels of unemployment compensation. On the other hand, Denmark does have relatively free markets, and competes well internationally, ranking higher on the Heritage Foundations Index of Economic Freedom than the US. It appears that, contrary to Bastiats expectations, economic freedom and social intervention are not mutually incompatible. This is not altogether surprising; both socialism and capitalism have come a long way since 1848. Its not my intention to disparage this book. It is well worth reading. Bastiat is clear and concise, and very readable, especially for his era. There is a lot to like in his defence of liberty and his critique of the socialism of the time is devastating. However, reading the reviews on Amazon make it sound as if Bastiat is some kind of political genius, immune from any problems in his theory. I just want to say do read this book -- it will make you think. But read it with an open and questioning mind.

The most important idea I took from this book was the potential for a repeating cycle of intervention and coercion which follows the first attempt to improve a specific market. Once it begins, all parties it effects want their own improvements. At least on the surface you cant deny the truth of this in todays U.S. markets. Law does not create wealth, it may only redistribute...this is made very clear by the author. Consider this when thinking of price manipulations (tariffs, subsidies...etc.); who is really benefitting from this? Is it the consumer? This book is not a book on economics but a book on political inefficiencies and failures. Its a very quick read (likely just needs a few dedicated hours). I highly recommend it as an introduction to the logical way to think of politics and the role of government.

Its amazing that something written around 1850 would be so prophetic, with feelings of deja vu every other page. A must read for anyone interested in keeping the heavy hand of the state off our backs, and in preserving individual choice in our lives. The prose is, of course, mid-19th century, and the country he discusses is the France of that time, with the Socialists having come into view, but it is entirely relevant to America from about 1930 onwards, particularly now when the Socialists (still here in spite of their historic failures) are in charge.

This book succinctly defines what law is, and what it is not. In so doing, the reader clearly sees why our present system of “laws” is not working.

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.

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.

Bastiat warns us not to kid ourselves about a kind, gentle, caring government. Like George Washington, Bastiat reminds us that law means force, and that any appeal to the law is ultimately an appeal to force. In appealing to the law, therefore, we must ask ourselves if we would be justified in using force to vindicate our appeal. Life, liberty, and property, Bastiat argues, are the rights which God has given to each individual by virtue of the fact that the individual exists, and that with or without government, an individual is justified in defending his or her life, liberty, and property. Ideally, governments should exist to defend these three basic God-given rights. As an individual, I cannot spend all of my time defending my life, liberty, and property, nor can my neighbors. Government is born when my neighbors and I come together to hire a sheriff to defend these rights full-time for us. The sheriffs authority to defend these rights on our behalf is derived from the authority of each of us individually to protect ourselves in these rights. Because government derives its authority from the aggregrate authority of individual citizens, government should not be allowed to do for me what I cannot legally do for myself. This is the foundation of Bastiats argument, and when taken to its natural conclusion, it shows us that redistribution-of-wealth schemes that the government forces upon some members of society to benefit others are a potential threat to a free people. Social security, welfare, and other government entitlements are all examples of this. Bastiat referred to such government programs as legalized plunder which ultimately creates far more social problems than it solves. The recent presidential race has shown us just how weak and dependent Americans have become. Just as Bastiat predicted, every little social group is clamoring to get its own share of government entitlements, and politician are clamoring to pander to these groups in exchange for political power, even if it means continuing the disastrous economic course of deficits and staggering public debt which may someday threaten the country with bankruptcy and economic collapse. We should learn the lesson of communism--it isnt governments job to take care of us. Being responsible for our own subsistence, including the inherent risks involved in such responsibility, is the price we must pay for freedom and prosperity. If we succumb to the lure of government-provided security by means of legalized plunder, we will one day find ourselves bereft of the freedom which we once took for granted. Bastiats classic shows us how to preserve a free society and avoid the consequences of legalized injustice.

My husband is very pleased with this book.

This was recommended by Mark Moss via his YouTube channel, and I must say, that I regret not knowing about this dynamite of a book sooner. Read this, then view the world, knowing why it is, as it is.

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.