Written in 1848 after French Revolution, Bastiat composed an essay called "The Law" as a way to present his thoughts opposing the socialist ideals growing in his country.
With a basis of Natural law, Bastiat claims there are freedoms given by God that everyone has rights to. They are personhood, liberty, and property, and added on to those is the right of self defense of those freedoms.
This sounds similar to Life, Liberty, and Property said by John Locke. His enlightenment thinking was possibly inspiring to Bastiat. It is said that Locke had influenced other political philosophers like Voltaire and Rousseau which will be mentioned later in this post. Bastiat claims that these principles are inherent to all human life and that there is a collective body to uphold them. The Government is essentially the body that comes together to protect those entities of person, liberty, and property and has the right to forcefully defend them.
Bastiat contends that there are two sources from which injustice can form from law. Legal plunder as it will be referred to derives itself from human greed and misconceived philanthropy.
Legal plunder is the result of unjust law that provides gain to one citizen at a consequential loss to another individual. In Bastiat's view there are 3 choices for every society and they are seen below.
-When the few plunder the many (Partial Plunder)
-When everybody plunders everybody else (Universal Plunder)
-When nobody plunders anybody (Absence of Plunder)
I agree with Bastiat that the Absence of Plunder should be a goal of society. This may differ based on viewpoint, but as a young middle class male, it seems fitting that people should not infringe upon the liberty of others at hopes of personal gain. This is also easy to say as a person who is not holding legislative power.
"With great power comes great responsibility." This was one of the most famous quotes from Voltaire, and even though Bastiat does not mention him in the essay, many of Bastiat's points align with this concept that men are fallible and it is nonsense that presuming a position of legislative power would elevate a person to a level of infallibility in law making.
Law is the use of the force a Government has. Government is the entity with a monopoly on force to achieve its agenda.
We must be aware of the distinction of what is legal and what is just. As a Christian, this makes me think about Romans 13 in the Bible. In this book, Paul instructs his audience to be subject to the authority over them because the authority over them is ultimately allowed by God. This is not saying that unjust societies are put in place by God but rather that we know the perfect law which was given by God and have a responsibility to follow it while respecting the authority above us.
And from this, my thoughts revert back to what Bastiat said about us all having God given rights and how the majority of legal systems today (especially the USA) is based on the laws presented in the Bible. For example, many countries have very similar laws and statutes. There are laws against killing, stealing, and adultery, to name a few, in most societies and they sound very similar to laws given millenniums ago.
Now it is just a matter of properly enacting what is known to be virtuous.
The French Republic adopted the following motto after the 1848 revolution.
"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity"
Bastiat did not like the use of fraternity because he felt it was false philanthropy. In some ways I agree with him here, but on the contrary I believe there is great benefit from philanthropy to achieving the ultimate goals of a society.
I believe that momentum is stronger than motivation.
What I mean by that is when people are thrust into situations like philanthropy it begins producing within them a sensations for doing good to their fellow man. Building this habit and creating positive momentum for doing good leads people to want to continue to do good. Bastiat argues that this takes away from liberty of making ones own decision, but by implementing a form of fraternity not only benefits a community but also the people being philanthropic.
Ultimately, if the goal of law is to enact justice(which Bastiat affirms) and what is inherently good for people, then the complementary relationship mentioned above seems to fit that criteria to me.
Another way I believe that momentum is greater than motivation is explained below.
I’d like to slightly tweak what Bastiat says about plunder. He says that man is naturally inclined to avoid pain and thus he plunders to avoid the pain of work and not even religion or morality can prevent it. I would argue the plunder(extralegal or legal plunder) prevails over morality when the plundering becomes a habit of the man. Momentum is stronger than motivation when a person creates a habit of practicing unjust laws. A person doesn't usually choose plunder as his first instinct unless there is a record of choosing injustice present in his or her past.
In the essay, I thought of ideas of why churches used to be the State for countries centuries ago. It was because people wanted the laws over them to be moral and just. There is proof here is that anyone is corruptible, even religious organizations and churches. Church officials would be known to extort people for money/offerings or simply be hypocritical to what they taught. The force that the church held was power of excommunication. Even though churches can be a wonderful thing, we all should be humble enough to realize that nobody is above reproach in regard to Law because we are all imperfect by nature.
The problem with legal plunder/unjust laws is that it prevents people from distinguishing between what is right and wrong because people are trained to believe all “laws” as just. An example can be seen in the idea of suffrage as presented by Bastiat.
Who has the right to prevent someone/constitute someone as incapable to vote/make decisions for the larger community?
Suffrage wouldn’t be an issue if the law was what it ought to be. The issue here is based in the fact that people attempt to speak on behalf of other people when they have no legal right to.
Law is not to let justice reign. Law is to prevent injustice from reigning. This leads to the question of whether people are inherently good or bad? In my mind, this argument might be better understood if the question is changed to this: are people inherently optimistic or pessimistic? I say this because I conclude that people are inherently bad. Going back to Biblical views, ever since sin entered the world, people will continue to sin. Nobody is perfect and we can never be perfect on our own.
It humors me French socialists say that they are inherently more capable to enact virtuous laws even though the rest of men tend toward self degradation of their society. Bastiat is being sarcastic and calling out philosophers such as Montesquieu, Rousseau, Raynal, and many more.
Liberty is power. Power is education and tools of labor. Society gives education and tools of labor by intervention of the State. But where does the State get this?
Once an government official is elected he speaks on behalf of the people as an extension of their will. But often politicians change tone once the election process is concluded. It can also be a great source of pride for elected officials to believe they are in some way superior to those below them. Bastiat mentioned several times that French socialist would say things along the lines that humans trend toward self degradation while they themselves are capable of leading the people to virtuous and just living.
Victory goes to them but so does blame. With perpetual dissatisfaction and disappointment from a politician not performing to the liking of a community, a revolution would undoubtedly follow, in Bastiat’s mind.
He says "Law is Justice," but he never explicitly says what Justice is. Do we compare that to judgement? If so in the Bible one can read, “judgment is mine, says the Lord”. And based on the idea that the laws are given by God, as Bastiat originally claimed, should anyone have the power to judge or enact their view of justice? I say this because people can often have differing views of justice. Compromise is inevitable in order for a justice system to run smoothly if at all.
Again, the mission is to protect the people and keep one person's rights from interfering with another person's rights. We ought to all be fighting for liberty - liberty, which is an act of faith in God and in His work.
