Throughout The Law, Fredric Bastiat is critical of governmental institutions, taxation, elected officials, as well as those who suggest more government is the only way to achieve harmony in society. Bastiat claims that these implementations infringe on the rights of ordinary citizens and create a chasm between his present reality of law and order (in 1850s France) and its initial designed function. Bastiat's opprobrium is founded upon sound logic in the defense of liberty. Many of Bastiat's arguments are discussions we find ourselves having today over one hundred fifty years after the publishing of The Law. In this space I would like to I would like to address, dissect, and provide my own perspective on a few of Bastiat's criticisms and contentions.
A central argument in The Law is that the law has abandoned many and created a legal system of plunder in France at the expense of those who it has forgotten. Examples of such legal plunder cited include: slavery, tariffs, public schooling, taxation, and minimum wages. The origin of this term 'legal plunder' comes from individuals the system as a mechanism to gain at the expense of others. For instance, common defense of slavery would be that it is permitted under the law. Those committing this legal plunder would rarely examine whether the law is truly a just law, whether the law in question is protecting the individual, their property, and their liberties. It is obvious that a law defending the enslavement of another human being violates these duties and functions of the law, but what about the other previously cited examples? Tariffs: the taxation of imports and exports often causing the rise in cost of many goods. In theory, tariffs promote domestic transactions through these differing price of goods. Looked at through a lens of a manufacturer only selling within your own country trying to get your business off the ground this could be seen as a good thing. If one is attempting to expand globally however, they likely end up suffering at the hand of these tariffs. Also from the standpoint of the consumer, tariffs raise prices, and there is no reason to have to pay extra for it besides the governmental regulations that are put in place. The defender of free trade would argue that the government does not have a place in such transactions. I am certainly not an economist, but I believe tariffs have some place in our contemporary society... without them industries in other countries would surge ahead of our own. Maybe tariffs should not be a permanent, rigid structure to our economy, but rather used as a buffer to aid our own domestic industries in catching up to foreign technologies. I am of the belief that relying solely on one other country as a source for anything (technology, food, commercial goods) could lead to a foreign dependence that is undesired. What about public schooling, taxation, and minimum wages? Bastiat says that these thing all of which would provide a fiscal burden for citizens of a government for reasons they may not agree with. These are all things we have become accustomed to in our society, but when viewing these through the lens of Bastiat they seem founded on plunder, requiring the contributions of one’s property to satisfy others values, or wages. If one had the choice on what to spend their money on: they would chose things of importance to them personally. A potential solution to the cited economic struggles may be a laissez-faire approach, a system of economics proposed initially by Adam Smith. Laissez-Faire economics limits taxes, has prices and wages determined by market forces, emphasizes private ownership: all of which are promotions of economic growth - providing incentive for innovation and hard work. Money begins to mean something and increase in value, as it is earned not given. In my opinion, it is this incentive for new developments that catalyzes the growth of the economy, but also the wellbeing of the individual. It provides a goal, something to strive for as well as a means to get there. It provides meaning to the life. This competition produces failure, success, strife, conflict, cooperation -- all of which are archetypal in the search for meaning for an individual.
Ultimately these conclusions to these arguments, as well as others presented in The Law come down to a personal definition of what the ideal of law should be. Bastiat's definition: the law is the substitution of a common force for individual forces to protect the individual, liberty, and property. Individualistic, Bastiat makes no mention of the wellbeing of society in his interpretation, and why should there be? Under a system of mutual respect for these three pillars of natural rights a society would be able to function in harmony. The wellbeing of others should fall into place if the law serves its purpose to satisfy and protect its obligations in that sense. Since 1850, the size and scope of governments around the world have grew extensively, overextending into the domains of economics, and social issues thus causing committing transgressions against the liberty and property of many in this interpretation.
