I have to disagree that Bastiat’s opinion on government and the law is contradictory. I think he remains consistent throughout the articles we read; however the analogies he uses can be difficult to extract meaning from.

“He believed that there was no appropriate reason to use citizens' taxation to financially advance other citizens. I completely agree with this outlook on taxation. There are necessary needs for taxation such as road work, government buildings, and other community things that require funding. However, the idea that money should be taken from someone in the form of taxes and given to another citizen is a challenging concept for me to get behind.”

For example, I think Bastiat is trying to convey that the entire population should not be taxed for something that will not benefit everyone. I do not believe his intent was a discussion on welfare but a more broad discussion about how taxation is legal theft. When an individual is forced into paying a tax regardless of whether or not they take advantage of the program the taxes are funding, their freedoms are being stripped and government is overstepping its bounds. Rather than requiring taxpayers to fund mediocre state-run education, individuals should use that money to send their children to any number of private schools that would crop up as a result of the decentralization of education. That is not to say, however, that an educated society is not of importance, but rather individuals should be allowed to choose where their children go and what kind of curriculum they should be taught instead of being forced to pay a tax that funds public education.

I agree with your points on law enforcement. I think it would be interesting to hear what Bastiat would have to say about law enforcement specifically. He states that the sole purpose of government is to protect against injustice which seems to imply a need for some type of enforcement. I think there obviously has to be limits to the authority that police officers are given but if their job is to uphold the law then there are times when deadly force may be required. It is difficult to wrap my mind around allowing a human to be the judge, jury, and executioner of another human being in a split second, high intensity, high danger situation that law enforcement find themselves in. But, at the same time, without deadly force then we are essentially conceding to a criminal that they can do harm to another individual, effectively nullifying the use of law enforcement in general. Thankfully there are people much smarter than me that can resolve such a dilemma but I would like to see what Bastiat has to say about the current state of law enforcement and how much power they should be granted.