As I read over my classmates' essays, I could not help but see a determined, like-minded evaluation. For the most part, the writer agreed with what Frederic Bastiat was trying to convey, and I feel the same way. However, seeing somebody else's opinion/input into something I had to think over myself was very eye-opening. It allowed me to see what someone else was thinking while reading the words of Frederic Bastiat. In the introduction, he describes the concept of government and why people tend to ignore it more often than not, which I couldn't agree more on for many reasons that are typically to keep proceeding throughout the years. I can't agree with Frederic Bastiat's thoughts and ideals, but I do understand where he is coming from for the most part.

There is a stark difference between what the law should be, and what the law has become. The impetus for creating law or establishing a government is to provide a collective body that protects its subjects from harm and injustice. Under that pretense, the government would remain uninvolved in industry, education, religion, private affairs, and so much more; yet this is not the case.

This specific piece in the essay stuck out like a sore thumb while I read the paper; this is a known fact that is not only true but never discussed. Why? As Carson stated in his essay, sometimes it can be an uncomfortable conversation for some, and they tend to want to stay out of it. When in reality, this is why we are given our voice. The government should focus a lot more on this ideal and share that this right should be expressed more, along with all of our others. I couldn't agree more that governments do not always stay true to their pro founding. Maintaining justice in a society should be second to none. Frederic Bastiat argues this exact problem. Once again, better work should be done to make such things happen as intended. The purpose of the law was to restore justice and bring positivity back into society, not only to give people hope but to let them know that they are protected and able to do as they please.

Allowing competition stimulates economic growth through necessary innovation. When the government steps in to help or be "philanthropic", the consequences of these actions often are swept under the rug. If the government instead was impartial and left citizens alone to deal with whoever they pleased, so long as they were doing no harm to others, then society would eventually develop ways to help the less fortunate.

In my evaluation, I did agree with most. However, I'm afraid I have to disagree with this one entirely. In the perfect world, absolutely. It would be marvelous if this were the case where the less fortunate would not have to be as they are now, but what is important is having those less fortunate people around. Believe it or not, sad or not sad. Most societies run off of the less fortunate. Is it a terrible thing? Absolutely. However, this is life and how it has always been. To my knowledge, there has never been a time when everyone was fortunate and a society lasted, government or no government laws. Legal plunder can be considered wrongdoings, but "to who?" is the question.
My evaluation of my classmates' essays was fascinating and well put-together. I had a swell time reading and being able to agree and not see eye to eye on certain things! It was a great learning experience and an opportunity to view one's opinions and see how others can take in the same material and possibly have the same or different thoughts.