Law is Organized Justice
Frédéric defines the law as force in his early statements and later equates it with justice, therefore putting force and justice as synonymous. He also qualified that the law must be philanthropic, meaning while yes, it needs to take care of basic human needs and protect liberties, it also must make the people feel safe, give structure, and be morally correct, though that is not what usually happens. More often than not, the law gets diverted from its original path; it can end up violating property, instead of protecting it, and everyone wants to make their own form of the law for a number of different reasons, whether it be to defend himself or to gain profit for himself. And the only way to try and prevent such things from happening is the law must be given to the “hand of those who legislate [it],” or else it cannot exist without the support it needs and would be virtually useless, who would follow a law that has no threat of consequences and lack of force to control and power it?
The Aim of Law
As I previously stated, Frédéric qualifies that law is the common force organized to prevent injustice, or in other words, the law is justice, and the excerpt mentions that socialists want the law to be involved in more than just protecting the rights of the people, to which he responds with “law cannot organize labor, instruction, or religion without disorganizing justice.” I take this to mean that if the law were to become involved in more than just the law of the land, it would then become twisted and perverted to where it is no longer recognizable as the law that was originally put into action as a means of protecting the people from harm. He asks, “how is it that the strange idea of making the law produce what it does not contain… should ever have gained ground in the political world,” which I think directly supports the notion that it would become twisted and perverted because the law was never supposed to control anything other than protecting humans from themselves.
Frédéric also states that if you make laws “religious, fraternal, equalizing, industrial, literary, and artistic, you will be lost in the vagueness and uncertainty,” because you have taken away the structure of the law by forcing it to reside over too many areas. He uses this point to set up his next, as it creates a “forced Utopia” upon all the citizens, creating many problems. Each Utopia that is created strives to gain sole possession of the law and force it upon the citizens, even if it is not their Utopia, which creates and endless spiral with no fixed limits, unlike justice which has strict limits, which keeps it grounded and everlasting. Why justice works is because law is atheistic, individualized, and heartless; it knows no God or pleasure, it simply exists for itself, no one else.
Lasting Statements
This section is going to be more about miscellaneous statements that Frédéric wrote that stuck with me throughout the reading. The first being the simplification of mans one desire and purpose in life: owning property. Frédéric believes that “man can only derive life and enjoyment from… a perpetual application of his faculties to objects or labor, [thus] is the origin of property.” This struck me as odd because of the saying “money cannot buy happiness” is a direct opposition to Frédéric’s outlook on life. So, who should we believe? Personally, I do not really believe either of the statements; money can buy happiness but now in the 21st century, man, or woman, has so much more to desire in life than just property. Now I am not discrediting the fact that everyone strives to own property in one-way shape or form, but I do not think that it is the number one goal in life, I think there are more monumental achievements and goals that surpass it.
Secondly, Frédéric poses a question “which are the happiest, the most moral, and the most peaceable nations? Those where the law interferes the least…” and goes on to name about 15 different examples, all of which I completely agree with, but it does not seem like anything other than common sense. The Federalists back in the 18th century stood by this notion and it has been carried throughout time: the least the government interferes with the citizen’s personal life, the higher quality of life they will live. And yet, in today’s day and age, we are still fighting over the amount of control we give out government over the citizens’ personal lives. The law is meant to protect the people from the people, it is not there to regulate what a person can or cannot do with their lives just because it does not align with their personal beliefs, especially if what they are doing has no effect on the lawmakers’ life whatsoever.
Lastly, he claims that a citizen cannot be free and not free at the same time, which I personally disagree with. I think that there are different subjects that a person can have complete freedom in and others where there need to be certain regulations. For instance, everyone is free to love whom they love, but there need to be regulations on age so there’s a significantly lesser chance of any children being taken advantage of when they are young and curious and naïve, which is a very dangerous cocktail in my opinion. Or when you turn 16 and you are free, in theory, to drive wherever you want whenever you want, but there needs to be rules and regulations, so you do not kill yourself or others. There are so many situations where you can be free and not free, that is the entire idea of having rules put into place to save yourself from harm. Because while it is common sense to not play bumper cars going 85 mph on I-35, there still need to be some rules in place to remind you and protect you from the dangers of others who were not so blessed with common sense.
Citations
Bastiat Frédéric. (2011). The Law. In The bastiat collection (pp. 49–94). essay, Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Westologist, The. “The Scales of Justice.” The Westologist, 2015, www.thewestologist.com/ideas/the-scales-of-justice.
